kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 19, 2006 7:40:31 GMT -5
Michael, remember something. Look at some of the factual findings that have been found on your site in such a relatively short time. I have never seen some of these issues even addressed, let alone answered. That is what honest and open debate yields.
You reap what you sow
Regarding Hauptmann's tools, when he gave his alibi for the kidnapping I believe he said that although he found out he was not to work that day, he did retrieve his tools which he said had been previously left. That has always seemed odd to me, almost as if an alibi for the tools was being offered. That is why I wondered if any witnesses saw him pick up these tools or even saw them at the Majestic prior to his start date and the kidnapping.
Also, I am now more convinced than ever that the third section was indeed used that night and the purpose of the chisel is related. Thanks to Mark and his hard work and providing the survey.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 19, 2006 15:24:33 GMT -5
Kevin could you explain what Mark contributed to make you think the third portion was used? I would be interested to know how the third portion became disattached from the other two sections before it rested where it was found or why?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 20, 2006 7:07:11 GMT -5
I have believed the third section was utilized that night for some time now. I am certainly not the first to do so. Look at all the police photos and you will see more with 3 sections than the two. When I look at a survey map of the crime scene it is apparent that all three sections are apart and that the chisel is near the third section. Now I also believe that the kidnappers brought some sort of kit or tool bag along. You wouldn't place a sharp chisel in your pocket, especially in those conditions. And as we have previously discussed, a chisel is not the tool of choice for either locked shutters or windows. That is why I believe it relates to the ladder. So on a hunch, I put together sections 2 and 3 of one of my ladders and climbed it. I then took the ladder down and found that the sections were jammed together. This can only happen with sections 2 and 3 because of the double mortise joint. What can happen here is that due to the two interlocking rungs and mortises combined with the application of a load ( climbing) the joint gets wedged. It is not severe and it is possible to separate the two sections by various methods, but a 3/4" chisel works nicely to pry up the rung. So I believe the ladder was erected in three sections first for entry, then taken down and brought back to the "staging" area. At this point the chisel was brought out to pry apart the top section. Sections 1 and 2 were then brought back to the house and erected to place the envelope and close the windows. Once that was done the ladder was once again taken down and brought to the "staging" area where it was taken apart. At this point it is anyones guess as to whether the ladder was to be taken or not and why it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 20, 2006 14:41:26 GMT -5
Thanks kevin. I can't disagree yet I am not totally convinced. Perhaps a reason for leaving the ladder may be explained in the exit off the property. If there are two heading towards feathebed one can wonder why not take the ladder. I am still not convinced if there are definetely two sets of footprints going to Featherbed or were the second prints Anne's. If they were, one can assume leaving the ladder would be a natural course of action.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 20, 2006 16:50:01 GMT -5
I doubt many will agree. For me the three section configuration is a no brainer. And every thing I find seems to point that way. But we will never know for sure. As to the fate of the ladder, I just don't see the point in bothering to take it. It's job is done and it is not built for repeated usage. Also I suspect that it's builder felt secure in his knowledge that it was un - traceable. Once again everyone has their own opinion here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2006 18:05:20 GMT -5
I find Kevin's theory to be both coherent and logical. It approaches this very difficult scenario with a common sense solution... Sometimes we tend to ignore what's right in front of us and "overthink" a situation - however - sometimes the opposite is true. Bottom line is that you just never know....
One thing for sure - we don't know here so why not give his theory a chance and work our way through it?
I am going to list a few of my pros and cons below:
Pro:
The Police were often seen working with all (3) sections against the side of the house.
Con:
The Police concluded only (2) sections were used.
Pro:
The Police deemed the Nursery entrance and exit via (2) sectioned ladder extremely difficult if not nearly impossible if performed by one person without aid.
Con:
Police claimed the shutter would have prevented the use of (3) sections.
Pro:
According to Lt. Lang, (2) sets of footprints led away from the nursery to the "staging area" (to borrow Kevin's term).
Con:
No footprints were seen leading from the "staging area" towards the Nursery.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 20, 2006 19:14:40 GMT -5
Its very hard to visualize atleast from my perspective. Someone like Kevin who actually climbed a replica of sort should be a good input of the possibilities. In my vision of using the third section seemingly has more risks that I find hard to take. We are under the assumption that the kidnapper knows the window he is climbing is the nursery. In my opinion the climb up the ladder would have a degree of exploration to it. Going in and making a quick grab imo is more catering to the two piece use. I think a more valuable discussion besides getting in is actually finding a sensible version of how the child exited the room. The most sensible to me is handing the child out to a second kidnapper in respect to quickness and safety (atleast probably thought at the time).
There are so many interpretations here that a definite answer is hard to come to. Some say the ladder is geniously made and others crudely amateurish. It seems to me regardless how haphazzard things came to be I certainly believe it was well planned out . I just don't see how Hauptmann alone could have pulled this off.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 20, 2006 20:22:50 GMT -5
Make no mistake about it, climbing that ladder in either the two or three section configuration under those conditions is not for the faint of heart. But then again neither is kidnapping the child of the most famous man in the world. I believe the kidnappers had a limited knowledge of Highfields, probably based on exterior observation. I think the ladder was designed to be used in three sections with the shutters open. After all why build that third section and carry it with you? The kidnappers probably realized that they could not position the ladder directly under the window as it would be visible through the library window. Now in position, their plans suffered a setback when they saw the nursery shutters being closed, something not done elsewhere. Luckily for them that one window had a shutter that would not close fully, that would be easy to see with the lights on in the nursery. Now to navigate into the nursery with all three sections there are two options. Option one is to swing the shutter open against the ladder and step around it and onto the sill using the shutter as a hand hold. It's a risky maneuver, but I think it possible. Option two is to simply swing out the shutter and lift it up off of it's pintle hinge. It could then either be stored on the top of the ladder ( I have done this myself while working on a window) or hand to your confederate. Either way stepping off the ladder at sill level is a hell of a lot easier to do than stepping off a top rung of a ladder ( you would be right against the wall), pulling yourself up and over a rough ledge, and entering head first. Handing a "package" out the window with the taller ladder or carrying out yourself would also be easier. Remember, to my knowledge the police never attempted to exit that window and find the top of the two section ladder at night. That's a real trick.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 21, 2006 10:05:36 GMT -5
I am no so sure, Kev. None of the police saw any marks on the side of the house at the point where the third piece of ladder would have hit it.
Also, going away, taking the ladder, and returning would mean that the kidnappers either made a point of, or were once again lucky enough to, put the bottom "legs" back in to exactly the same holes already made because according to the witnesses they fit snuggly and there was only one set of holes.
Do you think this "staging area" was where the ladder was found? If so, there should there not have been a lot more evidence of "milling around" at that spot? If it was somewhere farther away, that seems like an awful lot of walking around and time spent on the scene.
The two section approach - which, easy or not, is consistent with the marks on the house and the holes in the ground - works just fine if you consider the possibility that someone (insider or not)standing inside the house handed the baby out.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 21, 2006 14:10:49 GMT -5
Yes the marks on the wall. We know someone was inside the nursery, yet where are the prints. Should we assume that the lack of prints found there means no one was ever in the nursery? A ladder may leave marks on a wall and it may not, at least not easily visible ones. It depends on many factors such as the relative hardness of the wall, horizontal pressure, movement, and angle of inclination. Finally, how close did the police look at the wall behind that shutter? The footprints are a muddy issue ;D. There seems to be some confusion over the exact amount and location. Couple this with the initial forays around the house that night after the kidnapping and previous prints and I am not sure anything conclusive can be said. If you really think two sections were used to enter that room I would suggest an experiment you can try at home. Take any extension ladder, put it against your house and then climb up it. Now stand on the very top rung. Actually to be more accurate you might want to saw off the ladder rails right above the topmost rung and then try this experiment at night. Let me know how you make out. And remember that your extension ladder doesn't have a non-locking hinge joint in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 21, 2006 16:04:27 GMT -5
Kev-
<<<We know someone was inside the nursery, yet where are the prints. Should we assume that the lack of prints found there means no one was ever in the nursery? A ladder may leave marks on a wall and it may not, at least not easily visible ones.It depends on many factors such as the relative hardness of the wall, horizontal pressure, movement, and angle of inclination. Finally, how close did the police look at the wall behind that shutter?>>>
It is a good deal easier to be in a room and not leave fingerprints than it would be to place that ladder against the wall and leave no marks, especially when placing it the second time left clear ones.
I, for one, am not comfortable with the thinking that "just because no one saw marks on the wall does not mean they were not there". Using that thinking, you can "add" any evidence you like just by saying someone overlooked it.
<<<If you really think two sections were used to enter that room I would suggest an experiment you can try at home. >>>
Sweeney did it. He got both in and out.
Sorry, Kev, but the scenario you seem to be suggesting: that the kidnappers put up the three sections of the ladder, went in, got Charlie, came back out and down, then left the area to partially disassemble the ladder and returned to the house to go back up with two sections to place the note seems to me to be excessively time consuming and risky. Particularly in light of the claim that they had no idea who might walk into the room at any time.
Why bother to do that second trip anyway? Why not just go right back up?
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 21, 2006 17:01:13 GMT -5
Not having experience with fingerprints I will pass on that point, but ladder marks, well that is a horse of another color. You would be surprised at the marks, or lack of, that ladders leave on walls. Once again, are you convinced the police examined the wall behind the shutter that closely?
Really? With the kidnap ladder? Unassisted? In the dark? Are you really convinced that Lt. Sweeney climbed the kidnap ladder, stood on the top rung, opened the shutters and the window and entered foot first without aid?
What time to you feel this would take? I have put the ladder up and taken it down in a few minutes. Is it more risky than clamoring into a room off the top rung of a hinged ladder?
Well that is a second trip, but I see your point. I don't have an answer, my guess is that some period of time elapsed between the abduction and the placement of the note. Like the neatly arranged ladder sections 75 ft from the house, we may never know.
|
|
Rick3 from Land Midnite Sun
Guest
|
Post by Rick3 from Land Midnite Sun on Jun 21, 2006 18:02:01 GMT -5
Kevina / the more and more complications you suggest to try and prove for certain that an actually kidnap occured without the help of insiders then the further and futher we stray from any logical or rational solution at a fully staged crime scene?
As more and more Circ De Sole operations are proposed on a windy nite taking more time and risk and noise banging around to accomplish tasks the most difficult ways possible then red herring after red herring raises its tail--_
What you know propose may require even more accomplices and more cars and more footprints and fingerprints while CAL and Betty and Wagoosh wander around in the dark "not hearing any strangers in the house"--or at least not reporting any?
With your new scenario- akin to the 10 spinning plates gambit, well Who Are All These Folks Who are So Invisible to All Others? Arnt 2 unknown intruders enuf?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 21, 2006 19:03:39 GMT -5
Of course, what was I thinking anyway? Putting a ladder up a couple of times is far too complicated and would require too many participants. A major conspiracy combining elements of the mob, goverment and Lindbergh would obviously be simpler.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 22, 2006 5:40:35 GMT -5
<<<Really? With the kidnap ladder? Unassisted? In the dark? Are you really convinced that Lt. Sweeney climbed the kidnap ladder, stood on the top rung, opened the shutters and the window and entered foot first without aid?>>>
What makes you so sure that the kidnapper was unassisted, opened the shutters, window, etc.?
<<<Of course, what was I thinking anyway? Putting a ladder up a couple of times is far too complicated and would require too many participants. A major conspiracy combining elements of the mob, goverment and Lindbergh would obviously be simpler. >>>
Putting the ladder up, taking it down and away then reproaching the house would take time - especially if the "staging area" is any distance from the house. Like it or not, it means twice the exposure to someone entering the room.
Major conspiracy? No. Just one person on the inside. That is all you need.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2006 5:53:25 GMT -5
Staying with Kevin's theory for a minute....
Could the ladder have been rested on the board-walk instead of moved back to the "staging-area" before being assembled and dis-assembled?
When the Police checked the side of the house they found marks consistent with the use of only (2) sections, however, these marks were (from memory) about an 1-1/2" above where the top of the ladder would have rested if in those divots.
Could it be the divots were formed when all (3) sections were used and the bottom of the ladder rested on the board-walk when only (2) were used?
We know how nearly impossible, all things being considered, it would have been for one (or more) people to enter, do everything that apparently happened, and descend. Kevin's demonstration to me concerning weight being placed on the top rung shows no one could have put their foot there thus making them even lower - about the height they would have been to place their foot on the top of the bottom shutter as indicated by the mud found there.
My point?
Unless someone handed the baby out of the window Kevin would have to be correct.... that is - somehow - at some point - all (3) sections would have to be used (in my opinion).
Now according to the footprint evidence, it appears very likely (2) people took the ladder from the side of the house to the "staging-area" for some reason. Exactly why is a mystery since there is no evidence whatsoever they came from that direction. Why would they leave by a different route when they came from a place that didn't leave any tracks in the mud?
We do have (1) print at the base of the divots facing the house. Under Kevin's theory, this print could have been made either before ascension, or stepping off upon descending - not once but possibly twice giving us (4) separate possibilities for this to have occurred.
Since it appears there is some very slight evidence of mud in the Nursery and a good chunk of it on the top of the bottom shutter then I believe this print was made before anyone step onto either the shutter or the Nursery floor.
Now, as with each potential solution, we have more mysteries to solve. And were the female prints in the mud leading to the back of the house actually Anne's? I still say if she stepped off the board-walk she would have returned and not stayed walking through the mud as if she were in the dark.
Kevin -
This rung 5" beneath the top rung.... Could this have been a "re-enforcement step to hold the weight of the top section?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 22, 2006 7:31:19 GMT -5
MJR, you seem to have a time frame in mind regarding the entire kidnapping which precludes anything but a single ascent and descent. That really eliminates any options that I am looking at. As for your concern regarding the marks on the wall, in addition to the point Michael has just made I would add this. There were at least three ladder holes found in the ground indicating the ladder was moved. Where is the corresponding mark(s) on the wall?
Well if your claiming inside assistance was available then why would the kidnappers be concerned with time and exposure. That is also besides the point. You are basing your contention of the two section ladder feasibility on Lt Sweeney's climb. You might want to look more closely at that. Or do as I suggested, and try the home experiment.
I was thinking the same thing. I am reminded of the man and woman observing and photographing the house some time prior. It seems that a man and a woman are always popping up in this case.
Excellent question. I think this extra step is one of the two most intriguing and important anomalies in the ladder. When I brought this odd double step up elsewhere it was quickly dismissed. The fact is that it's inclusion is important for several reasons. The addition of that step throws the rung spacing out and makes the ladder much more dangerous and awkward to climb. So the builder must have felt it necessary and worth the trouble. Second, the addition or inclusion of this extra step especially in comparison to the joint at section 1 &2 implies that the builder had some experience or knowledge which caused him to modify the joint design. That extra step does two things, it adds strength to the joint by adding two more rung/ mortise contact points. It also makes the connection of section 2 & 3 more rigid. That is important since unlike sections 1 & 2 where you can hold the ladder in both sections to keep it from scissoring , you can't reach the joint at section 2 & 3. So when you erect the ladder the locking quality of that joint is almost necessary. That same locking quality however, is what caused my ladder to jam and why I suspect a similar occurrence at Highfields which required the chisel.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 23, 2006 6:27:40 GMT -5
<<<When the Police checked the side of the house they found marks consistent with the use of only (2) sections, however, these marks were (from memory) about an 1-1/2" above where the top of the ladder would have rested if in those divots.>>> Michael
Kelly did describe the marks as "about an inch and a half to two inches above that top section" (meaning section two). He also described them as "two marks about an inch and a half to two and a half inches long". To me that suggests the likelihood that the marks were scrape marks starting where the ladder rested when first placed and then being dragged down the wall when weight was placed on it. That is consistant with Sweeney's description of the marks as "scrape" marks.
What Kelly does not say, unfortunately, is whether his one and a half to two inches above is the beginning of the mark or the end. Other officers describe the marks as being where the ladder would have met the house. (Heaven forbid anyone in this case should be specific. grrr)
<<<There were at least three ladder holes found in the ground indicating the ladder was moved.>>> Kev
I need a source for that please Kev, because Williamson, DeGaetano and Joseph Wolf (and others) said they saw only two.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 23, 2006 7:34:49 GMT -5
Drives you crazy, doesn't it? You wouldn't think accurately recording and reporting evidence would be so difficult.
OK, into the big file I will delve. May I as well make a request for your source on Lt Sweeney climbing the actual kidnap ladder or replica in two sections and what conditions and help he may have had.
|
|
rick3 in the fijords
Guest
|
Post by rick3 in the fijords on Jun 23, 2006 11:05:38 GMT -5
Kevin....in your complex operation is it possible that the ladder was taken up and down 3 times<-? <it just seems to me that once CAL AND THE INSIDERS start ignoring all the banging around outside the library in an isolatied location you might just go up and down all nite long<-?
Didnt CAL have a gun too- why exactly would the kidnap gang want to go up and down the ladder multiple times anyways...<oh yes- after one years planneing they forgot to leave the ransom note in the CRIB...got it`\
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 23, 2006 16:19:37 GMT -5
Is that the best you can come up with? Who cares about noise guns, and planning anyway I thought this was all a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2006 19:18:03 GMT -5
What is your source here? Is it the trial testimony? If it is I am very skeptical of everything said there by the Police. Much of the testimony contradicts the source material. I do think I have the report which is very specific.... It took me a very long time to find because it isn't where it should be.
Anyway, as always - I find myself split and torn between your two theories. I cannot accept the (2) section only scenario. I see the most likely as being either the (3) and (2) sections used or the handing out the child from someone inside. Unfortunately I see evidence to support both and evidence to refute both.
Kevin, help me to understand how one would negotiate around the shutter both going in and coming out with the child...
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 24, 2006 1:41:22 GMT -5
<<<OK, into the big file I will delve. May I as well make a request for your source on Lt Sweeney climbing the actual kidnap ladder or replica in two sections and what conditions and help he may have had.>>> Kev
I never said that Sweeney climbed the ladder left at the scene. His description of his climb is in the trial transcript at about pg. 485. He describes how they made sure that the top rung of the ladder they used in the test was the same height as the top rung of section two.
He said he had help from others "raising the ladder and looking on and so forth" (again with the precision). As you know the shutter and window were open - but then it is possible it was open for the kidnapper, too.
I am not saying the test was perfect. I am not saying it was easy or that the person was not taking his life in his hands. I am saying that it could be done and that the overall evidence points to the use of only the two bottom sections.
<<<What is your source here? Is it the trial testimony? If it is I am very skeptical of everything said there by the Police. Much of the testimony contradicts the source material. I do think I have the report which is very specific.... It took me a very long time to find because it isn't where it should be.>>>Michael
Yes, it comes from the trial testimony - pgs. 402 and 408. Kelly also describes the whitewash at the top of the rails of section two on pg. 412. Both Kelly and Sweeney also testified that they checked for marks using the third section and found none. If there is a report that contradicts it, I have not seen it, so please let me know so I can obtain a copy.
I tend to believe some of the officers more than others :) - I have seen no particular reason to doubt Kelly or Sweeney.
<<< I see the most likely as being either the (3) and (2) sections used or the handing out the child from someone inside.>>> Michael
Michael -- I like the handed out the window scenario, myself. However, as I have said before, my main focus has always been the question of Hauptmann's guilt so I admit I have only recently considered who might have done it. At this point I do not really even have a theory - just suspicions and things that kind of nag at me.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2006 8:09:35 GMT -5
I tend to view the trial testimony as coming from the Troopers like I do with the FBI Summary Report, that is, it could be true but I need something to back up what's being said. I've seen too much which contradicts the reports in their testimony to accept anything from anyone. Just off the top of my head, for example, Kelly gave copies of the Nursery photos to Lewis so that he could sell them to a Reporter. Lewis did so and Schwarzkopf demanded to know who did it. Lewis took it under the chin and Kelly denied his involvement. It was discovered early on that Sweeney was selling information to the Press too. I don't believe Sweeney was being 100% honest. Somewhere I read that Troopers were holding the ladder steady for him (I'll have to find it to ensure its believability) and it was a real ladder he was using and not one which would collapse upon itself if you stepped onto the top rung. Moreover the experiment was done in the daylight. Sweeney of course was also an ex-fireman. Sure, its still possible but with any experiment we must consider all the variables. What I have supports there were no marks left behind where the 3rd section would have rested. But I wonder exactly what lead to the marks left behind from the 2nd. The report I have says: Two sections of the ladder were assembled and placed ananist[sic] the of the house this was photographed from right left and fon[sic] view, the top of the ladder came about 2-1/2 inches above the marks that were photographed as stated above it is possible the marks could have been made by the ladder slideing. The report does not mention a "dragging" mark or any other. Kelly seems to be guessing as to why these marks are below where the ladder rests against the wall. I think the trial testimony is at variance with the report, that is, it appears he is validating his theory by inventing testimony. I could be wrong but I would think it would be both mentioned in the report and photographed. I have a few more reports to consult....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2006 8:43:37 GMT -5
I would add this to the wall mark issue. Using the two sections and standing on the top rung of that ladder would almost certainly leave a trace from the kidnapper's shoes. Remember that unlike a traditional ladder where the rails project beyond the top rung, the kidnap ladder's top rung is the end of the ladder. That means that if you are gutsy enough to stand on that top rung you would only have about 3 to 4 inches of clearance to the wall for your feet to clear. It would be a certainty that the tip of your shoes would be right against the wall and your footing on the ladder would be most precarious. Add to this the fact that you are offset from the window and it is at night. In fact with the amount of offset from the window that the ladder was positioned I can not believe that there were no horizontal sliding marks found.
While I am not a believer in the inside connection, I don't discount that possibility. But here again a few things to remember. The window configuration in the nursery is paramount. There is a deep sill which covers the radiator and a suitcase to navigate over. Wouldn't the other window have been easier for the purpose of handing out a package?
The hard part about all the ladder scenarios from my point of view is trying to put it into words. I have no problem visualizing the different steps involved and the potential limitations especially since I have performed many of them myself and so know first hand what can be done and what cannot. But explaining it, well that is difficult. Here a picture ( or re-enactment) truly is worth a thousand words. I know, for example that stepping off that ladder at the top rung and getting into the window to the left without aid and without pushing the ladder off is highly unlikely. Coming back out of a 30" opening with or without a "package"and finding that top step off somewhere in the darkness down and to the right without knocking over the ladder is almost impossible, even with assistance.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2006 16:55:52 GMT -5
Another home experiment which , though simple, can be quite enlightening. Go to a first floor window of single width and preferably a double hung type. If you don't have access to a double hung window and have a casement ( swinging type) simply open it all the way and place a tape or piece of cardboard across the center to limit the height to half the opening as a double hung window would be. Place a sill height (or close) table or box about 20 to 24" deep which can support your weight in front of the window. Now go to the outside and place any type of object which can simulate a step about 30" down and to the right of the window. Now go back inside and attempt to exit the window with the objective of placing your foot on that step. Try any variation you like, as long as you can get onto that step. Take note of what is required to do this.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Jun 28, 2006 18:18:01 GMT -5
Kevin/ my own suspicions would be that the 3 section gambit was for the convenience of the officers involved and the reporters covering the story. In short it makes a much better photo opportunity and the facts be damned. If you are constructing a story, you dont want Barney Fife to end up hanging off the window ledge or getting hurt trying to reproduce a virtual impossibilty. The simple solution....open up the window, up goes the 3 sections and Voila! a kidnap is created. Lets not try to reproduce anything approaching reality--after all CAL says there is a kidnapping at 9:15pm. (And no insider, and no interviews) And the ransom note is now on the window ledge with the beer tankard? Annes shoeprints are in the mud, Walsh poked a bullet hole with a stick, and Charlie fell into the flower bed. Dont need no mob, or national emergency for all that now do we? Just an extremely naive acceptance of pure unadulterated fantasy!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 29, 2006 6:10:51 GMT -5
Well Rick, I guess that is one way of looking at it and everyone surely has the right to see this as they wish. Personally I do believe the ladder was climbed ( several times) and was used to gain entry to that room. One of the most important factors here is the offset location of the ladder. That is why the "experiment" I suggested earlier is so relevant. No one would ordinarily place a ladder to the side of a window that is to be entered and egressed from. In fact, even if one was only in need of a momentary climb to receive "something" being handed out by another, that offset would be unnecessarily awkward. Surely the police would have had a better "photo op" with the two sections directly under the window and I am sure a couple of holes in the ground wouldn't stop them. No, I feel strongly that the offset was due to the need to conceal the ladder from direct sight from the Library and the use of all three sections. Once again, I can't stress enough the value in trying something out yourself and not relying on what you have been told. In this instance almost anyone can re-create some of the actions involving the Nursery entry and experience first hand the problems and the possibilities. If only we could do the same with other elements of this crime. Then we could eliminate some of the fiction created by the need for a conviction and the imagination of creative writers.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 30, 2006 14:03:01 GMT -5
kevin....i respect your thoughtful reply....really. I am going on the following assumptions: 1. Someone on the inside to help the potential climbers, or let them out the front doors. 2. Restaging of the Crime Scene after the fact. eg. the tankard on the window sill? Maybe toys on the trunk? The trunk not moved? The ransom note in the wrong place...should have been on the crib and likely was until CAL moved it during the stageing? 3. Wipedown of all the fingerprints in Nursery. 4. Five adults and one dog Wagoosh home during all this ruckus. no matter how high the winds, who can climb into the bedroom outside the library even once without detection carrying a 30 pound baby? In Sherlock Holmes only a gorrilla could? Like King Kong? 5. In a short time frame like 8-8:25pm only the driveway can be used for transporting the ladder and Charlie? Featherbed may have just been waiting for headlights? To see who is home? 6. Annes footprint seems like too convenient. Not really a misleading red herring but an "afterthought"? Was the Big Footprint CALs too? Wowey what a coincidence. Sure there could have been a climber, but no chisel marks on the windows or clear signs of breaking and entering. Just "inference" and CALs word against logic. 7. The big problem with a staged negotiations for Charlies safe return is that it backs up against a staged crimescene/ a chisel with no purpose and a ladder with too many sections left behind as props in a Play. 8. If BRH is not the man in the wrong car seen by Ben Lupica, then who is driving and whose car is it He is one key because he is at very least deliverying the Lindbergh Ladder to Highfields at 6pm? Didnt this mystery man get there a wee bit early unless hes meeting someone on the inside? After all this years planning he should know what time it is? 9. I wish we could post a map of the area like from Mapquest or Something and then all participate in positioning the known car movements "together" to see how all this coordination on the highways takes place? Like a Board Game/ Maybe this could shake the feathers out of our heads.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 30, 2006 16:02:19 GMT -5
Hi Michael....I saw that the Delaware was over its banks in Yardley on the Weather Channel this morning and you are just a bit upstream?
Is New Hope under water? I am glad you are way up atop the hill but can you get down?
How far inland does the flooding go on the PA and NJ sides ??
Good luck thinking of you / rick
|
|