|
Post by Wayne on Mar 1, 2019 20:16:14 GMT -5
The forecast for Hopewell, NJ is for snow tonight.
I've always wondered if the kidnapping would have happened on March 1, 1932 if it had snowed that night...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 21:59:47 GMT -5
Great question, Wayne!
The weather conditions were not ideal that night to begin with. Perhaps snow would not have been a deterrent either. I suppose it depends on why March 1, 1932 was chosen to begin with and the weather was actually secondary to that.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 1, 2019 22:21:13 GMT -5
I agree with the weather not being a deterrent to the kidnapper(s), BUT think of the footprints that would have been left behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 9:28:04 GMT -5
I agree with the weather not being a deterrent to the kidnapper(s), BUT think of the footprints that would have been left behind. Well, footprints were left behind, were they not? This does not appear to be an issue the kidnappers were concerned about. If these prints were indeed a "breadcrumb trail" to be found, leaving prints would have been part of the plan. Trooper Wolf did write in his initial report (March 1, 1932) there were "two (2) sets of fresh footprints leading off in a southeast direction." See TDC Volume I Chapter 12, page 145. The way I see snow being a deterrent is that the quality and quantity of intentional footprints would have been threatened by snow as long as it was actively snowing.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Mar 2, 2019 11:14:20 GMT -5
And what about car (tire) tracks and snow?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 12:51:45 GMT -5
And what about car (tire) tracks and snow? Good question! I don't see car tire tracks left in the snow as an issue because arriving police vehicles would have driven over any road tracks created in the snow that night. In fact, I do wonder if a possible snow fall might have influenced the use of March 1 for the kidnapping. The Lindberghs used the house on weekends so it would be logical that a weekend date for the kidnapping would have been part of the plan originally. Had the following weekend of Saturday March 5th/Sunday March 6th/Monday March 7th been the original target date they would have had snow to contend with as it did snow that weekend so perhaps the kidnapping was moved up to March 1, 1932 instead.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Mar 3, 2019 9:15:29 GMT -5
I agree with the weather not being a deterrent to the kidnapper(s), BUT think of the footprints that would have been left behind. Well, footprints were left behind, were they not? This does not appear to be an issue the kidnappers were concerned about. If these prints were indeed a "breadcrumb trail" to be found, leaving prints would have been part of the plan. Trooper Wolf did write in his initial report (March 1, 1932) there were "two (2) sets of fresh footprints leading off in a southeast direction." See TDC Volume I Chapter 12, page 145. The way I see snow being a deterrent is that the quality and quantity of intentional footprints would have been threatened by snow as long as it was actively snowing. Amy, I don't believe the presence of snow cover would have been much of a deterrent given the very nature of what had to be done to get the baby out of that nursery window in the first place. Any falling snow during or after would have essentially eliminated the possibility of identifying any tracks by foot or tire, or at least have made if more difficult. I mean, unless we're talking about a blizzard here! On the subject of footprints, I know the "breadcrumb trail" theory is a popular one here, although the basic logic (or lack of it) behind the explanation continues to baffle me. As you've mentioned it here, could you or anyone else who might like to weigh in, explain why in this theory, the kidnappers would have taken such obvious pains to in their approach to the window, leaving only one footprint behind in the immediate vicinity of holes in the ground left by the ladder uprights, and then had no apparent concern about leaving a telltale set of prints leading east away from the house? The footprint evidence is arguably the most critical underpinning of the crime scene forensic evidence, and I believe the popular sentiment on this board is essentially overlooking some very key points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 15:03:58 GMT -5
Any falling snow during or after would have essentially eliminated the possibility of identifying any tracks by foot or tire, or at least have made if more difficult. I mean, unless we're talking about a blizzard here! Absolutely, which was the point I was making about an active snow event while the kidnapping was occurring. A straight up outside job kidnapping would have welcomed their footprints covered in such a way. Leaving a trail is not what a criminal or criminals would desire to do. Yet, that is exactly what happened at this crime scene, isn't it. Generally speaking, when someone stages a crime scene they usually do this to steer the investigation to draw a certain conclusion based on what the evidence found suggests happened. It is also done to protect whoever is involved, especially if it involves a family member. First off, you have one deeper foot impression left at the base of the ladder but there was also two sets of footprints leading from this area and away from the house. Two people leaving the scene. Leaving prints that could be followed by LE. Leaving a ladder and a chisel to be found by LE. Why are they purposely leaving this scene in this manner? They could have left via the boardwalk just the way they approached leaving no trail and no ladder and no chisel. The footprints tell us there were two of them. One to carry Charlie and one to carry the ladder and chisel. The trail is made and the items are left on purpose near the house to be found by LE. This is staging, Joe. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 3, 2019 15:21:55 GMT -5
Amy, the science of weather forecasting was much less advanced at the time, so forecasts going out 4-6 days in advance were not available, at least by those with some measure of reputation to protect. I think you will see that in the newspapers of the era. So the idea that the date of the "kidnapping" was moved forward because of a weather forecast doesn't ring true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 16:14:37 GMT -5
Amy, the science of weather forecasting was much less advanced at the time, so forecasts going out 4-6 days in advance were not available, at least by those with some measure of reputation to protect. I think you will see that in the newspapers of the era. So the idea that the date of the "kidnapping" was moved forward because of a weather forecast doesn't ring true. I do agree that weather forecasting was not that advanced to be able to tell 5 or more days ahead what the forecast would be. Most newspaper usually offered up 2 day forecasts. I do know that it snowed on the weekend of March 6th. I don't think snow had anything to do with when the kidnapping occurred. I just threw the idea out there because we were discussing snowy conditions as far as how they would affect foot trails and tire tracks had it snowed the night of March 1.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2019 11:06:39 GMT -5
On the subject of footprints, I know the "breadcrumb trail" theory is a popular one here, although the basic logic (or lack of it) behind the explanation continues to baffle me. As you've mentioned it here, could you or anyone else who might like to weigh in, explain why in this theory, the kidnappers would have taken such obvious pains to in their approach to the window, leaving only one footprint behind in the immediate vicinity of holes in the ground left by the ladder uprights, and then had no apparent concern about leaving a telltale set of prints leading east away from the house? The footprint evidence is arguably the most critical underpinning of the crime scene forensic evidence, and I believe the popular sentiment on this board is essentially overlooking some very key points. We've got the one footprint at the base. The question exists as to "when" that print was made. The faint "smudges" of mud in the nursery, along with the chunk of mud on the top of the bottom shutter seems to indicate it happened before the climb. Now the question is whether this print was done on purpose or perhaps someone accidentally stepping off of the board-walk before the climb. "My" position is that it was done on purpose so they would leave the smudges in the nursery as further evidence of an "outsider" which would point away from anyone in that house. If it's an accident, which is always a possibility, one must consider how efficient these people were in navigating this board-walk carrying that ladder, without a light source, and having never traversed it before. It seems damn near impossible to me for anyone NOT to have made multiple prints if it's done under the circumstances we've all been led to believe. As I mentioned in V1 - Anne couldn't even do it in the daylight and she wasn't carrying anything but a pebble.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 4, 2019 12:50:59 GMT -5
Here's a visual of what I'm talking about regarding footprints in the snow (this was taken today from my window) -- Do you think if it had snowed, the kidnapper(s) would have risked leaving footprints like these behind? Which begs the question -- if something like snow or torrential rain had thwarted the kidnapper(s) on March 1, 1932, what would they have done next?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 13:17:09 GMT -5
Took me a few hours to realize today is March 1. And so it began. . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 13:29:04 GMT -5
On anniversary date I came across, by complete accident, support for my claim, in my book "The Lindbergh Baby Kidnap Conspiracy" that the 1941 film "A Woman"s Face" had the Lindbergh Baby kidnapping as its subtext. A plot to kidnap & kill a child heir, dressed in a Lindbergh flying cap with airplane hanging in room - he is son of Swedish industrialist-politician, Lindbergh son of Congressman father, in town with big waterfall in background,-Lindbergh from Little Falls, Minnesota. etc. etc. I could never connect any of the many writers of the story, play, screenplay, etc to case - UNTIL entry in film's screenwriter Christopher Isherwood's Diary Jan. 6, 1941 at time he is writing the screenplay: "Mina Curtis came to dinner. She talked about Anne Lindbergh, who had said that all women are mothers & all men are brothers--hence the difficulty of making a successful marriage."
|
|