mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 28, 2006 16:39:13 GMT -5
Exalts, Rick!~ You expressed some of my (unposted) thoughts, so much better than I could have . Someone- Kevkon or Joe, I think- posted the thought that the perp(s) may have made an earlier attempt at Highfields. My thought runs more along the lines of a dry run-even placing the ladder to the nursery window- which could have let them spot that the shutter was warped and the upper windows left unlocked. Another thought - excuse if this has already been covered by previous posts. The neighboring dogs that went on a barking chase toward CAL's the night of the kidnap, might be why the ladder was abandoned. Beat a fast retreat before anyone came out to check out barking dogs(?)Paw prints were reported somewhere on the kidnap route. Perhaps the dogs were alerted by the same sound CAL heard(?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2006 20:12:08 GMT -5
It's solid reasoning if you ask me. Remember each ladder section was 6' 8-3/4" when unassembled. When assembled it measured about 20' in total length due to how it connected together.
However, the ladder cannot be employed straight up and down so if the ladder was use it would fall even further then 5'9" below the window. And that is assuming it wouldn't be off-set like it was in Hopewell. Furthermore, we must consider the top rung of the 3rd section isn't at the very top AND I doubt it was ever intended for someone to place their foot on that rung because of the danger involved if one were to do so....
For me, if you plan to kidnap the child at Englewood this ladder simply couldn't have been intended for that purpose. I suppose an argument could be made that a different ladder and/or method was to be used but that a change of plans caused this ladder to be built and the 'snatch' moved to Hopewell - but there's no way I will ever believe this ladder has any connection with a planned Englewood event.
Poking a hole in the skull of the corpse wasn't a very good move, however, I have never seen one shred of proof that he 'planted' Brickert's card in Sharp's room. I've seen this mentioned before - is the sources Jone's book? I can't see why someone would plant this card and not know where Brinkert was....remember they couldn't even find the guy.
The design seems to be a brilliant one actually. Thanks to Kevin, I can see there were many thoughts incorporated into this item. The size of the interior of the car, the weight, the height, the nesting, and the size fitting into the shutter. It's amazing.
Your questions can't be answered without conjecture since the reports that exist don't address them in their totality. It appears from the photos the Police had a reason to check the 3 sections and I would guess they were using the existing holes or placed the ladder on the board-walk which wouldn't (or didn't) reveal the ladder placement.
This is my conclusion as well. For this theory to be true, I believe, it means the 3rd section was built first.
There's no doubt in my mind one or more 'dry runs' were made. There were strange car sightings preceding and up to the night of March 1st. I am skeptical that anyone would know the window was unlocked and the shutter warped without inside information. I don't see how this information can be gleaned in this way. Additionally, I think if someone were to actually place the ladder against the wall and climb the risk is too great and the possibility of leaving evidence of their presence behind would be very risky.
Having said this though, I do believe, even with inside help and/or information, one or more of the actual Perpetrators would surveil but probably from a safe distance with some sort of cover. This was no 'fly-by-night' operation.
I agree...especially if Featherbed Lane was the actual starting place for the man with the ladder. Having walked that distance myself - I honestly doubt it was brought from there - even being as light as it was. The weight was meant to assist with the speed of the operation no matter where the get-away car was in my opinion. I am also of the opinion that it was meant to be left behind after the snatch occurred.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Dec 29, 2006 9:38:37 GMT -5
Well, of course you could be right? But I personally dont find any single thing about the rickety ladder that is particularly "brilliant"? After all it "broke like an orange crate" on its maiden voyage and was the wrong size to either climb or reach the window with ease and a baby intow? Also, was it left behind to indict BRH just like the body on Mt. Rose Hill?
The key notion is that Charlie Jr. was not even supposed to be at Highfields on any Tuesday nite. Any gang of observers worth their salt should have known that? So why after one hole year of planning did they have to move on that particular nite? I agree with all the sightings around Highfields during the days and weeks before March 1st it looks like the target? AT one time you suggested the snatch was planned for the following weekend but the gang jumped 4 days early due to insider informants?
Unless you want to kill the Goose that laid the Golden Egg eg Charlie Jr. ...you would have Gow or Whateley hand the sleeping Charlie out the front door to prevent dropping him on his head and killing him, the climber and the holder all at the same time?
Det. Harry Walsh is hard to figure. He took all the backwash from Schwartzkopf when something went wrong and some scapegoat was needed to cover up the blunders. Of course Walsh didn't plant the Taxi Cards, they may even have been discovered before he interviewed Violet. Walsh could not prevent Violets demise however, which was another one of his responsibilities--or Charlie Jrs. Both Ernies turn up, but only the Next Day After.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 29, 2006 15:53:43 GMT -5
How exactly does an orange crate break anyway? That "rickety ladder" as you call it was quite successful. It certainly would not have led anyone to Hauptmann, unless everyone in the metro area had their attics searched. It may not have been an example of "brilliant" design or construction, but it fulfilled the requirements of the job.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2006 19:59:22 GMT -5
I don't consider this "orange crate" sound at all. It was either an invention or overactive imagination at work. It's rubbish. The Kidnappers were in and out and well on their way by the then. As it turns out the ladder, in 3 sections, is the perfect height.
Consider the source for this (me) as someone who has no advanced skill in woodworking. For years I saw something which appeared to be 'shoddy' work only to be shown differently by an Expert (Kevin). Once I realized the complexity surrounding the design - as it applies to meeting multiple needs in order to aid in the commission of this crime - then I see it as a brilliant piece of work. To a Master Carpenter like Kevin, I must admit, it may be all in a days work.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line....they knew he was there that night, and there is only one explanation to account for this. They did plan this and executed it knowing he was there - no doubt in my mind.
Walsh was only in the case due to Gov. Moore. Schwarzkopf got angry after his articles....it stole away the lime-light from him...just as Finn's article did. Schwarzkopf was so damn mad about that he insisted that Finn not be called as a witness to the trial, in fact, as much as he disliked the FBI he said he'd rather them be called then Lt. Finn. How silly is that?
Jealously can be a very powerful emotion.
Agreed. My gut tells me it was left behind as evidence the crime had been committed by an 'outsider.'
|
|
|
Post by leah on Dec 30, 2006 7:34:02 GMT -5
the role the insider played makes the role of the ladder questionable. it was devised to fit into a car and light enough to carry a limited distance. if the baby could be handed out the window or the way cleared for an escape down the stairs it needn't be sturdy at all. in fact the lighter the better. the third section bothers me though, it almost seems in the way. i think the idea that the ladder was planned for englewood doesn't fit because of the guards and also that house was filled with people most of the time (per anne's diaries)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 30, 2006 9:28:20 GMT -5
Why so? An "insider", for obvious reasons, would probably have a limited ability to participate in the actual act. An "insider" makes the use of a ladder paramount.
Sorry, I don't understand this statement, though I agree 100% with the conclusion. You always want that which you stand on 8' above the ground to be sturdy. Even if it is only for a moment in time. You only sacrifice that sturdiness when another parameter becomes more important. In the case of the kidnap ladder that parameter is weight. And it is not only sturdiness that is sacrificed in that regard. With the addition of 3 more pine rungs the ladder would have been easier to scale. With the addition of a couple of inches in depth, the ladder would have more strength ( strength being different than sturdiness). Note that none of these improvements would have interfered in any way with the often cited need to fit the ladder in a 30 Dodge. So the important question is ; why is a physically strong guy like Hauptmann so pre-occupied with weight reduction?
You are not alone, it seems to bother a lot of people.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2006 11:18:11 GMT -5
I don't think Lindbergh's imagination could be classified as overactive and why would he choose to invent such a scenario many days later? I think we can probably all relate to personal instances where an event is recalled well after the fact and suddenly presents itself as a very real and possible variable towards a nagging question or puzzle in mind. I do this all the time. Investigators also depend on these kinds of recollections during crime reconstruction, be they valid or not.
I would agree that the kidnapper brought all three sections of the ladder with the intent to use all of them, thanks mainly to Kevin's observations and experience. (not in kidnapping though) As far as the timing goes though, Michael, I'm at a loss to rationalize your level of conviction that the abduction took place shortly after 8 pm when there is such little or no conclusive physical evidence to support that claim.
The source of the claim that the kidnapping was planned for "a year alredy" is Cemetery John as relayed through Condon. If CJ was correct here, I tend to believe the scheme was hatched well before the fact but that ninety percent of the critical planning took place within the last ten percent of the timeline.
Agreed, and I don't believe this kidnapper, with the kind of steely nerve required to do what he did, would have been overly concerned about having to leave or choosing to leave the homemade ladder behind. And I don't discount that it was a hasty decision based on the course of events that took him to the point 75 feet southeast of the house. Despite his nerve, I sense some panic set in and that the child who was not intended to be harmed, had by this time suffered the skull fracture, unexpectedly.
I don't know if you're suggesting the ladder was a prop here, Leah, but even if it was climbed only once to get into the nursery, sturdiness would have to be a requirement. Personally, I can't imagine the ladder being a prop. There is just too much invested in its design, function and efficiency, despite some flaws.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 30, 2006 15:01:50 GMT -5
Michael: reply #352 Sept 23 2006: Ladder Building:
The latter comment above suggests hoax, fooled, flummoxed and deception by the insiders> Why would the insiders want to climb any ladder....its a looking ladder not any climbing ladder? And why build it to fit in the car when half the persons that saw the car saw the ladder inside. Had it been absolutely brilliant as is suggested above, it would not have been seen by anyone? When its laying/lying ac-crossed the seat tops its easily visible? Was it designed to be seen?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 30, 2006 15:32:33 GMT -5
Looking Ladder? Excellent! Not so, I would think a "looking ladder" would be designed to be seen, so the design was then quite successful. But, does a "looking ladder" look at all like a "climbing ladder"? What if a "climbing ladder" looks good ? Is it then a "looking ladder" or is a "looking-climbing ladder" or is that "climbing-looking ladder" ? And what if it is a "nesting ladder" as well? Why then we have a ......................................
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 30, 2006 22:18:52 GMT -5
You fellows are funny ;D. If there was insider help, I can see leaving the ladder by the outside perps, so focus wouldn't be on the insider. While at the same time, I might panic and abandon the ladder when the neighbors dogs came chasing over barking. If the perps didn't want to leave any traces they wouldn't have left the nursery note, they would have obliterated the ladder holes in the ground and taken the ladder with them. so where does that leave us (?) ......still befuddled, huh? Am trying to consider Parker's earlier time frame. Betty turned the nursery light off, but went into the lighted bathroom to wash out the baby's clothes. She finishes, does last check on baby turns the bathroom light out and that leaves that end of the house dark , at least upstairs ? She goes down to the basement to hang up the wash. Where does that leave O Whately? With time to hand off the child??? Except I suspect the child was put under further --ether /chloroform??? Well, time is passing, isn't it? And then in drives CAL somewhere along about that time. Hmm-mm, I think I have some problem with that timing. I wonder how Parker put that earlier time together(?)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 31, 2006 8:45:32 GMT -5
Well Mairi, I think befuddlement is naturally a by product of conjecture and unfortunately conjecture is all we are left with when it comes to the actual sequence of events that night. Personally I prefer to stick with the actual evidence that remains, so much as possible. In that regard I think we can make some pretty good deductions.
* The ladder was designed with a good amount of thought and purpose in mind and the product of first hand knowledge of Highfields.
*The builder was experienced in woodworking, but limited in the knowledge of structural engineering.
*The design/construction priority was weight reduction which should tell us something about the manpower and the intended path taken.
*The ladder's overall length was appropriate for Highfield's
*The upper or third section was designed to fit between the shutter stiles.
*All three sections were intended to be employed as the weight reduction priority would be negated by carrying an unnecessary extra 33% along for no reason.
*The ladder was erected and climbed as the depth of the holes correspond to the ladder with a load.
*The idea that the ladder was a 'prop" to make the appearance of a B & E is contradicted by the lack of commensurate phony forced entry marks.
*The ladder in two sections requires a second person on the ground to keep the ladder from pivoting or kicking out.
*The ladder did not fail during a climb as the dowel and spit pieces were found intact on sections 1 and 2. Furthermore no evidence of a fall, ladder wood chards, or collateral damage was evident.
*The ladder construction was perceived to be un-traceable by the builder.
*There would be no possibility of forcing either the shutter latch or window lock from the offset 2 section ladder and somewhat doubtful that the same could be achieved with three sections.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2006 11:02:06 GMT -5
Kevin, great points about the relationship between ladder, builder and crime scene. I'd agree with just about everything here and would also add that while the builder lacked a thorough enough appreciation of the finer points of structural engineering, he showed very good practical mechanical inclination.
Interesting to note here that Hauptmann first started as a carpenter's apprentice then switched to a mechanical engineering apprenticeship program for what appears to be (Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter) at least two years, before being called up for military service. After he arrived in America in 1923, he first worked as a locksmith and lathe operator for a short time before returning to carpentry until 1932. So he seems to have had a fairly good exposure to both disciplines which no doubt assisted him in the design of the ladder.
The question of a second person being required for the physical abduction phase of the kidnapping, notwithstanding the potential for others to have passed along pertinent information about conditions of the house and its layout - would it have been possible in theory, for one man to accomplish what took place?
Do you think one man could have gained the required stability for entry and exit with the three sections if the top section rails had been tied off to the right hand shutter? I'm trying to establish whether the shutter would remain fixed enough by the forward force of the climber and whether on exit, the ladder / shutter combination would remain adjacent to the wall and not swing out.
I realize this possibility doesn't rest entirely on the physics of the process. It's also about whether or not the kidnapper would have thought about this ahead of time, or at some point in the planning, deferred to the asistance of another individual.
I would agree a simulation / recreation is really necessary to conclude anything here to a satisfactory confidence, but at this stage, I can't convince myself that the physical abduction could not have been pulled off by one person.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 31, 2006 11:21:18 GMT -5
Thanks Joe Oddly the ladder in three sections is not prone to "kicking out" so conceivably it could be climbed unassisted. That's because the unique joint design allows the sections to bow or sag in and the resulting force is directed inward. Also section 3 does not have its top rung at the very end of the rails as section 2 does. Added to this is the difference in pushing off from the top of section 2 and stepping off from section 3 which is an entirely different condition. I was wondering, as you always seem to have some great insight into BRH, if you see this excessive quest for weight reduction of the ladder even at the expense of safety as having a cause other than purely transportability. I mean, as I said earlier a few more rungs would be negligible in adding weight, yet they are omitted. Do you think that this indicates that the kidnapper was driven by more than the thought of ransom? It is awfully tempting to think of this in terms of the Ryan NYP. As for multiple abductors or not, I guess one can argue it either way. Personally I believe it absolutely involved more than one.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 31, 2006 13:17:47 GMT -5
There are only a couple reasons/myths why the famous Lindbergh Ladder is of any importance at all: - When a ladder is dropped off and then left behind it tends to deflect interest away from the insiders, who they are, and what role they play in Charlie's demise?
- Then with a faulty chain of custody and a few substitutions almost anyone in the World can be implicated by the wood evidence?
- And last--it is the true sign and symbol of the LKC and by most persons believed to be the "cause of death" as well thus trumping any holes in the head:
Name: Joe for Kathy (70.28.248.12, 70.28.248.12) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Curtis Sun, Dec 18 2005 at 8:17 pm [ Email Msg | Invite ] Message: Lindbergh and Breckinridge naively believed the kidnappers would not harm the child and felt the process was under control. I believe the kidnappers' original intent was to return the child unharmed, but everything went out the window (bad choice of words) with the failure of the ladder and a mortally injured child who died a few days later. Even after Condon heard CJ ask him whether he would burn if the baby was dead, Lindbergh refused to give up hope. (end quote)"" Joe / If it werent for the true genius of the Lindbergh Ladder Charlie Jr would still be "alive and well" even today! Let's all just consider it a "wardrobe malfunction"! Happy New Years to All--see you in 2007!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2006 13:36:15 GMT -5
He clearly told Asst. Williamson that he heard a noise but it didn't impress him due to a windy night. (There must have been a million bumps and thumps on this night). Then he tells Cpl. Wolf shortly afterwords that he was unable to recall anything at the time which would fix the time of the crime. Then in his March 11 statement he says he heard a noise which he attributed to someone dropping a box in the kitchen (around 9:00PM). The kitchen in on the other side of the house from the outside of the nursery window. So what we see is a noise created by the wind which holds so little weight he doesn't mention it to Wolf but then it turns into someone dropping a crate in the kitchen. Do the math - something ain't right. And let's not forget there's no way Lindbergh or anyone else would hear this ladder 'fail' when it didn't. Even if these cracks formed during the climb would they have been so loud to be heard through the walls and rooms during this wind-storm? Kevin has already explained what happens if a ladder of this type would actually 'fail.' They also take careful note of discrepancies in one's stories - not to mention take a long hard look at the family, family members, and people known and/or close to the family when these types of crimes are committed. I was thinking the same about your position. If there was a smoking gun then we wouldn't be debating the issue. That's why we must look at our situation as a real investigator would: Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still ( Sherlock Holmes). - The child is put to bed and as a house rule is not to be disturbed between 8 & 10. Each minute after 8 is get-away time lost.
- Ellis Parker, the best Detective in the World, put together a time-line based upon Lupica, Moore, and the distance and time of their eyewitness accounts.
- Lupica sees a Confederate around 6PM. To assume this planned event is to occur later rather then when the child is put to bed if they are there already doesn't make sense.
- Lindbergh comes home at 8:25PM. If they are there waiting since at least 6PM till then (why?) and he wasn't expected, then this ruins their plans adding this unexpected variable to the mix. Who else will show up (they would have to wonder)?
- There isn't one scintilla of evidence to the contrary.
I think you may misunderstand me. I believe there is an inside connection and leaving the ladder behind may have been an attempt distract attention to this fact. Think about this point and what the situation may have been if this ladder/chisel wasn't left behind. The scene was bad enough as it relates from an outside invasion - its really the one solid clue which says otherwise. I think this point assumes a black & white argument. See my position above. These phony forced entry marks would be unnecessary because it was explained away by many dubious circumstances. The lack of pry marks tells me they were aware of these circumstances ahead of time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 31, 2006 15:18:17 GMT -5
I can't say that I have a strong opinion one way or another regarding the ladder's purpose as that of more than an entry and exit device. It does seem to be an odd way of imparting a message, especially in regard to distracting attention from an insider when so many other elements are left indicating the opposite.
Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Jan 1, 2007 8:38:09 GMT -5
Good challenge Kevin/ lets hold the Masters feet to the fire: - "those with the ladder"--the hired kidnappers?
- "chosen a different path"--down the stairs and out the front door?
- "for a reason"--Charlie Jr. was already incapacitated?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 1, 2007 9:00:57 GMT -5
HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL
No challenge here, Rick. I am always interested in what someone who has devoted countless hours of research with source materials and evidence has to say.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2007 11:43:59 GMT -5
All of these things indicate to me that Lindbergh heard something that night but it had not yet fully registered as a potentially critical element within the chain of events. This clearly wasn't the type of sound to be confused with any other noises (wind, distant creaking branches having no direct impact) outside the house, and which would in no way have made the same impression which caused Lindbergh to suddenly question, "What was that?" Looking at the inventory of items in the nursery from Wolf's Report, it seems quite possible to me the intruder could have conceivably knocked over or bumped into the three-wheeled kiddie car the table and chairs, both of which were in a fairly direct line from window to crib. And each minute closer to the lights going out puts the kidnapper more directly in the line of fire and detection. If the kidnapper was aware of the two hour window, it certainly gives him enough time to act without exposing himself. If he wasn't aware of the window then he has a larger envelope in which to observe and act. Even if he was the best detective in the world, and I'm sure that question is worthy of an entirely different debate, Parker in this case, was always on the outside looking in. His declaration of the driver Lupica saw as a confederate is a safe bet, his conviction that the car, a nondescript muddy vehicle seen by the Moores was the escaping kidnapper is a guess at best and cannot be supported by the time required to accomplish the kidnapping. Do the math here and it doesn't add up. I have no doubt that in his prime, Parker could have made a very positive impact on the case. Unfortunately, he had no jurisdiction, made some very rash and uncalled for public comments against the NJSP and in my opinion his ego overrode his ability to deal rationally with his general exclusion. I also think he became fixated on solving this case as his Grand Exit to the point he was able to justify going far beyond its legal limits. My own timeline of the abduction includes the possibility that the kidnappers did not realize Lindbergh had arrived home, so we're probably not looking at this question from the same angle. In any case, the kidnappers could not move until the baby was put to bed, so the 5:30 - 6:00 pm Lupica sighting is simply a strong indication that the kidnappers were in the area as part of their preparations. Regardless of what they entailed, the baby's schedule meant they still had to wait at least two hours. And we may never know for sure, but I put more faith in the noise heard by Lindbergh, Kutcher's barking dogs (shortly after 9 pm) and the dog prints which joined up with the escaping kidnappers' footprints, (Gardner, The Case That Never Dies) over a muddy car seen 2 miles from the Lindbergh house shortly after 8:20 pm. Not unless your kidnappers had found a way to bend the time - space continuum.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 1, 2007 16:16:50 GMT -5
Am inclined to think CAL did hear a sound that night. If the ladder slammed closed--there is wood on wood which might reasonably be compared with the sound of wooden slats, to my mind. And I'll put forward again that it may be the same noise that alerted and stirred up the neighboring dogs. Back to the timeline--and of course we do have to give the stated times some "wobble" leeway. If the light in the bathroom next to the nursery, didn't go out until something after 8pm and the perps either remained watchful a few minutes or did some sort of preparation then we are nearer to when CAL drove in. I think it pertinent also to consider how far away the perps may have been able to hear a car coming and possibly even traces of headlights from a distance. CAL parking car, getting out , going in. The perps would have observed things for a few mins- long enough to see that the activity remained on other end of house, don't you suppose(?) Baby removed from house, ladder makes slamming sound as it is taken down. After the first adrenaline subsides CAL and all start to try to reconstruct things. Delays in recall are-I believe-quite natural. ( I hope it's "natural" since it's happened to me more than once ;D)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 1, 2007 16:20:35 GMT -5
A few thoughts;
It might be helpful for us to put together a time frame based upon the movements at Highfields by the kidnappers. Conover sees a car on Featherbed turning its lights on and off at a clearing at 6:30pm. Now what happens next? Do the kidnappers walk from here to the "staging area" and wait? I could re-create the process of the 75 ft movement to the house and one or two ladder stagings and removal to give a time for this procedure. Then what happens next? I think this process of discovery would be much more fruitful than arguing back and forth on theories put forth by others.
Also, in regard to the Conover sighting, is there any report by them regarding car movements on Featherbed after that initial one? I have never seen any and it would seem odd that they would not have noticed any further activity.
Lets try to get somewhere here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2007 18:06:50 GMT -5
Makes a lot of sense, Kevin. And it might be a good idea to try and reach a consensus on each stage of the kidnapping completed, in terms of objective, requirements, actions and time spent.
For starters, I can kick it off. We know from the trial testimony that Betty Gow turned out the nursery light and left that room at exactly 8:00 pm, checking her watch as she did so. She then proceeded downstairs, where she passed through the living room and advised Anne Lindbergh that Charlie was sleeping and breathing soundly.
Between approximately 7:30, when Anne Lindbergh left the nursery, until just before 8:00 pm, Betty had been busying herself between nursery, her own room and its adjoining bathroom, doing chores such as washing out the baby's clothes.
If someone was laying in wait at a nearby staging area, observing the movements and lights within the nursery and surrounding rooms, I believe this pretty much starts the clock running at 8 pm.
I think it would be best to somehow dial in prior eyewitness accounts such as Lupica and Conover; I'm just not sure we know enough at this stage to connect them coherently to what happened later.
Does this sound right? Can anything else be considered at this stage?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 1, 2007 18:39:45 GMT -5
Joe,
I don't have the Princeton Recollectors here, but I know there is a lenthy article written by them (the Conovers) in Volume 9 or 10, and I know that you have a copy.
Sue
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 1, 2007 18:49:00 GMT -5
Good Joe. How about the period between the Lupica and Conover sightings and 8pm? Do we assume the car Conover saw turning its lights off at the clearing on Featherbed la stopped there? From aerial photos I make that to be at the end of the Conover field. If that was our ladder car and it did stop there, how long to walk up to the staging area at Highfields? 20 min? What do we assume was carried besides the ladder.
Do the kidnappers wait at the staging location for an hour or so? That's a long time to wait on a cold wet night when minutes seem like hours. It's a long time for Hauptmann without a smoke.
From setting up my ladders I would give a preliminary estimate at 5 to 10 minutes. I will attempt to tighten that up by doing it under similar conditions.
Michael, do you have any thoughts on the exact procedure that night? Besides wondering why I have not read anything further about the Conover sighting of the car, I have wondered about the turning on and off of the lights. Possibly a signal?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2007 19:15:53 GMT -5
Forgive me but I am falling behind....
A couple of questions concerning the latest posts - Kevin, which report do you refer to when you say the 'initial' Conover report?
Is there a specific place that is being referred to as the 'staging area' or is this just a generic label to a place nearer to the home then the road?
I do. It's going to take me a long time to put together all of the various pieces scattered within my thoughts....so in the meantime I was hoping the current discussion may add to and/or eliminate some of those. In a letter written to the Hunterdon County Democrat, it was recalled that Featherbed Lane was hardly used and at the time was in very poor condition. The weather being wet the family believed the car was "stuck in the mud." I've always felt the lights going on & off were either the result of mud covering the lights from possibly hitting a (mud) puddle or a signal - I haven't definitely decided which.
I haven't seen the article Sue refers to and would be interested in reading that - any idea where we can find it Sue?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 1, 2007 20:18:42 GMT -5
Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear.
What I meant by the initial report of the Conover sighting is the sighting at 6:30pm. But was there any further sightings by the Conovers that night. From what I have read the Conovers hear and see nothing further until 1:30am when the road traffic increases due to the police response. How could the Conovers miss that car leaving Featherbed?
By the "staging area" I was referring the area about 75ft from the house where the ladder was found.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 1, 2007 21:50:24 GMT -5
Michael,
The Henry Conover article would be on page 15 in one of the Princeton Recollectors. I think there is even a photo. I just don't happen to have them here. Those volumes are a real asset in studying this case as they are full of recollections of many who lived in the Hopewell area during the time of the kidnapping.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2007 19:02:24 GMT -5
I am assuming you mean the account found in the FBI Summary....
I have been trying to avoid giving my full theory but its hard to side-step some points if I am going to add to the direction this thread is going.....I just ask that when some of my ideas start to pop-up on someone else's board as if they're original you'll have the courage to point it out....
There were actually (2) separate sightings made by members of the Conover family. The wife, Carrie, saw a Dodge with ladders in the car at about 3PM. Bornmann concluded after the interview that it was the same as the one Lupica saw. This is important. I also believe Steve Lehman got it right when he theorized the car Lupica saw had pulled across to the opposite side of the road thinking he was a Confederate. The 'ladder car' seems to be driving the roads in as much a circle around Highfields as possible and if he isn't doing this to run into, find, and/or meet up with Confederates then why is he doing this?
The idea this car with the ladders in it is driving around 'searching' for the Lindbergh estate doesn't make sense when you factor in all of the details and circumstances to include the construction of the ladder. He knew where he was and where he was going.
The 2nd sighting is the one mentioned in the Summary. I believe this car was connected to the crime but may have been a different party and I believe the car the Moore's saw was this car. Additionally, I have always been interested in the Adam's account.
I do not believe the 'staging area' was where the ladder and chisel were found. I simply believe this is the place the person with the ladder decided to try to disassemble and ultimately discard these items. There are no prints from this area toward the house... some prints lead from the house to this area. That means the approach came from either the front, back, or both and followed along the board-walk.
Hard to do without being familiar with the area and impossible without some sort of light source.
I cannot believe that CAL heard a noise in the Kitchen that he would later associate with the ladder breaking outside under the nursery window. Heard a noise, sure, the wind was blowing hard but a noise from the wrong side of the house? Anne was hard of hearing but was sure she heard a car pull up earlier. For someone with a hearing problem to hear something usually means they did. This is important. But its also not a stretch to believe she didn't hear a noise in the Kitchen if CAL did - which she didn't.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 2, 2007 20:17:29 GMT -5
Well they do say imitation is the highest form of flattery. Unfortunately in the LKC it all seems to depend upon where the new idea falls.
I am still curious as to why the car on Featherbed was not seen ( or heard) leaving.
I didn't mean to impart too much to the area where the ladder was found by calling it a "staging area" for lack of a better term.
|
|