|
Post by Wayne on Dec 17, 2019 16:08:38 GMT -5
The Smithsonian Channel recently aired a segment called Crimes of the Century on their excellent America in Color series.
(It's currently available On Demand on Spectrum).
The 2nd part of the Crime of the Century (following Bonnie and Clyde) takes a standard look at the Lindbergh kidnapping case, but they've colorized all the footage and, personally, I think it looks terrific.
CAL, Anne, BRH, Flemington -- all take on a whole new and very interesting look.
Then there was a colorized shot of Highfields.
What really stood out were the shutters. They were a very pleasing emerald green color.
Does anyone know if this is accurate?
All the photos we've seen were taken with high contrast black & white film, so that the walls look a brilliant white and the shutters casket black.
So, were the shutters black or green?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 15:48:03 GMT -5
Great question, Wayne. They certainly look black in those old pictures. I would like to think they were a dark green which would look nice with the natural fieldstone that was under all that whitewash, but I don't really know. Emerald green?! UGH! Thanks for sharing about that program. I am going to definitely watch it!
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 18, 2019 16:03:05 GMT -5
The shutters were green.
From an article in the NY Daily News, 3 Feb. 1934:
"Betty then closes the green shutters. She tries to snap the latch, but the shutter was warped."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 18, 2019 16:52:45 GMT -5
The shutters were green. From an article in the NY Daily News, 3 Feb. 1934: "Betty then closes the green shutters. She tries to snap the latch, but the shutter was warped." Mbg! You. Are. Amazing! For the first time in 87 years, the shutters we all assumed were black, were, in fact, green! It doesn't help solve the case, but for anyone filming a documentary, we now know. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 18, 2019 17:30:58 GMT -5
Thank you, Wayne, but you seem to have been the first person in 87 years to have wondered about the color of the shutters. Now we have to figure out who took them off the house!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 18, 2019 19:46:11 GMT -5
Thank you, Wayne, but you seem to have been the first person in 87 years to have wondered about the color of the shutters. Now we have to figure out who took them off the house! Thank you for confirming it after 87 years! As for the shutters, I've posted this before but in Rosner's unpublished manuscript, he claimed (and I believe him) that he watched as Schwarzkopf ordered (from the nursery window) that the two shutters be removed. As this was being done, either one or both of them crashed to the ground. That is the last that I've been able to find about the shutters. (I'll post the date that Rosner said this happened when I find it.) After that, as you know, they disappeared. If anyone else has more info, please let us know. In the meantime, thanks to the Smithsonian Channel's America in Color, here's what the shutters looked like:
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Dec 19, 2019 13:18:34 GMT -5
I think the value of the shutters as evidence is underappreciated…
A critical part of the popular narrative is that access to the nursery was possible only because the shutters were not closed and secured. The reason given for the decision to leave the shutters open was the claim that a shutter was warped to such an extent that the latch could not be engaged to secure it.
Personally, I think the term “warped” is a misnomer – that the correct term would be misaligned. How else would a single shutter become so distorted when the rest of the shutters essentially in the same environment did not suffer similar damage as to render them inoperable? Apparently not a single report was written documenting the attempt to verify the claim, instead relying only on the words of AML and Betty Gow that such a condition existed.
Next, we have Schwarzkopf, no less, ordering that the shutters be removed from the home only to have them damaged during the removal process. NYPD had carpenters on the payroll, but as evidenced by this episode and Bornmann’s manhandling of S-226, clumsy treatment of evidence was ubiquitous at the NJSP. Evidently the shutter damage wasn't severe as he is alleged to have ordered that they be rushed for fingerprinting… which is the last time anyone has seen them.
Why would Schwarzkopf order that the shutters be removed, rather than examined in situ? Why is there no report confirming that the shutter lock was tested and determined inoperable given that it is the pretext as to how the nursery was accessible to a kidnapper, and all the other reenactment tests conducted? Why is there no report of the subsequent fingerprint test of the shutters?
One is left to wonder if the shutters were intentionally destroyed simply to prevent the substantiation of the issue with the lock… that Schwarzkopf had to be present in the window to oversee the “accidental” dropping of the shutter so that his cachet would lend validity to a claim of accidental rather than intentional damage. Or was there the risk for discovery of CALs fingerprints or a palm print that might need explaining relative to its awkward position on the shutter?
Yet over the years there has been no outcry over the mishandling and subsequent disappearance of evidence. No questioning of the broken chain of custody or explanation for why a fingerprinting test ordered by Schwarzkopf was never carried out.
Why? Because if the lock is determined to be functional and documented as such, or the fingerprint test has an undesirable outcome, then the rest of the kidnapping narrative becomes subject to further scrutiny… and who would be most harmed by that?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2019 14:00:46 GMT -5
They should be at the archives now, even if in one of the crates that Mark found the other pieces of wood, Hauptmann's shoes, etc. etc. in whatever place those were stored at. I remember asking him if there was a chance something else might be in a crate somewhere but he said "no" that everything there was opened. On top of that, there is no record on any of the inventories or chains of custody. My guess is that once the shutters crashed into the ground they were destroyed. Another possibility is they were dusted without success then returned to Lindbergh.
On the warping... I get your point Scathma. I suppose there's another possibility, and I cannot remember where this comes from... It could have been someone's suggestion here, but if it is I can't remember who. So many people have posted over the years (if this is where I am remembering it from) that its hard to keep track. Anyway, the "warp-age" could have been "swelling" on or near the slide bolt. If that was the case it wouldn't line up in a different way. I'm not saying that it was, but I mention it for whatever consideration it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 19, 2019 17:51:35 GMT -5
Scathma, while your current profile pic is very striking, after reading your above post, I think you should change it to this (was just watching this film the other night, lol):
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 11:56:30 GMT -5
I think the value of the shutters as evidence is underappreciated… I absolutely agree with you. I also agree that the damage must not have been severe, if there was any damage to the shutters at all. Highly unlikely, in my opinion. Trooper Frank A. Kelly did the fingerprinting. I will post his March 16, 1932 report here which describes what items in the nursery he dusted for prints. Apparently, the shutters were not done at this time. imgur.com/dPkM9zH Page One imgur.com/N0QrZDu Page Two Your thoughts are excellent here. I have questioned to what extent, if at all, those shutters were dysfunctional to the extent that they could not be secured at all. I have always wondered if a bit of warping might have occurred around the latch area making them harder but not impossible to lock with some assistance. Could Whateley have been locking that pair of shutters in the nursery for Anne during nap times and bedtimes when Charlie visited? Could it be that Whateley's suspicion that the kidnapping was an inside job be founded on this because the night of March 1, 1932, he was not asked to secure that set of shutters by Betty Gow?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 20, 2019 13:41:58 GMT -5
The shutters were green. From an article in the NY Daily News, 3 Feb. 1934: "Betty then closes the green shutters. She tries to snap the latch, but the shutter was warped." Mbg! You. Are. Amazing! For the first time in 87 years, the shutters we all assumed were black, were, in fact, green! It doesn't help solve the case, but for anyone filming a documentary, we now know. Thank you! Who thought they were black? (egads!) I've always thought they were a very nice forest green!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 27, 2021 21:05:59 GMT -5
Okay, another shutter question.
According to Anne, the nursery shutters at Highfields were shut twice a day when Charlie was sleeping in his nursery.
The first time was from 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM when Charlie took his afternoon nap.
The second time was after 6:00 PM when Charlie went to sleep for the night.
I understand closing the shutters to keep the nursery dark during Charlie's afternoon nap. That makes sense.
But why were the shutters closed after 6:00 PM?
It was almost dark then anyway and when Charlie was awakened in the morning around 6:30 AM, it was still dark outside.
Why close the nursery shutters at night?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 27, 2021 21:54:04 GMT -5
I would shut the shutters at night.
If there was any light coming into the room, someone outside, looking in, could observe the room better.
Why help a peeping Tom?
There were no curtains on the windows.
I would shut the shutters at night.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 28, 2021 6:25:52 GMT -5
I would shut the shutters at night. If there was any light coming into the room, someone outside, looking in, could observe the room better. Why help a peeping Tom? There were no curtains on the windows. I would shut the shutters at night. Hi Sue, Interesting. So, let's say the nursery shutters were closed for privacy - to keep a peeping Tom from seeing inside a second-story room and not to keep the nursery dark for Charlie. Why weren't the rest of the shutters in the house closed? The ones in Anne and Charles' bedroom? And especially the rooms on the first floor which would have been much more accessible to a peeping Tom - Charles' library (where he was sitting next to a window from 9:30 to 10:00 PM), the living room (where Anne was at her desk before Charles arrived home), the dining room, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 28, 2021 7:14:26 GMT -5
Wouldn't shutters be further protection from cold and wind? I've always assumed that was why they were closed. Since none of the others were closed, it may have helped tipoff the kidnappers to which room was the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 28, 2021 11:06:33 GMT -5
Anne didn't have to have just one reason for closing those shutters. There could have been several reasons.
One primary reason may have been that she didn't want the baby to be awoken as the morning light was starting to appear in the room.
By closing just one pair of shutters that may have been enough to keep the baby sleeping, while allowing just enough light for the baby to wake up on his own?
Anne read the contemporary books on child rearing.
Or maybe her commonsense, maternal instincts just kicked in?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 28, 2021 11:39:26 GMT -5
I don't quite understand why the color of the shutters would be so important. How is this detail connected to the kidnapping? What's the point? Why are we discussing this on the board?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 28, 2021 12:02:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 28, 2021 12:09:35 GMT -5
Well, Jeanne, Wayne started the thread a few years ago, and had further questions about the topic of the color of the shutters.
Are his questions more appropriate for a discussion about the Lizzie Borden case?
Come on, now.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 28, 2021 19:06:17 GMT -5
Thanks Sue for posting the December 1, 1930 article. Very interesting, and the article's mentioning that construction on the new Lindbergh house was to begin "next Spring" was personal to me. I have always been interested in determining exactly when the actual construction began as my grandfather Irvin VanNest died of a massive heart attack while working on the Lindbergh house on May 29, 1931. He was a carpenter in the local carpenter's union and as far as I know the only worker who died while working on the house. He specialized in door and window construction, but my mother always believed that he was working on the roof construction of the house when he had the fatal heart attack. I have never been successful in determining the exact stage of construction that was occurring on May 29th, 1931. I'm attaching the local news article of his death while working on the Lindbergh house.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 28, 2021 19:13:23 GMT -5
I don't think the Lizzie Bordon case is appropriate here for discussion. No, I don't think so. Perhaps someone should start a board on Lizzie if there is enough interest.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 29, 2021 0:30:23 GMT -5
Lurp173,
In the early days of me posting on Ronelle's board, I shared many times about that sad story of the man who died on the roof of the Lindbergh house.
The year must have been 2000, maybe 2001.
He had a heart attack on the roof and his co-workers all helped to get him down from there. I think they brought him into Hopewell town. I wish that I still had access to that page!
I kept referring to the Internet page where I found that story. I believe I put the link up, too.
The story did not appear in a journal, magazine, or newspaper article - just on someone's webpage. The man wasn't named, but I just remember referring to that story again and again.
The page is probably long-gone, but may be able to be accessed through the waybackmachine?
I am not registered, so I'm unable to read the article that you provided.
I will try to see if I can get the picture of the men working on the foundation of the Lindbergh home in 1931. Have you seen that one? Maybe one of those men was your grandfather?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 29, 2021 0:45:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 29, 2021 12:43:27 GMT -5
Sue, thanks for finding and posting the Southeast Missourian news article that contains a photo of the Lindbergh house under construction. The article doesn't say exactly when the photo was taken but it is definitely the earliest photo of the house construction that I have seen. It shows the beginning of the framing process so even though many carpenters were involved in the house construction, one of the men in that photo could be my grandfather! My mother always said that her father was working at the house site from the very beginning of construction until his fatal heart attack on May 29th.
It was certainly a surprise to read that you had heard about the Lindbergh house construction worker who had a fatal heart attack at the house site, and that you had posted about the incident on the Ronelle's discussion board site way back in 2000. I had always just assumed that this incident involving my grandfather had only been published in the local newspapers. Your abilities to obtain articles and information on the LKC always amazes me!! You mentioned that it was a "sad story" and you are correct. My grandfather's death that day at the Lindbergh house left my grandmother with two minor children to raise during the Depression years without the income of her husband. Fortunately, my mother was 20 years old at that time and graduating from RN nursing school that very month of May. Her income as an RN during the Depression greatly helped provide for her mother and siblings. Those Depression years were extremely tough on most everyone---with the apparent exception of Hauptmann!
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 29, 2021 22:36:18 GMT -5
lurp173,
Thank you for sharing what had to have been a very painful time for members of your family.
Your grandmother certainly did not have an easy life. She must have grieved the sudden loss of her husband her whole life.
Thank God, though, that there was a financial means of support through your mom becoming an RN. I bet she was a great nurse!
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Sept 30, 2021 18:16:19 GMT -5
This article tells BRH all he needs to know. New home cost $50,000, is this where the idea for the ransom $50,000 came from?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 30, 2021 19:46:37 GMT -5
This article tells BRH all he needs to know. New home cost $50,000, is this where the idea for the ransom $50,000 came from? What? If I buy a house that costs $500K, what would make you think I could give you $500K in cash? Seems like a giant stretch. Plus that doesn't explain how he would know when they moved into the house, why they'd be there on an "off" night or any of the other truly bizarre oddities. Coincidentally, $50K was also the amount in the Constance Morrow extortion attempt. Michael does a great breakdown of this in his new book.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 1, 2021 16:32:38 GMT -5
Let me say right off the bat that I have hesitated for months before writing this post. Rail 16 must be the most examined, discussed, debated, and controversial piece of timber in history. At least one book has been written about it. Lindbergh case experts Kelvin Keraga, Kevin Klein, Michael Melsky and many others have given their opinion. It almost seems like “case closed” regarding Rail 16 and its origin. Kevin Klein issued a challenge for anyone to explain how the ladder evidence was “faked.” This is my response. As always, “Fools rush in…..” Here are my thoughts:
The arrest In September 1934 Hauptmann, a German carpenter, was arrested and found to have $14,000 of kidnap money hidden in his garage. His Fisch story was disbelieved. The Osborne handwriting experts turned on a dime and reversed their previous opinion: now they believed BRH had written the ransom notes. So in late September the authorities believed that had at last got their man. The press and public were screaming so it was a great face-saver for the NJSP after two years of drawing blanks and they were determined to make the case for kidnap and murder. Whatever it took…
The NJSP Schwarzkopf, the NJSP chief, said publicly that he “would break any oath” to serve Charles Lindbergh. With leadership of that calibre it is not surprising that the NJSP was not renowned for honesty, integrity, and adherence to the rules of evidence. It is important to stress that once the police become utterly convinced that they have their man - especially if he is seen as a monster in human form - they see it as their duty, where necessary, to “help the case along” and to ensure that the man in custody is never able to walk the streets again. Gaps are plugged; weak links are replaced with stronger ones. We are also in the great depression of the 1930’s where keeping your job was uppermost in most peoples’ minds. In such a climate it may be best to keep quiet about such things.
Oh..and Mrs Hauptmann never got her Stromberg-Carlsen radio back from the NJSP. They laughed at her when she asked for it.
This digression was needed as background to the following:
1. The Rail 16 and S-226 presented at the trial were once a single floorboard in Hauptmann’s attic.
2. An electrician may have sawn through Board 27 for access to wiring. He then replaced the sawn-off board in its original position after completing his electrical tasks.
3. The Rail 16 presented at the trial was fabricated by the police. The new Rail 16 was made from the 8 foot section of Board 27 previously removed and replaced by the electrician. The real Rail 16 was discarded.
These points in detail:
1. The exposition of Koehler at the trial on grain patterns, growth rings, line-up of nail holes, tool marks etc. etc. is pretty convincing in spite of the necessary bridge of the small gap between S-226 and the end of Rail 16. His conclusion that the Trial Rail 16 and S-226 were originally part of the same board has been broadly confirmed by experts over the years.
2. I hesitated about the electrician theory because (correct me if I’m wrong) we don’t know who he was, when he did the work, or exactly what work was done. However on balance I think it likely that he did work as described by Kevin Klein and Michael Melsky previously. I disagree with the idea that having completed his work he took the 8 foot length of board then: (a) threw it through the semi-circular window at the end of the attic (b) descended through the closet access and then retrieved the board from the grass outside (c) asked Mrs Rauch for the only key to the basement (d) placed the 8 foot board among the scrap timber and off-cuts therein. (e) returned the key to Mrs Rauch.
If the electrician had taken away this plank for a specific purpose e.g as a surround for his kids’ sand pit, then not putting it back in place is explicable. But he didn’t need it for any purpose. I cannot see any reason for him going to all this trouble just to put the plank among the scrap timber in the basement when he had a much easier, logical, and more professional alternative.
Any professional plumber, electrician or carpenter finishes any job by “making good” . This means leaving as little trace as possible of their intervention: replacing panels and boards, re-painting etc. In this case “making good” was easy: replace the board in its original position with the four nails going back into their holes. This leaves only the saw cut as evidence of the electrical work. To the casual observer the attic floor would appear complete which accounts for nothing being noticed by Miller the leak-seeking plumber with his candle, the first NJSP/NYPD visitors, or even Bornmann on his first reported visit to the attic.
The saw cut is instructive. It continues into the neighbouring board. To me this indicates that the tongue of Board 27 had not separated by shrinkage from its neighbour Board 26 but was a snug fit. The workman had to saw into the adjacent board in order to neatly saw through the tongue of Board 27 before lifting the 8 foot length. It is the only explanation for the continuation saw cut into Board 26. This to me suggests a careful workman who intended to replace the board after the electrical work was completed. It has been said that a carpenter would have sawn adjacent to the joist. It would certainly leave a neat appearance if you didn’t intend to replace the board. But this board was not load-bearing and was only a couple of feet below the slope of the roof so, especially as the board was to be replaced, it was unimportant where the saw cut was.
Further support for the electrician: an eight foot long board was removed. Anyone intending to fabricate a six foot rail for the ladder would measure and take a piece marginally over the length required. The electrician’s cut was determined by the location of the electrics below which just happened to be eight feet from the end of the board.
3. Either Hauptmann took up the 8 foot board in 1932 or the police did in 1934 for the reason already given. In each alternative a Rail 16 was made from it.
The case against Hauptmann is well documented. Suffice to say that with a garage and basement full of available wood and a timber yard two blocks away, his ascent into the attic to retrieve a floorboard for Rail 16 is unlikely.
The nail holes in the Trial Rail 16 fitted into the holes in the joists. To use Koehler’s words the floorboards were “low grade…and hadn’t been fully dried when dressed.” This caused the wood to “shrink considerably after it was nailed down.” And presumably even more when it wasn’t nailed down. In other words this is timber prone to shrinkage and expansion with varying t conditions of temperature and humidity. Especially when freed from the restraining nails holding it against the joist. In spite of the tendency of this wood to shrink and expand, the nail holes in the Trial Rail 16 said to have been removed from the attic by Hauptmann in 1932 aligned perfectly with the holes in the joists when checked two and a half years later in 1934. Alternatively a substitute Rail 16 made “recently” would certainly have nail holes which aligned with those in the joists.
The NJSP had exclusive access to Hauptmann’s tools. I suggest they may have been used to mark the new rail leaving the tell-tale marks which Koehler highlighted at the trial.
Although the remaining part of Board 27, S-226, had “faint marks” where it had rested on the joists, the Trial Rail 16 did not. The argument that the joist marks had not been produced by 1932 “when Hauptmann removed the board” i.e six years after the attic was installed, but were there on S-226 in 1934 only 30 months later is hard to accept. These marks are a surface effect. Ladder rails made of wood, especially those made from rough timber, are thoroughly sandpapered to leave a smooth surface which will not leave splinters in the hands as the climber grips the rails. This sanding process, I suggest, removed the faint joist marks. The other rails of the ladder had been sanded smooth too.
The removal of the faint joist marks by sanding and the small gap between the end of Rail 16 and that of S-226 suggest that the fabrication was either careless or was done by someone (a NJSP carpenter?) who was not told of its planned deceptive use at the trial. Unknowing, he sanded off the faint joist marks and cut a small piece from the end thus necessitating Koehler’s bridge diagram. This surely would not have happened if Bornmann/ Koehler had made- or had directly superved the creation of the new Rail 16 themselves. It is also possible the tool marks were made after the new rail had been made.
I speculate that the 8 foot length of Board 27 previously removed and replaced by the electrician was removed again by Bornmann in September 1934. He then drew the outline of the new Rail 16 on it taking care that the surplus 2 feet of the board was to be cut from the opposite end to that abutting S-226. A 3 inch strip can be cut from various positions on a 6 inch wide board; he chose one containing the nail holes. Due to a lack of communication the above glitches happened: the small piece removed from the end along with the faint joist marks being sanded from the under-surface.
The Springfield photograph
Simply producing a bogus Rail 16 would not pass muster at the trial. History had to be re-written. At least two things worry me about the Springfield photograph:
1. From the very start the NJSP kept its cards very close to its chest. Schwarzkopf initiated an investigation to find the officer(s) ( Officers Lewis and Kelly in fact) who had sold pictures to the press citing the necessity of keeping potential evidence confidential until an eventual trial. In this climate can we accept that Mr Springfield of the ACME press agency, on March 2, 1932, the day following the child’s disappearance, was allowed to take and sell to newspapers detailed pictures of the ladder and heaven knows what else? Would it not mean that these pictures were compromised as eventual evidence in any future trial? 2. Kelvin Keraga’s report states that the Springfield photograph was “supposedly” taken by Mr Springfield on March 2, 1932. As so much hangs on the authenticity of this photo I ask Why the doubt? Why “supposedly?”
Somehow, a photo of the new Rail 16 was presented at trial as having been taken in 1932. The NJSP had a secure photographic facility for producing evidential pictures.
I fully accept there is much speculation here. Some things happen but one cannot prove that happened. One can only pick the most likely from among the less likely alternatives.
Thanks to Kelvin Keraga, Kevin Klein, and Michael Mesky for their valuable work in this field.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 2, 2021 8:12:49 GMT -5
GREAT ANALYSIS! This detailed report is deserving of further thought and investigation. Using the knowledge we have gained in the last ninety years, we can continue to piece this case together making connections and finding the missing links. Thanks, Sherlock, for this effort. It's a model for many.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 2, 2021 11:14:35 GMT -5
Hi aaron, Thanks for your encouragement and kind words, especially welcome as the first response to my post. There will be those who disagree which is fine with me. I'm still wearing my flak jacket! Best regards, Sherlock
|
|