|
Post by Sue on Feb 8, 2020 10:35:46 GMT -5
imgur.com/TMuqQn5No matter one's opinion about the Lindbergh case, what is inescapable is that the Lindberghs did not have privacy in their lives. Above is a snapshot of Charles Lindbergh's baby's crib in the back yard of their home in Princeton, New Jersey, published when the baby was only months old. Cortland Standard October 22, 1930 Page 10
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Feb 15, 2020 8:47:33 GMT -5
imgur.com/TMuqQn5No matter one's opinion about the Lindbergh case, what is inescapable is that the Lindberghs did not have privacy in their lives. Above is a snapshot of Charles Lindbergh's baby's crib in the back yard of their home in Princeton, New Jersey, published when the baby was only months old. Cortland Standard October 22, 1930 Page 10 Perhaps a little insight into their feelings of security in an environment far removed from NYC and even Englewood, whether justified or not.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Feb 15, 2020 10:39:31 GMT -5
Thank you, IloveDFW!
Hope you had a special Valentine's Day yesterday!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 18:43:34 GMT -5
Privacy? Occasionally I read where people speculate about the Lindbergh house being observed that night or sometime before. Has there been any discussion about the drastic rise in elevation practically outside CAL's front door? There is quite a hill there. Five stories high. Even more, according to Google Earth. Anyone walked this particular area? I know Michael walked the area behind the house, I'm not sure about the front. I remember reading the Pig Woman's comments about the Lindberghs 'living in a fishbowl' where anyone that wanted could peer in their windows from a distance. She wasn't just blowing smoke. An area topo map and Google Earth reveal that a 'sudden' 50 foot hill allows for an elevated observation of the house without curtains. In fact the topo map showed 50 feet rise in elevation only 600 feet from the house. That means someone could sit only 600 feet away, FIVE STORIES higher than the front yard. Google Earth shows twice that elevation, but let's just go with the lesser 50 foot elevation on the map. They could come halfway DOWN the hill and still be at eye level with Betty in the second floor nursery. And the elevated ridge, though not 50' higher went far enough east to observe the nursery window at eye level. With surrounding trees cut, as I understand they were, and leaves yet to appear on naked trees that remained, a hundred people could sit, undetected while observing much of the household. They could sell Cokes and popcorn and the Lindberghs not have a clue. Also, anyone at that elevation could monitor any cars coming north toward Highfields. Just monitoring the driveway entrance would have been significant for the snatchers. Two or three minutes warning could mean everything. If there was a kidnapping and they had a lookout, I believe this is where they were stationed. With a lookout in place and a good warning system such as a common animal call or a flashlight, it's almost a fool proof plan. They are pretty well protected from the time they assembled the ladder until he/they get back to the car. A bit more complicated than handing CAL Jr out the front door. But... Anyone know of anything unusual or a separate report written for that area? Perhaps some one here has climbed that hill and might speculate.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2020 9:27:51 GMT -5
But...Anyone know of anything unusual or a separate report written for that area? Perhaps some one here has climbed that hill and might speculate. There is an NJSP report that involves Troopers going to a certain place, a hill I think, and trying to look at Highfields through either a telescope or binoculars. I searched all last night trying to find it for you but I can't remember where I filed it. I haven't seen it in a while which is probably part of the reason I don't know where it is. Wayne might have or remember the one I am talking about. What I did find was the map drawn by Tommy Bonsall. He was on site both immediately after the kidnapping as well as at the gravesite. As you can see, from his perspective, considering the route along which (outlined in the map) he believed the kidnappers took away from the home, there was only a particular stretch where Highfields was visible:
|
|
|
Post by Dubb on Sept 26, 2020 12:31:20 GMT -5
Also we are missing two parachutes. Have I missed the conversations/explanations how the kidnapper(s) arrived? The footprints lead away. So they were there before the last big rain and their prints washed away or - they came from the North as Oscar Bush said. When they get their footprints in the ruts of the one lane driveway they were run over (and covered up by; CAL coming home, Ollie (twice, leaving and returning), Breck once - and then his driver (twice, leaving and returning) and the cops. All driving over potential footprints. I suspect the driveway was never seriously inspected, just as the area North of Highfields. Probably because Oscar Bush suggested it.
|
|
|
Post by Dubb on Sept 26, 2020 13:11:38 GMT -5
"So they were there before the last big rain..." meaning the kidnappers or the footprints leading there. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 26, 2020 16:31:25 GMT -5
Also we are missing two parachutes. Have I missed the conversations/explanations how the kidnapper(s) arrived? The footprints lead away. So they were there before the last big rain and their prints washed away or - they came from the North as Oscar Bush said. When they get their footprints in the ruts of the one lane driveway they were run over (and covered up by; CAL coming home, Ollie (twice, leaving and returning), Breck once - and then his driver (twice, leaving and returning) and the cops. All driving over potential footprints. I suspect the driveway was never seriously inspected, just as the area North of Highfields. Probably because Oscar Bush suggested it. They arrived via the driveway and navigated the narrow boardwalk.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 26, 2020 16:36:13 GMT -5
Also we are missing two parachutes. Have I missed the conversations/explanations how the kidnapper(s) arrived? The footprints lead away. So they were there before the last big rain and their prints washed away or - they came from the North as Oscar Bush said. When they get their footprints in the ruts of the one lane driveway they were run over (and covered up by; CAL coming home, Ollie (twice, leaving and returning), Breck once - and then his driver (twice, leaving and returning) and the cops. All driving over potential footprints. I suspect the driveway was never seriously inspected, just as the area North of Highfields. Probably because Oscar Bush suggested it. They arrived via the driveway and navigated the narrow boardwalk. Agreed about driveway origin, but are you implying they felt compelled to stay on that skinny little boardwalk on their way to the area below the southeast corner window?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 26, 2020 16:37:22 GMT -5
They arrived via the driveway and navigated the narrow boardwalk. Agreed about driveway origin, but are you implying they felt compelled to stay on that skinny little boardwalk on their way to the area below the southeast corner window? Yes, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them stepping off the boardwalk whatsoever on the approach. We know the soil there held footprints, given the one next to the ladder so they were obviously adept at navigating the boardwalk.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 26, 2020 17:43:36 GMT -5
Agreed about driveway origin, but are you implying they felt compelled to stay on that skinny little boardwalk on their way to the area below the southeast corner window? Yes, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them stepping off the boardwalk whatsoever on the approach. We know the soil there held footprints, given the one next to the ladder so they were obviously adept at navigating the boardwalk. Firstly from the photo, it's obvious the scenario of the kidnappers tiptoeing intrepidly along that skinny little boardwalk without stepping off it along the way doesn't work, and secondly there would have been no reason for them to have done so. It would have been a comical scene for them to even have attempted it. The only way they could have carried the ladder to that spot and set it up in the dark, would have been by stepping off the boardwalk here and there. There were no telltale prints during their approach because they were wearing soft coverings on their feet and the ground directly next to the wall of the house was sheltered from rain, which made the ground in that specific area less prone to showing prints. I'm sorry, but you don't set up a finicky two or three section ladder that collapses naturally inward, under the window while maintaining your poise and balance on that boardwalk, all in the dark. Reasonably, they would have been on and off the boardwalk a number of times while doing that as well. That one relatively-discernible print to the left of the ladder's bottom left rail is an impact print from the ladder climber coming down heavily with his left foot in that generally same moisture-content soil. Their retreating footprints didn't become readily-visible until they had reached that softer muddy ground farther east of the house.
|
|
|
Post by Dubb on Sept 26, 2020 17:51:25 GMT -5
Agreed about driveway origin, but are you implying they felt compelled to stay on that skinny little boardwalk on their way to the area below the southeast corner window? Yes, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them stepping off the boardwalk whatsoever on the approach. We know the soil there held footprints, given the one next to the ladder so they were obviously adept at navigating the boardwalk. So they came in from the north via the driveway and left in a SSE direction? Didn't Oscar follow the tracks to Featherbed Lane and saw evidence of the car? They parked there and took the long way around to enter? With a 30 lb ladder? That's about 3/4 of a mile. 30 lbs doesn't seem like much unless you have carried something that heavy, that far. And the thumbguard....
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 26, 2020 19:12:10 GMT -5
Yes, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them stepping off the boardwalk whatsoever on the approach. We know the soil there held footprints, given the one next to the ladder so they were obviously adept at navigating the boardwalk. So they came in from the north via the driveway and left in a SSE direction? Didn't Oscar follow the tracks to Featherbed Lane and saw evidence of the car? They parked there and took the long way around to enter? With a 30 lb ladder? That's about 3/4 of a mile. 30 lbs doesn't seem like much unless you have carried something that heavy, that far. And the thumbguard.... It's my understanding that the kidnappers retreated directly east of the house, abandoned the ladder about 75 feet away and then proceeded along the approximate line of a utility road or featherbed lane on the property, but one not to be confused with the officially named Featherbed Road or Lane (both were used) that ran east-west and was located about 2/3 of a mile directly south of the house, and where the car was seen earlier in the evening by the Conover Family. Their retreat path would have eventually taken them approximately NNE across the Lindbergh Private Lane in the vicinity of the chicken coops, where dog paw prints were seen intermingling with human footprints, and then on to the Hopewell - Werstville Road, (now called Lindbergh Rd.) where they entered their car. I believe this is where Oscar Bush actually ended up, although over the years, confusion has lingered and pointed incorrectly towards the Featherbed Lane well south of the property.
|
|
|
Post by Dubb on Sept 26, 2020 21:18:18 GMT -5
"....on to the Hopewell - Werstville Road, (now called Lindbergh Rd.) where they entered their car." (Joe)
Fortunately, I found kevkon's photo showing the access roads. I can see how they might have followed it to the driveway, then to Lindbergh road. I can see how someone without a map or knowledge of the area might confuse Featherbed Lane with the Lindbergh access road since they both run east/west. But then we must disregard the Conover sighting on the real Featherbed Lane almost a half mile away as being significant.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 27, 2020 7:56:44 GMT -5
"....on to the Hopewell - Werstville Road, (now called Lindbergh Rd.) where they entered their car." (Joe) Fortunately, I found kevkon's photo showing the access roads. I can see how they might have followed it to the driveway, then to Lindbergh road. I can see how someone without a map or knowledge of the area might confuse Featherbed Lane with the Lindbergh access road since they both run east/west. But then we must disregard the Conover sighting on the real Featherbed Lane almost a half mile away as being significant. I wouldn't call the Conover sighting insignificant, unless it happened to be a totally unrelated vehicle. I'd tend to think that anyone who knew the area well would have been leery about trying to traverse Featherbed Lane that time of year and especially in the dark, so it could have been someone involved with the kidnapping who lost their way. Without an adequate description of the vehicle though, we'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 27, 2020 16:19:56 GMT -5
Yes, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them stepping off the boardwalk whatsoever on the approach. We know the soil there held footprints, given the one next to the ladder so they were obviously adept at navigating the boardwalk. Firstly from the photo, it's obvious the scenario of the kidnappers tiptoeing intrepidly along that skinny little boardwalk without stepping off it along the way doesn't work, and secondly there would have been no reason for them to have done so. It would have been a comical scene for them to even have attempted it. The only way they could have carried the ladder to that spot and set it up in the dark, would have been by stepping off the boardwalk here and there. There were no telltale prints during their approach because they were wearing soft coverings on their feet and the ground directly next to the wall of the house was sheltered from rain, which made the ground in that specific area less prone to showing prints. I'm sorry, but you don't set up a finicky two or three section ladder that collapses naturally inward, under the window while maintaining your poise and balance on that boardwalk, all in the dark. Reasonably, they would have been on and off the boardwalk a number of times while doing that as well. That one relatively-discernible print to the left of the ladder's bottom left rail is an impact print from the ladder climber coming down heavily with his left foot in that generally same moisture-content soil. Their retreating footprints didn't become readily-visible until they had reached that softer muddy ground farther east of the house. There is no evidence they approached any other way than on the boardwalk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you agree Michael?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 27, 2020 18:41:53 GMT -5
Firstly from the photo, it's obvious the scenario of the kidnappers tiptoeing intrepidly along that skinny little boardwalk without stepping off it along the way doesn't work, and secondly there would have been no reason for them to have done so. It would have been a comical scene for them to even have attempted it. The only way they could have carried the ladder to that spot and set it up in the dark, would have been by stepping off the boardwalk here and there. There were no telltale prints during their approach because they were wearing soft coverings on their feet and the ground directly next to the wall of the house was sheltered from rain, which made the ground in that specific area less prone to showing prints. I'm sorry, but you don't set up a finicky two or three section ladder that collapses naturally inward, under the window while maintaining your poise and balance on that boardwalk, all in the dark. Reasonably, they would have been on and off the boardwalk a number of times while doing that as well. That one relatively-discernible print to the left of the ladder's bottom left rail is an impact print from the ladder climber coming down heavily with his left foot in that generally same moisture-content soil. Their retreating footprints didn't become readily-visible until they had reached that softer muddy ground farther east of the house. There is no evidence they approached any other way than on the boardwalk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you agree Michael? Let me clarify something here. I do believe the kidnappers approached the south east corner of the house by way of the boardwalk as a guide, from the driveway area. Their approach however is not evident due to the soft coverings they were wearing on their feet, as well as the firmer soil conditions next to the house.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2020 20:51:56 GMT -5
There is no evidence they approached any other way than on the boardwalk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you agree Michael? I do agree. We have to go where the footprint evidence leads us. Let me clarify something here. I do believe the kidnappers approached the south east corner of the house by way of the boardwalk as a guide, from the driveway area. Their approach however is not evident due to the soft coverings they were wearing on their feet, as well as the firmer soil conditions next to the house. Here you go again. You cannot ignore evidence because you do not like the implications. This idea that you can invent something in order to explain something else away does not work. Most especially because your theory about the mud closer to the house being "firmer" has been disproved by the prints that DO EXIST between the board walk and the house. The soft coverings is a new one so I'm guessing you believe they donned the socks over their shoes meant to deaden their footsteps in the nursery before they started walking along the boardwalk toward the window? Exactly when do you believe they slipped those puppies on? Socks in mud don't mix as whoever stepped back to make that one print in the mud facing the house has shown us.
|
|
|
Post by Dubb on Sept 27, 2020 21:04:39 GMT -5
So again Joe, we can discount the Conover observation of a car on featherbed Lane? and Oscar Bush did not mean he tracked prints all the way to the real featherbed Lane (as indicated on maps ) but an access road that ended at the driveway? And the kidnappers approached from the north as Oscar said via the driveway?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 29, 2020 8:06:53 GMT -5
So again Joe, we can discount the Conover observation of a car on featherbed Lane? and Oscar Bush did not mean he tracked prints all the way to the real featherbed Lane (as indicated on maps ) but an access road that ended at the driveway? And the kidnappers approached from the north as Oscar said via the driveway? The best take I've been able to make is that Oscar Bush ended up on Hopewell - Wertsville Rd., after having followed footprints near or on the utility road on the property. And yes, that the kidnappers approached the south-east corner of the house from the driveway. I believe they did this at about 9:00 pm and that the ladder and other items used in the kidnapping had previously been dropped off shortly after 8:00 pm, the time at which Anne believed she had heard the sound of car tires on the driveway. And I think the kidnappers would probably have retreated via the same route, but for the fact the ladder rail split, one of the kidnappers came down hard and probably dropped the sack containing CALjr. At that point, their panicked reaction would have been to distance themselves from the house, which is why they headed directly east across the field towards the road.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 29, 2020 8:14:52 GMT -5
Let me clarify something here. I do believe the kidnappers approached the south east corner of the house by way of the boardwalk as a guide, from the driveway area. Their approach however is not evident due to the soft coverings they were wearing on their feet, as well as the firmer soil conditions next to the house. Here you go again. You cannot ignore evidence because you do not like the implications. This idea that you can invent something in order to explain something else away does not work. Most especially because your theory about the mud closer to the house being "firmer" has been disproved by the prints that DO EXIST between the board walk and the house. The soft coverings is a new one so I'm guessing you believe they donned the socks over their shoes meant to deaden their footsteps in the nursery before they started walking along the boardwalk toward the window? Exactly when do you believe they slipped those puppies on? Socks in mud don't mix as whoever stepped back to make that one print in the mud facing the house has shown us. Let's sort this out once and for all, Michael. You've previously stated that the kidnappers were careful to ensure they stayed on the boardwalk, so from your source documentation, what footprints are you stating appeared between the boardwalk and house?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 29, 2020 10:32:12 GMT -5
Let's sort this out once and for all, Michael. You've previously stated that the kidnappers were careful to ensure they stayed on the boardwalk, so from your source documentation, what footprints are you stating appeared between the boardwalk and house? Where you been Joe? We have sorted this out so how many times do we have to do this? All of the first Cops to respond saw those footprints and Trooper Cain was immediately posted up to specifically guard that area. Those who closely examined these footprints navigated the boardwalk without stepping off. Ever wonder "why" if there was a area by the house that allowed them to walk freely? I'm sure Lindbergh had an extra set of socks to spare. LOL And consider they weren't carrying a ladder either. Fact is, they utilized their flashlights and stepped carefully in order to safely walk on the boards without stepping off. The small footprints that existed were between the house and the boardwalk and there are several sources for this to include both the DeGaetano (TT 929) and Wolf testimony (TT 795) - but how can that be if the ground there was, as you claim, so firm there would be no trace of a print whatsoever? Anne claimed these were hers meaning she left them earlier in the day and she didn't weigh very much. So this idea that at least one 185 lb. man can throw on a pair of socks while carrying a ladder would leave no print when a petite woman (100 lbs?) would is laughable. The chain of custody report proves they were in at least two different places so any argument that one print happened to be an anomaly will not work. The ground was "soft" and anyone walking there would leave a print. Think about it - its exactly why the boards were there in the first place. One might argue some prints would be of better quality considering the possibility that certain areas weren't "as soft" but this idea that men walking in it could have left no trace whatsoever under the circumstances is completely irrational.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 30, 2020 12:07:29 GMT -5
Let's sort this out once and for all, Michael. You've previously stated that the kidnappers were careful to ensure they stayed on the boardwalk, so from your source documentation, what footprints are you stating appeared between the boardwalk and house? Where you been Joe? We have sorted this out so how many times do we have to do this? All of the first Cops to respond saw those footprints and Trooper Cain was immediately posted up to specifically guard that area. Those who closely examined these footprints navigated the boardwalk without stepping off. Ever wonder "why" if there was a area by the house that allowed them to walk freely? I'm sure Lindbergh had an extra set of socks to spare. LOL And consider they weren't carrying a ladder either. Fact is, they utilized their flashlights and stepped carefully in order to safely walk on the boards without stepping off. The small footprints that existed were between the house and the boardwalk and there are several sources for this to include both the DeGaetano (TT 929) and Wolf testimony (TT 795) - but how can that be if the ground there was, as you claim, so firm there would be no trace of a print whatsoever? Anne claimed these were hers meaning she left them earlier in the day and she didn't weigh very much. So this idea that at least one 185 lb. man can throw on a pair of socks while carrying a ladder would leave no print when a petite woman (100 lbs?) would is laughable. The chain of custody report proves they were in at least two different places so any argument that one print happened to be an anomaly will not work. The ground was "soft" and anyone walking there would leave a print. Think about it - its exactly why the boards were there in the first place. One might argue some prints would be of better quality considering the possibility that certain areas weren't "as soft" but this idea that men walking in it could have left no trace whatsoever under the circumstances is completely irrational. I’ll tell you where I haven’t been Michael, and that is with my head in the same ground yours seems to be permanently stuck in on this very important account. It's getting more and more difficult not to see your fanciful explanation as to how the kidnappers traversed that section of property, set up the ladder, did their business and then retreated via your fanciful “breadcrumb trail” (or have you stopped flogging that?) as an old time silent movie reel vignette set somewhere between the athletic exploits of Harold Lloyd and the slapstick hilarity of Laurel and Hardy. Your latest response does nothing to see anything beyond that limitation. You’re saying that “All of the first Cops to respond saw those footprints.” I take it from your very generalized statement, you mean all prints, including the small footprint trail that was later attributed to Anne, as well as the one foot-shaped impression to the left of the ladder’s left rail and possibly the larger impression in the area of the ladder’s right rail. Those first troopers would have been wearing NJSP-issue boots with hard heels, so of course, it would have been imperative they stay on that boardwalk, or else they’d have made their own footprints and compromise the entire ground evidence picture. And if they had have been standing carefully on that primarily 6” boardwalk shining their flashlights around, it’s reasonable they would have seen the trail of retreating footprints which then appeared further away from the house and disappeared into the dark farther east of the house. Next, those small footprints made by Anne. You’ve previously stated that Anne was “light as a feather” and that if she could have made those prints, than certainly 185 lb. kidnappers would certainly have made visible footprints, even if they were wearing soft coverings on their feet, which obviously they were. This logic totally ignores such a major factor beyond simple weight while you’ve simply chosen to rewrite the laws of physics, that I’m shocked you haven’t yet seen the gigantic pink elephant in the room. Anne was not “light as a feather” and as she would have been wearing at minimum a sports heel on her footwear, you can hopefully visualize the better part of 100 lbs. of downward force with a hard defined three-dimensional heel being exerted on the ground with each step she took. That is, a hard heel of only about 1 sq. in. surface area in front of that 100 lbs. downward force, Michael. Not a flat, soft object with no defined three-dimensional imprinting features, (other than its general weave pattern) and with a surface area along the lines of 60 sq. in to spread out the impacting and imprinting force. Anne would have had no reason to tread lightly while the kidnappers would have, which is yet another factor in their ability to have not left a lot of visible prints behind. Is this all starting to make an impression? Simply put, those kidnappers could not possibly have been able to effect the same level of imprinting force into the soil near the house with the “moccasins or soft coverings” they were obviously wearing, as even your little “light as a feather” Anne did. It’s not too difficult to imagine how they would have generally been following the outline of the boardwalk in the dark as they proceeded from the driveway to the south-east corner of the house. But for you to conclude because they left no visible traces alongside the boardwalk in that approach, then set up the ladder, raised it while one of them would reasonably have held the ladder in place, all because they managed to perch precariously on that skinny boardwalk the whole time until one of them finally did a mid-air 180 turnaround and an impression upon his ascent up the ladder my friend, is comical at best my friend. They would have been stepping all over the place with that level of activity in the dark, and their prints would have shown this, IF they had been wearing normal shoes or boots. That one lone foot-covering imprint investigators did capture shows it was created with a higher degree of force, ie. the ladder climber coming down hard in that particular spot. To top all of this off, I don’t think you’ve ever offered satisfactorily just why the kidnappers would ever have been compelled to stay on that boardwalk on their approach in the first place. Maybe they were playing a little "Now you see me, now you don’t?" Absolutely astounding.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 30, 2020 12:58:47 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh was a little over five feet tall. A woman of that height, especially at that time, would not wear a size 8 shoe! She would most likely have worn a 5 1/2 or size 6 at the most. A size 8 would have been worn by a much taller woman or by a man about 5'7 or so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2020 13:43:44 GMT -5
Simply put, those kidnappers could not possibly have been able to effect the same level of imprinting force into the soil near the house with the “moccasins or soft coverings” they were obviously wearing, as even your little “light as a feather” Anne did. It’s not too difficult to imagine how they would have generally been following the outline of the boardwalk in the dark as they proceeded from the driveway to the south-east corner of the house. But for you to conclude because they left no visible traces alongside the boardwalk in that approach, then set up the ladder, raised it while one of them would reasonably have held the ladder in place, all because they managed to perch precariously on that skinny boardwalk the whole time until one of them finally did a mid-air 180 turnaround and an impression upon his ascent up the ladder my friend, is comical at best my friend. They would have been stepping all over the place with that level of activity in the dark, and their prints would have shown this, IF they had been wearing normal shoes or boots. That one lone foot-covering imprint investigators did capture shows it was created with a higher degree of force, ie. the ladder climber coming down hard in that particular spot. There's no debating you here if you are going to continue to engage in fantasy. Again, the area you say would not leave evidence of prints actually DID by someone who weighed substantially less and wasn't carrying anything at all - nevermind a LADDER! We know because the smaller prints were there. Anne later claimed they were made by her earlier in the day. Now you're saying "hard heels." No doubt if Anne was wearing snowshoes even, if she or anyone else had stepped there evidence would have existed that she did because of the muddy situation that necessitated the boardwalk be there in the first place, and the fact we have prints there to prove it. You are having a problem with the implications. That is, there are no prints where there should be. You're own narrative proves this: " they would have been stepping all over the place" and yet they WERE NOT and you don't "like" that. So how can that be? Well, the police traversed that boardwalk without "stepping all over the place" so here is your answer. That's how. So do the math. No magical footware, or flying carpet, or blacktop hardened mud only in the places there were no footprints. Next, the lone print facing the house was created by someone stepping back off the boardwalk prior to climbing the ladder. It's where the mud on the top of the bottom shutter came from, and the reason why the footprints in the room were situated so far apart like that. It WAS made from a one-footed man because there was only mud on one foot. So you're "higher degree of force" is utter nonsense too.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2020 13:49:54 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh was a little over five feet tall. A woman of that height, especially at that time, would not wear a size 8 shoe! She would most likely have worn a 5 1/2 or size 6 at the most. A size 8 would have been worn by a much taller woman or by a man about 5'7 or so. We don't know the size of the smaller prints. Only that they were "smaller" than the other two sets leading away from the house. They were immediately presumed to be female because of their size and Anne claimed she had made them. Whether or not she actually did is up for debate if you ask me. Williamson claimed to have seen another print by the ladder with a heel mark which led him to believe a female was involved.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 30, 2020 14:16:35 GMT -5
John Condon pointed out a shoe print at the cemetery which he claimed had been made by the member of the kidnapping gang with whom he had conversation. That print was a size 8. Possibly the same person made both imprints, one at the kidnapping site and the other at the cemetery.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 30, 2020 14:31:42 GMT -5
Mrs. Lindbergh said that she had been out walking the previous afternoon, so the assumption was made that the prints were hers. In "New Jersey's Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial" by Mark Falzini and James Davidson, the comment is made that Oscar Bush "followed what appeared to be two sets of footprints through a field to Featherbed Lane." Anne did not report that she walked to Featherbed Lane. In response to a question I posed to Mr. Falzini two years ago, he responded that the footprints initially led to a chicken coop.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 30, 2020 14:39:48 GMT -5
I just found the message Mr. Fanzine wrote to me in answer to my question. He reported that the footprints were not actually measured but that the led to a chicken coop which was situated in a direction away from Featherbed Lane. The story that the footprints led to Featherbed Lane was manufactured and then repeated by the press. Laura Vitray's name was mentioned in connection to the story.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 30, 2020 16:13:50 GMT -5
A size 8 Men's shoe is about a size 10 in women's shoes. Women's feet are much narrower in width as well.
|
|