kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 22, 2006 7:25:19 GMT -5
OK, I am satisfied that the ladder was a capable means of entry to the Nursery. I also believe that all three sections were used to achieve this and there is a extremely high possibility of a second (outside) person to assist the climber. I realize others are not convinced and honestly I think only a re-enactment will suffice to make this determination acceptable. But regardless of the specific deployment of the ladder that night, whether you believe two or three sections were utilized ( if you believe all was a hoax read no further) I think it must be pretty obvious that a good deal of thought, planning, and preparation went into the crime. Not to say it was a perfect crime or a brilliant plan, just that on the kidnappers part there was much effort expended. So here is the problem, in either two sections or three with the offset position dictated by avoiding a direct view from the Library, there is no way for the climber to access the double hung window sash lock without breaking the glass. In fact I am not convinced that even smashing the window, an action which would seem anathema for such stealthy perpetrators, would be a viable option especially with the two sections. In fact breaking the window pane is somewhat of a chaos event , since you can't control the outcome. Will it shatter completely? Will there be shards of glass falling to the floor? It would be likely, since this is relatively new construction, that the window glazing ( putty) which is still fresh will hold pieces of glass in the muntin ( crossbars) making it a bloody affair to reach a hand in to manipulate the lock. Another thing, while I am convinced of the ladders' ability to sustain ascents and descents, it is absolutely not a work platform. It is not very stable and prolonged use from the top combined with the actions of upper body movement such as required to manipulate the window lock could prove fatal for both climber and ladder. So what is the problem? After all we all know the window was unlocked and therefore it is not an issue, right? The problem is that these kidnappers who have given all this thought and time to the crime could not possibly anticipate an unlocked window in early March, in a Nursery to boot. Those windows must be locked in order to effectively seal out the wind. Who would plan this crime and not at least consider a locked window at this time of the year? Yet where is there any evidence of how they would handle the window lock? And I don't necessarily mean a tool when I say this. More to the point is that when you change the role of the ladder from one of conveyance to one of a work platform, you also change the design parameters of the entire ladder. Now the height must relate to that which you must work on ( the lock). Now the rigidity and strength of the ladder must be able to withstand a person standing and moving for a longer period of time. As purely a means of ascending and descending I have no problem with the ladders' ability to perform, but to stand on the top and manipulate a lock at an awkward position, no way. So is this apparent disregard for the problem of a locked window due to oversight, optimism, or did they know the window would be open?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2006 8:42:23 GMT -5
For the scraping off part wouldn't the foot have to come into contact with the shutter? Your observations above concerning the design and planning prove this was not a "work-platform" and that someone would have designed it they expected to have to work that way. Bravo. What consideration do you give to the wind that night? Could the ladder have blown over if a single Perpetrator went into the Nursery and it was left leaning against the house?
I believe neighbors were witnesses to "trial-runs" during the days preceding the crime. If this was the case why not re-con the house? Either way its obvious they knew the situation well.
I think the answer is quite obvious. Great stuff Kevin!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2006 9:25:10 GMT -5
There is a curious lack of in depth dialogue about the windows and the household routine of locking or unlocking them at the trial or in police reports. From some previous reading and I can't recall the source, indication is that the second story windows were not locked as a matter of practice.
I've often wondered if this was due to Charles and/or Anne's belief they were safe in their relative isolation. Additional points to support this might include Lindbergh releasing the security guard after they moved into Highfields, allowing locals to continue using paths on their property, no rush to hang curtains on the windows and Anne's lack of concern in seeing the face of a stranger in the living room window at night in the presence of Donald Keyhoe. Or perhaps the practice had something to do with Lindbergh's preference for cooler temperatures and to maximize interior air flow, hence the windows being opened continually?
In any case, the subject of why the southeast corner nursery window was not locked, was never presented at the trial or as a potential cornerstone of investigation into the possibility of an insider passing along this knowledge. I feel this this area may well have been left unexplored in consideration of the family's loss, the general unlikelihood of such a bizarre event taking place and most importantly, not wanting to expose any potentially scandalous parental negligence.
I believe the practice of not locking the second story windows worked its way innocently from Highfields to Next Day Hill, and was ultimately and intentionally passed along to the person who kidnapped Charlie, from the NDH end of the grapevine.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 23, 2006 17:46:29 GMT -5
Joe, the issue of the window locking is often clouded, IMHO, by the confusion regarding the purpose of locking windows in the first place. Window ( Sash) locks perform two basic functions; security and weather/ thermal proofing. Of these two functions the latter is actually the more important of the two as sealing the windows is really the primary function of a sash lock. This is especially true of older double hung types which by their nature are somewhat "loose" and only effectively seal out the draft and are kept from rattling when they are fully locked. So the questions that arise when considering the unlocked window regime at Highfields; did the Lindberghs enjoy a drafty house? Did they enjoy the sound of rattling windows in the wind? Would they alter this regime due to the weather? The larger question from my point of view is this; regardless of what the Lindbergh household habits were, how would the kidnappers know or more importantly how could they be sure. You see that is where I come to an enormous quandary. I have gone thru all of the possible ladder configurations and I am more than comfortable with its' capability to carry out the task demanded until I consider the possibility of a locked window. So regardless of what the Lindberghs did or didn't do as a routine, how could the kidnappers count on encountering an unlocked window? Is it reasonable to believe that they had no plan to deal with this scenario? Is it reasonable to believe that anyone planning a second story heist would be unprepared to encounter a locked window in a Nursery on a cold and windy night? Yet I see no practical evidence that such an obstacle was anticipated. Believe me when I tell you that I take no pleasure in considering Betty Gow as an accomplice. It is not an accusation I take lightly. But who or what else could provide the key to that room?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 23, 2006 20:02:46 GMT -5
Kevkon~I agree that the reason for the place where the ladder was found will never be known and probably doesn't have any real meaning in the larger picture. One thing crossed my mind--you've probably already considered this. Could the breakage of the ladder section have kept the smaller section from nestling inside and maybe precluded it from fitting back in the car? As to the wall marks--how's the possibility that the ladder started out on the plank and something caused it to slip off (maybe while the climber was on the ladder) into the dirt-- and maybe even causing the break in the ladder section? Rather than Gow, I think of Whately as more likely. His whereabouts are less accounted for during the evening and he could very well have known about the warped shutters. I can't account for unlocked windows, except back in those days and especially out in the country, people didn't much lock doors and windows.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2006 9:21:51 GMT -5
I know I've done it, heck we all have, but I think the idea this place where both the ladder and chisel was found was a "staging area" might be wrong. I say this because all the accounts that I have been able to find say the prints led from the house to that spot and none the other way around. I agree the ladder is "light" but we must consider the distance, darkness, cold, wind, rain, and other items which may have been brought along.
I agree this was a well planned event, and I think it necessitated planing for the carrying of everything in addition to the child. Again, for me, moving that ladder - especially in (3) disconnected pieces - is important. Nested no problem but separated it becomes difficult despite its weight. Not to be-labor the point... I just don't see moving it there as it was found to be advantageous in any respect.
I am with you on the double-hung windows. In my old house if you didn't lock them they actually caused a whistling noise and the ones upstairs rattled - sometimes just opening the front door would cause them to bang. If the family was so damned worried about shutters flapping then certainly they would be about this situation. And again, if the shutters are secured by the dog then what's the problem? It seems to me unsecuring and closing a "warped" shutter is inviting that situation to occur.
Something just isn't right, but as WC pointed out, they can't all be involved so how do we explain it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2006 9:47:22 GMT -5
Kevin, I didn't realize a seal was so dependant on closing and it sounds as some though earlier versions of these windows lacked in design foresight. For example, what would stop the windows from rattling in the wind if they were opened even a crack? I can't see that being an acceptable condition in a home of Highfields calibre.
From my experience in growing up in an area with older homes, would they not have employed some kind of tensioning device like a spring metal strip set in the frame to keep the sliding window snugly pressed against it (accounting for expansion and contraction of the wood) even when open? I would have to think in such a prestigious house and in light of the client, you would surely expect upgrades of this nature. Too bad the original windows are long gone as they are now of security grade with crossbars.
I fully agree that the kidnapper should have expected to be faced with the spectre of having to defeat a locked window. This point has puzzled me from the beginning. It makes no sense for a kidnapper in the planning stage, to expect a baby's nursery window would be left unlocked on a cold winter's night unless that person had some very sound prior knowledge. Even still, if it were me, I'd be prepared to find it locked! I can see a locked shutter being manipulated by breaking a few of the slats and sliding back the bolt, but a locked sash window seems another story.
You mentioned earlier that a thin blade or putty knife could be slid between where the double hung windows meet in order to rotate the sash lock open. Do you think this could have been done with the kidnapper positioned with one foot on the ladder and one foot on the window ledge? Of course, this process would seem to pretty much demand someone holding the ladder at its base.
I've wondered about that cut off hand saw in Hauptmann's tool box and whether it might have been brought along for the purpose of rotating the sash lock. The blade is long and thin, there is an easy to grip handle and the cut off tip would be safer to carry and use and would probably bind or catch less as it was inserted in the crack. Do you think it might have been an improv tool brought along, but not ultimately required?
I hear what you're saying about Betty because of her intimate knowledge of the child and its surroundings, but I cannot fathom any intentional involvement on her part. If she was complicit in some way, I see it as no more than potentially vital information passed along in an innocent way, but which she might have rationalized later, was potentially critical to the kidnappers' success.
What still puzzles me though is the lack of complete exploration and disclosure about such a vital clue within the investigation and at the trial, ie. the window having been left unlocked. As I previously pointed out, I think it has much to do with the possibility the Linderghs might well have anticipated being pulled into a side scandal and painted with a brush of parental negligence and as a result, it was downplayed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 24, 2006 10:55:54 GMT -5
Joe, the windows at Highfields of the double hung design were typical of the day. They consist of two movable sashes which slide vertically in a wooden track. The track is comprised of wood stops which keep the windows in line and the jamb of the window. By necessity there must be some play to allow easy operation with the changing humidity and paint build-up. The sashes are counter balanced with pig iron counterweights attached to the sashes with a cord or chain. The weights are concealed in a pocket between the jamb and the liner stud of the wall. Today spring loaded vinyl tracks have replaced the wood track and weights. But even so, one must engage the sash lock to bring the two sash meeting rails together and expand the two sashes in order to form a seal. Could the sash locks be defeated? Absolutely. The easiest method is to simply break the glass and unlock the window. Other methods are a bit more laborious and time consuming. But whatever method one chooses to employ you must be in a position to achieve this. And you must be on a relatively stable and strong ladder. The only way I can see this feat achieved with the kidnap ladder is the glass breaking method. However that leads to several other issues, the most disturbing of which is that it seems to contradict the the kidnappers consistently stealthy approach. Breaking one of those small window panes to access the sash lock is a bit of a chaos event, one cannot control the outcome. It has even made me wonder about the suitcase on the table under the window. Could that have been there for a purpose? I put Gow on the top of the list simply because she is the one person with complete access and control of this room besides the Lindberghs. She is also in charge of the schedule. She also finds the thumb guard. She also makes a special night suit. Who cannot latch that one shutter?
Michael, as I said I am not sure about the importance of where the ladder and chisel were found. Perhaps this was a point of retreat and perhaps the ladder was intended to be taken away, I don't know. I do believe the third section, which was found separate from 1 & 2, along with the chisel, indicates to me that it had already been retired.
Michael
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2006 11:13:48 GMT -5
Michael, I would agree that the location where the ladder and chisel were found was probably not the "staging area" mainly for the reason of the distance between Highfields and Featherbed Lane. I think most people probably don't realize how much of a walk this really is, roughly 0.6 of a mile or 1 kilometre, before even considering the impeding factors of darkness, wind, mud, debris, rough ground and moving stealthily. I know you've walked the actual route and I walk that same distance at least 4 times every day at Hydro. Under the conditions of the moment, it would have been a damn good hike.
It seems logical that if the kidnappers, the ladder and required equipment were dropped off by vehicle via the Lindbergh's cinder driveway, (possibly the gravel sound heard by Anne about 8:10 pm) they would be in an "assault position" potentially anywhere between the driveway and south to the location where the ladder and chisel were found. If enough light was available they may even have been able to pre-determine the cleanest and most easily-accessible staging area and ultimate route to the southeast corner of the house, free of leaving any obvious footprints.
I don't think there's any question this event was well planned and required deliberate, disciplined action, uncanny nerve and the ability to swing any required contingency plans almost seamlessly. Following the retreat from the house, I too find it most likely the decision to abandon the ladder was made, given the awkwardness of it now being separated, the extra load of the baby and that the chisel was accidentally dropped and overlooked in the process of wanting to make good a clean escape.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2006 15:49:04 GMT -5
Kevin, doing a little more experimenting with my makeshift second story window, courtesy of my dining room table and strategically positioned milk crate, I found the following:
* Left foot is placed on window sill * Right foot is placed on "double rung" at top of ladder's second section * Right hand holds Rail 16 about halfway up,
I found I was able to freely maneuver my left hand at the required height to have a go at the sash lock with a hypothetical long thin blade. From one of your earlier posts, you indicated a sash lock would have not been difficult to defeat from a ladder positioned directly beneath it as long as the person was within hand reach and had the required balance and leverage. Have you tried this method I outline above and do you think Hauptmann's snipped off handsaw could have been utilized (in theory) for such an entry?
As far as breaking the glass goes, I wouldn't think this would have been a viable alternative outside of taping the window in the area of the lock while leaving an outer "handle," scribing a large hand hole with a glass cutter, punching the glass free and removing it via the handle. And this would also seem to represent a far risker option while trying to work off the ladder in the position we accept to be true.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 24, 2006 19:17:59 GMT -5
No I haven't Joe, I value my life and limbs too much Seriously though, I suppose it might be possible but with that ladder it would be a real feat. While you can use a blade to defeat the lock, it really requires that you are in a position to apply some force to the lock. Unless it is not fully engaged, in which case less force is required as you are essentially trying to rotate the cam free of the receiver catch. I really can't see how this could physically be achieved from the ladder position and its' flexible nature. You would have one foot on a wet stone sill and the other on an unstable ladder. I agree, breaking the glass seems a poor option. Breaking those small panes is not as easy as it might sound,either. Usually the glass remains stuck in place due to the glazing putty and must be broken out, making more noise in the process. And the noise of breaking and falling glass is distinctive as we all know. I doubt it could go unnoticed in that house. Added to that the kidnapper could not possibly know the relative location of occupants while all this glass breaking is going on.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 25, 2006 8:04:28 GMT -5
I tend to agree there may be some significance to what Anne heard. If she did hear something, a fact which can be disputed based upon Dr. Gardner's new material, then I believe she heard someone leaving, that is, a pick-up not a drop-off.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 25, 2006 10:35:34 GMT -5
And what about the position of one's body going in? Where are you going to step or slide without causing some disturbance?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 29, 2006 19:22:06 GMT -5
Anne obviously relates significance to the "gravel" sound she heard during the time in which she could well have been more "tuned in" towards the sound of Lindbergh's expected arrival. But I have great difficulty believing real kidnappers could have accomplished what they did, or would have chosen to strike within the relatively short time frame of 10 to 15 minutes from the time Betty Gow turned out the nursery light.
And who then made the trail of footprints all the way down to Featherbed Lane ending at a waiting car? Why would they have made life so difficult for themselves if they could have hitched a ride down the Lindbergh's driveway?
I think I know where you're heading here Michael, and that there was a need to establish a believable "trail of evidence," ie. the route to Featherbed, but I think the overall timing, tight as a drum, which I presume you're implying, would have been be avoided at all costs during the planning and commission of a staged kidnapping.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 3, 2006 17:04:50 GMT -5
Here is the type of sash lock the kidnapper would face at the double hung windows; www.imagecabin.com/?view=1599124061835eb4fd82ca89aHere is a section view of the meeting rails on a double hung window; www.imagecabin.com/?view=159912406471d058f8b771cb0You may notice a thin aluminum or tin seal on these windows. Highfields was built around the time when these may not have been available. In any case you can see how difficult it is to get between those rails and get to the lock. Here is a picture of a very thin putty knife blade between the sashes. If you can get a blade this far you have a chance of moving the lower sash lock, in effect rotating it out of the catch. www.imagecabin.com/?view=159912407d11a5912ec3a71fdThis is a hit or miss proposition and another reason why I find it extremely doubtful that one could manipulate the lock from the offset ladder position. I would say the best hope from that position would be to break the glass.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 4, 2007 16:12:58 GMT -5
Have just rec'd and begun reading Murder of Justice--Wayne Jones.
"........they discovered that the uprights of the top section of the two lined up perfectly with two marks clearly seen on the whitewashed wall of the home. A close scrutiny of these marks revealed them to measure approximately 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 inches in length. Most certainly these marks had been made by the ladder's top uprights at the very point where they leaned against the wall. It was further determined that as the kidnapper ascended the ladder, his weight had caused it to move in a slight downward motion, causing the white paint to be scraped off the surface of the house, exposing the gray fieldstone underneath. Additional evidence of this was the discovery of small particles of wood from the ladder still clinging to the wall at those points where the uprights had rested. Even more conclusive evidence, proving that only two sections had been used, was presented by Trooper Kelly when he found traces of whitewash from the wall of the house [/ on the inside of both uprights. pg 18
Am wondering if these particulars are confirmed in any of the official sources(?) Hadn't seen these extra details before.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2007 19:38:52 GMT -5
Unless its from a source that I don't have then no. I've posted in the past what is in the reports on this and I have never seen any reference to the white-wash found on the ladder or the field-stone being exposed. I think he may be drawing conclusions on his own here.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 18, 2007 10:17:53 GMT -5
I am really getting to the point where I think there has to be a re-assessment of the actions that took place that night. I am really trying to get away from the both the standard version of events and the myriad of hoax theories. I do believe that there are some interesting alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2007 20:24:51 GMT -5
I am all ears if you're willing to share some of your thoughts.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 20, 2007 8:37:21 GMT -5
I wish I could express them with some clarity. Unfortunately they are somewhat vague at the moment. I think what is bothering me the most is the apparent disparity of preparation and planning here. For example, the ladder is an example of good planning when one considers the lightness and compactness in its design. Those elements are of great importance in regard to the geography of Highfields. And if crime was to be a theft via a break and entry I would not see much of a problem. But we have a kidnapping here and as such the ladder must be used to convey a 1 yr old child safely. That is a paramount concern since there was little penalty for child abduction at the time. Quite a different story for the abductors if death or injury occurs. Now whether you believe two or three sections are used, getting out of that window with a live child in a reasonably safe manner is very problematic. The entry is also troubling. How could one count on an unlocked window and shutter? Even with the collusion of someone inside such as Gow , you simply couldn't count on the unlocked window. Yet the timing is such that you have a very limited frame of opportunity and a real concern over making noise. And with a sick child no one could be certain that an unscheduled check in would not take place thus narrowing that time frame even further. All of this and some other issues , such as the premature arrival of the kidnappers makes me wonder if the sequence of actions that night were not as we suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2007 10:32:11 GMT -5
I have noted your point concerning an insider not known to be in the house at the time and I am assuming this is where you are going. It's an "outside of the box" perspective and I am thrilled to see it. My only concern is that it must be explained how this could occur without help from the inside to begin with. The routine, the knowledge of them staying in Hopewell, and of course Wahgoosh.
I believe its possible that both Wahgoosh and Charles Jr. may have been drugged. Both were like a modern alarm system around strangers, and according to the reports - Charles Jr. was even like this around those he did know except for Gow. And so even if one were to assume Gow was involved an awake Charles Jr. would be screaming up a storm if Gow handed him over to a stranger.
Please go on....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2007 20:58:09 GMT -5
Here's something interesting.... George Hawke wrote a Senior Thesis in 1951 and it contains various interviews. One such interview was with Frederick Pope on March 23, 1951 (page 124): An experiment conducted by Captain Walsh of the jersey City Police Department to ascertain the case with which a man might scale a ladder of the kidnap ladder's length and enter the nursery ended in failure. Captain Walsh had an experienced fireman scale a ladder, a replica of the same length but of greater strength. The fireman went up the ladder, but he could not get the window open. It had taken Mrs. Lindbergh and Betty Gow together to open the window the afternoon of the kidnapping. The window was opened for the fireman, but he was not able to carry a thirty pound bundle out of the window and reach the top rung of the ladder. If he could not do it, how could a kidnaper? Obviously this is considering only (2) sections are being used and armed with this additional information, then we can clearly see if the ladder had been used then Kevin must be correct that all (3) sections had indeed been employed (as designed). Mr. Pope and Captain Walsh, after the trial, went to the Lindbergh home and with a magnifying glass attempted to find chisel marks or marks of any sort indicating that the window had been forced open. Mr. Pope asserted in an interview with the author that no matter how little tampering is done with wood, a tell-tale mark is left behind. A magnifying glass will reveal these marks if hidden to the naked eye. Captain Walsh and Mr. Pope found no such marks on the nursery window sill supposedly wedged open by the kidnapper, the only accessible entry point other then the back stairs. Again, this seems to show the Kidnapper(s) were fully aware of both the shutters and the window being unlocked. Are we to believe they planned for this crime only to assume these important conditions existed? The import of Mr. Pope's whole investigation was that he believed the ladder was left near the Lindbergh home as a decoy to preclude certain servants from any part in the kidnaping. His theory was that the baby was taken down the back stairs.... I wonder how much of this theory may have existed due to Hauptmann's own personal theory which he told Fisher and Leibowitz?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 28, 2007 8:23:09 GMT -5
Yeah, you can climb and enter the house with two sections. You could probably even get out again with some luck and help. But no way are you doing this with a passenger. More importantly, even attempting such a maneuver would endanger the life of the child. Why would anyone do so considering the differential in punishment and the very real possibility of the need to prove the child's well-being for the ransom? It's like using a blowtorch on a safe filled with paper currency. Now let's consider the odd foot coverings and their true purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 28, 2007 9:05:19 GMT -5
Definitely something to look closer at... I've seen it suggested it was done to "deaden" the footsteps in the Nursery. This would fit in with Rick's point about Garsson sending Anne up to the Nursery.
However, there are prints of a sock over the foot, a regular shoe, and rubber boots and/or overshoe. I don't think these various observations refer to the same thing - do you?
Anyway, I mentioned this before and it might be important - someone told Governor Hoffman these foot-coverings were probably the kind of "knitted sock" provided to the troops during WWI.
I am open to any ideas concerning this....
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 28, 2007 20:51:56 GMT -5
Foot covering:--Also saw--forget where--that it was burlap covering the shoes. Sounds odd, but will go ahead and throw that in.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 29, 2007 8:12:40 GMT -5
I think it is important here to look at the genre or MO of this crime and the consequential actions of the criminal. Do we see the actions of an ambush or takeover as found in many bank robberies? In such a case the criminal{s} go in heavy. They are primarily concerned with getting in and out and controlling through the use of force any resistance encountered. Certainly given the circumstances found at Highfields, including the presence of Lindbergh, this would be possible. No, I think we see more of the actions of a stalker,or a type of criminal that depends on stealth and planning. Patience is the key along with careful observation and planning. Would such a criminal simply throw a ladder against the house and charge into a room without knowing what will be encountered? I think not. When you keep a consistent view of the crime and the criminal in mind then interpreting the evidence results in a more accurate picture of what actually occurred, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2007 10:34:14 GMT -5
I agree Kevin.
I have never been able to accept this 'story' of a desperate & broke Carpenter making a split (and emotional) decision to drive down to Hopewell and blindly commit this crime.
It didn't make sense then - and now, since our discussions have begun to bear fruit moreso then ever, have all but destroyed any such notion now. I was going through my Schwarzkopf file last night, and while they may have let slide emphasis on the inside connection notion, probably at Lindy's prodding, they never did seem to give up on a "local connection." His notes were full of these type of items to be investigated.
They were sure whoever was involved knew the roads and had intimate knowledge outsiders wouldn't.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 4, 2007 8:21:47 GMT -5
You know if the "outsider" became the "insider" , then some of the issues that are troubling become sensible. For example, I have never been comfortable with any of the explanations regarding the movement of the ladder 75ft away from the house. I suppose it might be seen as a precaution from early discovery although that doesn't seem terribly likely to me. It might be that it was placed where found in an aborted attempt to remove it completely, although that seems even more unlikely to me. Or it's final location may have to do with fooling the police as some have suggested. But what if the kidnapper had entered the room/ house far earlier than the actual abduction, wouldn't it make perfect sense for an accomplice to remove the ladder especially if it was only meant for the initial entry?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 5, 2007 10:28:54 GMT -5
I have been giving this some thought.... I think it makes sense and could be very possible. How do you suppose they exited? By the stairs?
I think it still creates questions to be answered though - just as any other scenario does....concerning the dog, inside help, etc. And why would they still leave the ladder there - was it meant to be discarded no matter what?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 5, 2007 16:02:48 GMT -5
Yes and I will work it further. But it is interesting how this could account for the investigators belief in an insider even though no proof of one was found. It is also interesting how another famous crime exemplifies this MO.
|
|