Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 18, 2019 20:01:01 GMT -5
He could do it on ice, he could do it the night of March 1! Great imagination and hyperbole there. It's actually comical that actual kidnappers in their cloth-covered feet, would have taken the time to navigate those narrow boards so painstakingly in the dark, as seems to be the popular sentiment here. There would have been no reason for them to have done this kind of tip-toe routine and the photographed ground immediately next to the house, demonstrates this vividly. And we hear cries that Anne, who was apparently as "light as a feather," could not possibly have left prints in the soil next to the house. With the distinctive heel impressions she left in the ground, it's obvious she wasn't wearing cloth on her feet, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 21, 2019 4:06:36 GMT -5
He could do it on ice, he could do it the night of March 1! Great imagination and hyperbole there. It's actually comical that actual kidnappers in their cloth-covered feet, would have taken the time to navigate those narrow boards so painstakingly in the dark, as seems to be the popular sentiment here. There would have been no reason for them to have done this kind of tip-toe routine and the photographed ground immediately next to the house, demonstrates this vividly. And we hear cries that Anne, who was apparently as "light as a feather," could not possibly have left prints in the soil next to the house. With the distinctive heel impressions she left in the ground, it's obvious she wasn't wearing cloth on her feet, isn't it? What? There's LOTS of footprints leaving the scene, but NONE approaching. The ONLY way to accomplish this is by using the boardwalk on the approach.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 22, 2019 14:52:51 GMT -5
He could do it on ice, he could do it the night of March 1! Although they have received a good deal of attention, the footprints, both the ones on the board walk and the ones leading away from the house, may have nothing at all to do with the abduction of the baby. Same can be said for the ladder. Both footprints and ladder could have been deliberately placed where they were found as false clues to throw off investigators. BTW, IloveDFW, can you tell us who the man in the photo walking with CAL Sr. on the boardwalk is?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 22, 2019 17:49:57 GMT -5
He could do it on ice, he could do it the night of March 1! Although they have received a good deal of attention, the footprints, both the ones on the board walk and the ones leading away from the house, may have nothing at all to do with the abduction of the baby. Same can be said for the ladder. Both footprints and ladder could have been deliberately placed where they were found as false clues to throw off investigators. BTW, IloveDFW, can you tell us who the man in the photo walking with CAL Sr. on the boardwalk is? Leon Hoage thought the note and placement of the ladder were essentially a tactic to throw off investigators by saying “WE WENT THIS WAY.” When they really went the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 23, 2019 8:20:56 GMT -5
So Lindbergh was outside the Flemington Courthouse, NOT on the boardwalk outside Highfields when the photo was taken. No connection to the M. O. of the alleged kidnapping!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 23, 2019 9:36:02 GMT -5
Great imagination and hyperbole there. It's actually comical that actual kidnappers in their cloth-covered feet, would have taken the time to navigate those narrow boards so painstakingly in the dark, as seems to be the popular sentiment here. There would have been no reason for them to have done this kind of tip-toe routine and the photographed ground immediately next to the house, demonstrates this vividly. And we hear cries that Anne, who was apparently as "light as a feather," could not possibly have left prints in the soil next to the house. With the distinctive heel impressions she left in the ground, it's obvious she wasn't wearing cloth on her feet, isn't it? What? There's LOTS of footprints leaving the scene, but NONE approaching. The ONLY way to accomplish this is by using the boardwalk on the approach. Yes, they came along the east side of the house, and probably used the boardwalk for the most part as a guide in the dark. Let's not kid ourselves though in believing that they actually managed to stay on that very narrow means of approach carrying ladder and supplies without stepping off now and then. Or had any good reason to, when minutes later, they went tramping off with the Lindbergh baby in tow, leaving behind what's affectionately known here as the "breadcrumb trail." The only reason their footprints don't show along the edge of that boardwalk is because that ground did not support visible footprints and they were wearing foot covering to soften their steps. Due to the leeward effect, the ground beside the house was not as "muddy" as the ground further east where their departing footprints were clearly visible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2019 8:44:31 GMT -5
What? There's LOTS of footprints leaving the scene, but NONE approaching. The ONLY way to accomplish this is by using the boardwalk on the approach. Yes, they came along the east side of the house, and probably used the boardwalk for the most part as a guide in the dark. Let's not kid ourselves though in believing that they actually managed to stay on that very narrow means of approach carrying ladder and supplies without stepping off now and then. Or had any good reason to, when minutes later, they went tramping off with the Lindbergh baby in tow, leaving behind what's affectionately known here as the "breadcrumb trail." The only reason their footprints don't show along the edge of that boardwalk is because that ground did not support visible footprints and they were wearing foot covering to soften their steps. Due to the leeward effect, the ground beside the house was not as "muddy" as the ground further east where their departing footprints were clearly visible. Okay. When the police navigated the boardwalk, in the dark, they used their flashlights, weren't "sneaking" around the house, and weren't carrying a ladder and everything else the Kidnappers should, would, or did bring. "Kidnappers" obviously did not use a flashlight or they would have been seen. That is, if that's what really happened. Next, of course they wouldn't have been able to negotiate the boardwalk under those circumstances to include wet, and windy weather. If we believe police, even Anne couldn't do it in the daylight hours because there were footprints between the boardwalk and the house they explained away by attributing them to her. And so, if what you say is actually true Joe, then footprints would not have been left in the exact area you say couldn't exist if Kidnappers walked there. So while I agree the closer you get to the house the less muddy it should be, we know by the crime scene evidence that footprints attributed to a women who weighed in the neighborhood of 110 pounds did exist there. So obviously men weighing much more and carrying a a ladder would be much more likely to leave impressions - not less.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 27, 2019 13:04:38 GMT -5
Yes, they came along the east side of the house, and probably used the boardwalk for the most part as a guide in the dark. Let's not kid ourselves though in believing that they actually managed to stay on that very narrow means of approach carrying ladder and supplies without stepping off now and then. Or had any good reason to, when minutes later, they went tramping off with the Lindbergh baby in tow, leaving behind what's affectionately known here as the "breadcrumb trail." The only reason their footprints don't show along the edge of that boardwalk is because that ground did not support visible footprints and they were wearing foot covering to soften their steps. Due to the leeward effect, the ground beside the house was not as "muddy" as the ground further east where their departing footprints were clearly visible. Okay. When the police navigated the boardwalk, in the dark, they used their flashlights, weren't "sneaking" around the house, and weren't carrying a ladder and everything else the Kidnappers should, would, or did bring. "Kidnappers" obviously did not use a flashlight or they would have been seen. That is, if that's what really happened. Next, of course they wouldn't have been able to negotiate the boardwalk under those circumstances to include wet, and windy weather. If we believe police, even Anne couldn't do it in the daylight hours because there were footprints between the boardwalk and the house they explained away by attributing them to her. And so, if what you say is actually true Joe, then footprints would not have been left in the exact area you say couldn't exist if Kidnappers walked there. So while I agree the closer you get to the house the less muddy it should be, we know by the crime scene evidence that footprints attributed to a women who weighed in the neighborhood of 110 pounds did exist there. So obviously men weighing much more and carrying a a ladder would be much more likely to leave impressions - not less. Michael, I've answered your post in a new thread as I felt this subject was deserving of one.
|
|