Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 1, 2020 12:55:01 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. Hooo Boy.. I'm engaging in fantasy? It's absolutely priceless when the kettle essentially calls the entire house black never mind just the kitchen, by first attempting to rewrite the book on Newtonian physics, which you're clearly trying to do here. As I'm unfamiliar with these new order laws of yours, perhaps you can just provide a very brief summation as to how the kidnappers did what they clearly did on that skinny little boardwalk on a dark windy night, while only leaving one footprint impression near the ladder (facing the house no less!) and absolutely no other trace of their presence around the boardwalk. Let's leave little "light-as-a-feather" Anne with her non-kidnapper footwear and telltale prints out of the equation for a minute here, as it seems to throw you into fits of surrealistic comparison. The truth is you haven't yet satisfactorily explained your conclusions. You are stuck in the most basic of paradigms Michael by accepting in lockstep fashion, your source documentation on this account as holy gospel. I have a strong feeling you just don't want to entertain anything outside the box now that would clearly upset another wing in the grand house of cards. Take a good look at the photo below, and at the same time, try to remember just how critical you can be about the limitations of the reports created by those NJSP traffic cops, when you're next agreeing with Governor Hoffman's criticisms about how this case was botched from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 2, 2020 10:05:14 GMT -5
As I'm unfamiliar with these new order laws of yours, perhaps you can just provide a very brief summation as to how the kidnappers did what they clearly did on that skinny little boardwalk on a dark windy night, while only leaving one footprint impression near the ladder (facing the house no less!) and absolutely no other trace of their presence around the boardwalk. Let's leave little "light-as-a-feather" Anne with her non-kidnapper footwear and telltale prints out of the equation for a minute here, as it seems to throw you into fits of surrealistic comparison. The truth is you haven't yet satisfactorily explained your conclusions. You are stuck in the most basic of paradigms Michael by accepting in lockstep fashion, your source documentation on this account as holy gospel. I have a strong feeling you just don't want to entertain anything outside the box now that would clearly upset another wing in the grand house of cards. Take a good look at the photo below, and at the same time, try to remember just how critical you can be about the limitations of the reports created by those NJSP traffic cops, when you're next agreeing with Governor Hoffman's criticisms about how this case was botched from the beginning. What in the hell is going on with you right now Joe? On one hand you are highly agitated about any opinion I happen to give, but now seem to be demanding one. So if I spoon feed you banana pudding that's cool but if its strained peas you'll just spit them back at me, scream, and knock the jar onto the floor. The boardwalk was not only narrow, as testified to it was various widths depending upon the section. So its even worse then just "skinny" boards. The problem for you is that, instead of actually trying to process that environment, you are instead making excuses for it. Ask yourself "why" you are doing this. Next, again, the police avoided this mud by successfully navigating the board walk. They accomplished this by being extremely careful and utilizing their flashlights so as to see where to step. So the feat was not only possible it actually happened by police who ventured there. The problem is that we are supposed to believe the kidnappers were acting under the cover of darkness, weren't familiar with the situation, and were acting quickly. None of these things make sense when looking at the physical evidence in the mud under that window. So naturally, you invent "firm mud" in those places where prints should have been as your only option, while simultaneously ignoring the prints that did exist along that same area not made by the "kidnappers." And again, these were made by a female and if Anne then by a much lighter person (by a lot). So what really happened? Well, we could go by your fictional narrative or we could consider something else. First, that would be they had to know everything about the muddy situation that existed there. Next, they either negotiated it during the day or used a light source themselves during the night - just like the police had done. I've got no problem thinking outside the box, but to consider an explanation involving a condition that clearly did not exist does not qualify as one. As I've stated here several times: I believe the key to learning what happened is to accumulate as many sources as possible. Stack them to the ceiling if need be. Once one is satisfied with what they have then its time to read and evaluate. I have reports, statements, affidavits, memos, letters, transcripts, testimony, manuscripts, books, and newspaper articles from all sources. That would include the Treasury Department, (F)BI, Department of Labor, County Detectives, Newark Police, Jersey City Police, NJSP, Local Police, County Detectives, Private Investigators, Governor Hoffman, Reporters, Locals, Politicians, and the General Public. I merely used the simple formula outlined above to conclude what I have. Whether you believe me or not, I truly do not like telling anyone what to think or believe. So I'm hoping you take a look at the situation as it actually existed then try to come up with an answer, or at the very least, several viable options to at least consider.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 2, 2020 12:14:54 GMT -5
As I'm unfamiliar with these new order laws of yours, perhaps you can just provide a very brief summation as to how the kidnappers did what they clearly did on that skinny little boardwalk on a dark windy night, while only leaving one footprint impression near the ladder (facing the house no less!) and absolutely no other trace of their presence around the boardwalk. Let's leave little "light-as-a-feather" Anne with her non-kidnapper footwear and telltale prints out of the equation for a minute here, as it seems to throw you into fits of surrealistic comparison. The truth is you haven't yet satisfactorily explained your conclusions. You are stuck in the most basic of paradigms Michael by accepting in lockstep fashion, your source documentation on this account as holy gospel. I have a strong feeling you just don't want to entertain anything outside the box now that would clearly upset another wing in the grand house of cards. Take a good look at the photo below, and at the same time, try to remember just how critical you can be about the limitations of the reports created by those NJSP traffic cops, when you're next agreeing with Governor Hoffman's criticisms about how this case was botched from the beginning. What in the hell is going on with you right now Joe? On one hand you are highly agitated about any opinion I happen to give, but now seem to be demanding one. So if I spoon feed you banana pudding that's cool but if its strained peas you'll just spit them back at me, scream, and knock the jar onto the floor. The boardwalk was not only narrow, as testified to it was various widths depending upon the section. So its even worse then just "skinny" boards. The problem for you is that, instead of actually trying to process that environment, you are instead making excuses for it. Ask yourself "why" you are doing this. Next, again, the police avoided this mud by successfully navigating the board walk. They accomplished this by being extremely careful and utilizing their flashlights so as to see where to step. So the feat was not only possible it actually happened by police who ventured there. The problem is that we are supposed to believe the kidnappers were acting under the cover of darkness, weren't familiar with the situation, and were acting quickly. None of these things make sense when looking at the physical evidence in the mud under that window. So naturally, you invent "firm mud" in those places where prints should have been as your only option, while simultaneously ignoring the prints that did exist along that same area not made by the "kidnappers." And again, these were made by a female and if Anne then by a much lighter person (by a lot). So what really happened? Well, we could go by your fictional narrative or we could consider something else. First, that would be they had to know everything about the muddy situation that existed there. Next, they either negotiated it during the day or used a light source themselves during the night - just like the police had done. I've got no problem thinking outside the box, but to consider an explanation involving a condition that clearly did not exist does not qualify as one. As I've stated here several times: I believe the key to learning what happened is to accumulate as many sources as possible. Stack them to the ceiling if need be. Once one is satisfied with what they have then its time to read and evaluate. I have reports, statements, affidavits, memos, letters, transcripts, testimony, manuscripts, books, and newspaper articles from all sources. That would include the Treasury Department, (F)BI, Department of Labor, County Detectives, Newark Police, Jersey City Police, NJSP, Local Police, County Detectives, Private Investigators, Governor Hoffman, Reporters, Locals, Politicians, and the General Public. I merely used the simple formula outlined above to conclude what I have. Whether you believe me or not, I truly do not like telling anyone what to think or believe. So I'm hoping you take a look at the situation as it actually existed then try to come up with an answer, or at the very least, several viable options to at least consider. Absolutely no reason for agitation Michael, even if you are stuck in the mucky mud of your own making here, when quite ironically there actually was none in the area we're talking about. You may want to run all of this by a forensic crime scene analyst specializing in footprint evidence someday as opposed to going by the source documentation written by your trusty boys in blue and yellow uniforms who were suddenly pressed into doing much more than nabbing highway speeders and issuing parking tickets on the night of March 1, 1932. Before I go on to other things, please just give me your best take on why the kidnappers actually would have felt compelled in the first place to not leave a trace in the ground around the boardwalk while traversing from the driveway to the south-east corner of the house, when only minutes later, they go tromping off to the east through real bonafide mucky mud, leaving behind one very telltale trail? I'll bet you have a tough time doing that without going off topic again and carting out another sackload of general research sources.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 2, 2020 12:32:38 GMT -5
Absolutely no reason for agitation Michael, even if you are stuck in the mucky mud of your own making here, when quite ironically there actually was none in the area we're talking about. You may want to run all of this by a forensic crime scene analyst specializing in footprint evidence someday as opposed to going by the source documentation written by your trusty boys in blue and yellow who were suddenly pressed into doing much more than nabbing highway speeders and issuing parking tickets on the night of March 1, 1932. Before I go on to other things, please just give me your best take on why the kidnappers actually would have felt compelled to not leave a trace in the ground around the boardwalk while traversing from the driveway to the south-east corner of the house, when only minutes later, they go tromping off to the east through real bonafide mucky mud, leaving a very telltale trail? I'll bet you have a tough time doing that, without going off topic again and carting out another sackload of general but totally unrelated research sources. If you think stepping in mud wouldn't leave a print then I do think you shouldn't listen to me but instead contact a crime scene analyst. If you don't think they'd consult the source documentation to get a better idea of the situation then you're on drugs. Like I've said, some prints might be better than others but you are going to leave evidence that someone walked there under those conditions. It's basic common sense given what we already do know. What scenario do you want? The banana pudding version? Why are you finding it so hard to consider the various possibilities yourself? There are several to choose from but you're hell bent on coloring outside the lines by creating your own version. Can we both agree that Jesus wasn't there to walk on water? So no one walked on mud carrying a ladder without leaving a print of some kind.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 2, 2020 18:43:52 GMT -5
Absolutely no reason for agitation Michael, even if you are stuck in the mucky mud of your own making here, when quite ironically there actually was none in the area we're talking about. You may want to run all of this by a forensic crime scene analyst specializing in footprint evidence someday as opposed to going by the source documentation written by your trusty boys in blue and yellow who were suddenly pressed into doing much more than nabbing highway speeders and issuing parking tickets on the night of March 1, 1932. Before I go on to other things, please just give me your best take on why the kidnappers actually would have felt compelled to not leave a trace in the ground around the boardwalk while traversing from the driveway to the south-east corner of the house, when only minutes later, they go tromping off to the east through real bonafide mucky mud, leaving a very telltale trail? I'll bet you have a tough time doing that, without going off topic again and carting out another sackload of general but totally unrelated research sources. If you think stepping in mud wouldn't leave a print then I do think you shouldn't listen to me but instead contact a crime scene analyst. If you don't think they'd consult the source documentation to get a better idea of the situation then you're on drugs. Like I've said, some prints might be better than others but you are going to leave evidence that someone walked there under those conditions. It's basic common sense given what we already do know. What scenario do you want? The banana pudding version? Why are you finding it so hard to consider the various possibilities yourself? There are several to choose from but you're hell bent on coloring outside the lines by creating your own version. Can we both agree that Jesus wasn't there to walk on water? So no one walked on mud carrying a ladder without leaving a print of some kind. As I thought.. no reason according to you for them to be so clandestine in their tiptoe approach along that skinny little boardwalk. I guess according to you they must have done it for sh!+s and giggles, considering the fact they tromped off in the real live mud farther east of the house a few minutes later. Oh, wait just a tick.. according to your defensive strategy, they could now have possibly struck during daylight hours. What the??!! Now we're into a bit of a mess, aren't we? It seems now we might well have the entire household in on this little caper. It only gets more and more astounding.
|
|
|
Post by Dubb on Oct 3, 2020 8:22:34 GMT -5
Did Ollie have a car at his disposal? One likely furnished by Lindbergh? Surely transportation would be necessary that far out in the country if only for groceries and other necessities - and emergencies.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 3, 2020 9:39:01 GMT -5
Did Ollie have a car at his disposal? One likely furnished by Lindbergh? Surely transportation would be necessary that far out in the country if only for groceries and other necessities - and emergencies. Yes, he had a car at his disposal at all times, but not sure if he owned it or it was provided by the Lindberghs.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 3, 2020 10:03:49 GMT -5
See page 34 in In Search of the Lindbergh Baby by Theon Wright.
Oliver Whateley followed in a separate car behind Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2020 10:05:13 GMT -5
As I thought.. no reason according to you for them to be so clandestine in their tiptoe approach along that skinny little boardwalk. I guess according to you they must have done it for sh!+s and giggles, considering the fact they tromped off in the real live mud farther east of the house a few minutes later. Oh, wait just a tick.. according to your defensive strategy, they could now have possibly struck during daylight hours. What the??!! Now we're into a bit of a mess, aren't we? It seems now we might well have the entire household in on this little caper. It only gets more and more astounding. I've got some bad news for you Joe... You are suffering from a case of "tunnel vision." No worries though, it can be cured. The only problem is that the cure only works if you want it to. So let me start from scratch... What you are doing is seeing something that you do not "like" so you are inventing a scenario to explain it away. So after I suggest that you take a look at the options instead of inventing a "solution" you come up with this? Either its your fantastic invention OR the only other possibility is " sh!+s and giggles." Fortunately, there are many other rational options to consider, but the first step is to examine each part of the situation. Step 1 for example: The approach. Question: Since the area was muddy, and yielded footprints, the why aren't there footprints in places we'd expect them to be? For me, the idea that one of these men was a Wizard and cast a spell to harden the mud just isn't an option. So what are some? Well they range from simple to complicated (Banana Pudding thru and to Strained Peas). One of the Banana Pudding options would be that these men did not want to fall down into the mud while carrying this ladder. How about climbing the ladder, what might be a Banana Pudding option here? Perhaps they did not want to get mud on their feet because it could cause a slip and fall off of the ladder? Or upon entering the nursery causing a fall there? Step 2 for me would be to examine the footprint facing the house near the ladder. Question: Why is that there if they were careful not to step in the mud upon their approach? The Banana pudding answer would be that it was their one mistake by accidentally stepping into the mud prior to climbing the ladder. The amount of mud found on the top of the bottom shutter shows why that step would want to have been avoided under this scenario. Step 3 would be the prints leading away from the house through the yard. Question: Why did they take that route when it was not how they approached? The Banana pudding answer would be that they retreated in haste because they were afraid or startled by something. These are all just the "Banana Pudding" options that exist among many. There are others, and as one begins to properly take a look at this there are ranges of them that will eventually slide over to the "Strained Peas" versions you are so much afraid of. But in order to come to a personal yet logical conclusion one must consider them all first.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 3, 2020 13:21:20 GMT -5
i cherish my copy that harold olson gave mei never read it
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 4, 2020 8:44:10 GMT -5
As I thought.. no reason according to you for them to be so clandestine in their tiptoe approach along that skinny little boardwalk. I guess according to you they must have done it for sh!+s and giggles, considering the fact they tromped off in the real live mud farther east of the house a few minutes later. Oh, wait just a tick.. according to your defensive strategy, they could now have possibly struck during daylight hours. What the??!! Now we're into a bit of a mess, aren't we? It seems now we might well have the entire household in on this little caper. It only gets more and more astounding. I've got some bad news for you Joe... You are suffering from a case of "tunnel vision." No worries though, it can be cured. The only problem is that the cure only works if you want it to. So let me start from scratch... What you are doing is seeing something that you do not "like" so you are inventing a scenario to explain it away. So after I suggest that you take a look at the options instead of inventing a "solution" you come up with this? Either its your fantastic invention OR the only other possibility is " sh!+s and giggles." Fortunately, there are many other rational options to consider, but the first step is to examine each part of the situation. Step 1 for example: The approach. Question: Since the area was muddy, and yielded footprints, the why aren't there footprints in places we'd expect them to be? For me, the idea that one of these men was a Wizard and cast a spell to harden the mud just isn't an option. So what are some? Well they range from simple to complicated (Banana Pudding thru and to Strained Peas). One of the Banana Pudding options would be that these men did not want to fall down into the mud while carrying this ladder. How about climbing the ladder, what might be a Banana Pudding option here? Perhaps they did not want to get mud on their feet because it could cause a slip and fall off of the ladder? Or upon entering the nursery causing a fall there? Step 2 for me would be to examine the footprint facing the house near the ladder. Question: Why is that there if they were careful not to step in the mud upon their approach? The Banana pudding answer would be that it was their one mistake by accidentally stepping into the mud prior to climbing the ladder. The amount of mud found on the top of the bottom shutter shows why that step would want to have been avoided under this scenario. Step 3 would be the prints leading away from the house through the yard. Question: Why did they take that route when it was not how they approached? The Banana pudding answer would be that they retreated in haste because they were afraid or startled by something. These are all just the "Banana Pudding" options that exist among many. There are others, and as one begins to properly take a look at this there are ranges of them that will eventually slide over to the "Strained Peas" versions you are so much afraid of. But in order to come to a personal yet logical conclusion one must consider them all first. With all of these recent meal-inspired meanderings of yours Michael, I’m wondering if you might just be the Gerber Baby all grown up now, but having these fun flashbacks. And yes, I’m sure banana pudding or strained peas were all nice and yummy, if one one was having first course or dessert. After all, we do have to be flexible here and careful not to overlook anything, even when it comes to baby food. Here are the problems with your "Steps." Step 1 – You automatically defer to a position of claiming the area was “muddy” without being specific about how muddy and which part of the area on the night of March 1, due to inadequate reporting of ground conditions present that night. What for example, was the leeward effect offered by the house given the northwest west wind and rain from earlier in the day? If you take a good look at that skinny boardwalk, you’ll notice it doesn’t seem to have any mud on it all really, which tells us yes, it was put there to at some time, in the event it was needed to prevent mud from getting on one’s footwear, but obviously, it really wasn’t necessary at the time for kidnappers wearing soft foot coverings, who simply would not have been able to stay on it under the dark and windy conditions of that night. Or did someone wipe down the boardwalk? Step 2 – Your forward facing step to the left of the left ladder rail was caused by the ladder climber coming down hard right at that spot on descent. Nothing else works here and I can see you’ve offered no strained peas, probably because you’re stuck on banana pudding. For your scenario to work and if the ground was able to register prints of the kidnappers’ soft shoe coverings in that specific area, there would have had to have been other footprints in the ground in the immediate area as he got himself into position to ascend the ladder. Or did the ladder climber fly off the boardwalk, do a 180 in mid-air and then come down there on his left foot? Why wouldn't he have just flown through the window, if he was capable of doing what you're claiming he did? Step 3 – Believe me, I only conclude what I conclude after looking at all of the options, regardless of personal or other theories. Hmmm.. again no strained peas from you on this one. Are you beginning to have issues with the infamous “breadcrumb trail” theory? Finally, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that your take on this classic event has actually inspired a remake of the original Drifters tune. Enjoy! Stuck on this boardwalk Long after the sun Stuck on this boardwalk We ain’t havin’ much fun
Stuck on this boardwalk Can’t we just walk about?* Stuck on this boardwalk For Michael there is no doubt
Stuck on this boardwalk.. boardwalk!
* "No No No! Thou must stay on that skinny little boardwalk on a dark and windy night, while you approach the south-east corner of the house from the driveway, set up one very finnicky, forward collapsing articulated ladder, hold said ladder at it's base for stability, remove the ladder and baby, then retreat to the east where impressionable mucky mud then begins to occur and where you now decide you want to be noticed."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2020 9:06:43 GMT -5
With all of these recent meal-inspired meanderings of yours Michael, I’m wondering if you might just be the Gerber Baby all grown up now, but having these fun flashbacks. And yes, I’m sure banana pudding or strained peas were all nice and yummy, if one one was having first course or dessert. After all, we do have to be flexible here and careful not to overlook anything, even when it comes to baby food. Actually because of the constant resistance to certain real possibilities, and the fact that you kept asking me to spoon fed you, I thought the analogy was appropriate. Step 1 – You automatically defer to a position of claiming the area was “muddy” without being specific about how muddy and which part of the area on the night of March 1, due to inadequate reporting of ground conditions present that night. What for example, was the leeward effect offered by the house given the northwest west wind and rain from earlier in the day? If you take a good look at that skinny boardwalk, you’ll notice it doesn’t seem to have any mud on it all really, which tells us yes, it was put there to at some time, in the event it was needed to prevent mud from getting on one’s footwear, but obviously, it really wasn’t necessary at the time for kidnappers wearing soft foot coverings, who simply would not have been able to stay on it under the dark and windy conditions of that night. Or did someone wipe down the boardwalk? I haven't "automatically" done anything of the sort. I looked at ALL of the sources and what we have is a very muddy situation on that side of the house. A boardwalk was thrown down in that area prior so those who wanted to traverse didn't have to walk in it. Those that ventured off left prints both outside of the boardwalk and inside between the house and the boardwalk. When those who arrived on scene, to include Lindbergh, in order to observe these prints they stayed on that boardwalk. No where does anyone say they walked on certain parts of the ground nearer to the house and besides, once again, we know that wasn't safe because there ARE smaller prints there! So again, you have to ignore a whole hell of a lot to get where apparently you are. The boardwalks lack of mud, from what we can see in the pictures, appears to support that no one ventured off of it into the mud then back on. The kidnappers simply could not have done what you allege without leaving marks in the ground to indicate it. You are totally wearing blinders Joe. Just look at how you are taking these possibilities and trying to make them the only ones that could exist. I've strenuously asserted there are multitudes of scenarios to consider and yet you're acting as though these are the only ones to consider. Next, you are grasping at every straw imaginable to resist what's plainly in front of you. The "leeward" effect, the moon's gravitational pull, swirl, pitch, smoke, drink, etc. etc. Entertaining as it may be, simply try to use your common sense. Step 2 – Your forward facing step to the left of the left ladder rail was caused by the ladder climber coming down hard right at that spot on descent. Nothing else works here and I can see you’ve offered no strained peas, probably because you’re stuck on banana pudding. For your scenario to work and if the ground was able to register prints of the kidnappers’ soft shoe coverings in that specific area, there would have had to have been other footprints in the ground in the immediate area as he got himself into position to ascend the ladder. Or did the ladder climber fly off the boardwalk, do a 180 in mid-air and then come down there on his left foot? I beg to differ. You're own "theory" of approach disproves your position here. You want your cake and eat it to but that only works in really bad movies. If there was no mud where they walked, the boardwalk was clean, they did not make that print prior to the climb, where did the mud on that shutter come from? Here's Bornmann's observations concerning the prints in the nursery: He saw no marks on the window, but assumed someone came in that way grazing the top of the suitcase then coming down onto the floor heading in the direction of the crib. The next step landed on the rug about midway from the window to the crib, which was the last of them, giving Bornmann the impression that someone had mud on only one shoe.(V1 Page 160) Step 3 – Believe me, I only conclude what I conclude after looking at all of the options, regardless of personal or other theories. Hmmm.. again no strained peas from you on this one. Are you beginning to have issues with the infamous “breadcrumb trail” theory? I am trying to get you to come up with differing options to consider. I see what your ulterior motives are right from jump-street but hoped our discussions might get you to drop it and actually be sincere. But you know, one can lead a horse to water but ... well, you get the picture. Yes - you do. But go ahead and pretend some more if you like.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 5, 2020 13:10:00 GMT -5
Michael, I've been following the post exchanges between you and Joe on this topic and I just wanted to post a couple of thoughts. If I were a betting man, I would say that one group of people (excluding tightrope walkers) who could successfully walk that walkway (even under low light conditions and carrying and placing a ladder), it would be carpenters. Construction carpenters become very experienced at walking on very narrow walkways including scaffoldings, foundation walls, floor joists, roof rafters, etc., and yes many times carrying a ladder. If the ladder in the two photos that I am attempting to attach are in the correct location of the ladder prints (and if the uniformed Trooper is standing on the walkway as it appears to me), then I believe that someone experienced with ladders could stand on that walkway and successfully mount the ladder. If a partner is holding the ladder from the walkway to stabilize it, then an experienced ladder climber could swing their leg around to the first rung and use his arms to complete the mount. Not a particularly easy maneuver, but I think totally doable by a strong experienced ladder climber. If the kidnappers were hellbent at this point to leave no footprints at the scene, I think this could be a way for them to do it. Is it possible that when the climber did this mount he momentarily lost some of his balance (ladder movement, etc.) and was forced to take one step back to the ground with one leg (foot) in order to regain his balance. This would result in a somewhat forceful foot impression in the mud next to the ladder. At this point the climber was committed to the climb and had to climb the ladder with one very muddy foot. Obviously these are justs some thoughts on this. Since no one confessed to this crime and subsequently cooperated, all the little details concerning the crime scene may never be totally resolved. So many times all of an Investigator's hypotheses on how a crime occurred are totally and completely crushed when listening to the defendant's detailed confession. Sometimes I would think that defendants got a great deal of satisfaction when during a confession they would hear an Agent say "oh, so that's how the hell it happened". Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2020 10:49:16 GMT -5
Michael, I've been following the post exchanges between you and Joe on this topic and I just wanted to post a couple of thoughts. If I were a betting man, I would say that one group of people (excluding tightrope walkers) who could successfully walk that walkway (even under low light conditions and carrying and placing a ladder), it would be carpenters. Construction carpenters become very experienced at walking on very narrow walkways including scaffoldings, foundation walls, floor joists, roof rafters, etc., and yes many times carrying a ladder. If the ladder in the two photos that I am attempting to attach are in the correct location of the ladder prints (and if the uniformed Trooper is standing on the walkway as it appears to me), then I believe that someone experienced with ladders could stand on that walkway and successfully mount the ladder. If a partner is holding the ladder from the walkway to stabilize it, then an experienced ladder climber could swing their leg around to the first rung and use his arms to complete the mount. Not a particularly easy maneuver, but I think totally doable by a strong experienced ladder climber. If the kidnappers were hellbent at this point to leave no footprints at the scene, I think this could be a way for them to do it. Is it possible that when the climber did this mount he momentarily lost some of his balance (ladder movement, etc.) and was forced to take one step back to the ground with one leg (foot) in order to regain his balance. This would result in a somewhat forceful foot impression in the mud next to the ladder. At this point the climber was committed to the climb and had to climb the ladder with one very muddy foot. Obviously these are justs some thoughts on this. Since no one confessed to this crime and subsequently cooperated, all the little details concerning the crime scene may never be totally resolved. So many times all of an Investigator's hypotheses on how a crime occurred are totally and completely crushed when listening to the defendant's detailed confession. Sometimes I would think that defendants got a great deal of satisfaction when during a confession they would hear an Agent say "oh, so that's how the hell it happened". Just a note on the photos. I believe these were both taken on March 3rd. Pictures of the scratches on the wall, and of the mud on the top of the bottom shutter were also taken on this day as well. The mud was eventually removed, placed in a box, and is still at the NJSP Archives believe it or not. I read your suggestions Irvin and they immediately bring to mind those photos of workmen back in the 20s and 30s on skyscrapers walking around on beams without any safety measures. Anyway, if the climb was legit, I think your suggestions are good ones. As far as being wrong sometimes, I'd wager you were right more often than not but I get what you're saying. Funny part is, in my experiences anyway, you cannot judge a book by its cover. The idea that " this guy isn't going to say anything" or " he's not the type to do this sort of thing" should be completely and permanently banned. Men I thought would never in a million years talk would in record time, and those who I thought were " the good guys" sometimes turned out to be anything but. Like they say, there's always a few bad apples but its hard to be prepared for it nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 8, 2020 6:57:42 GMT -5
it's time to consider the approaches that have been taken to this famous case. We have here a crime that was committed by a group of amateurs who did some planning and had some luck but committed one serious mistake that ended in the death of the child. Combine this with a bungled investigation into the crime and many false stories added by those who wanted attention or reward. Over the years a number of "researchers" have come forward to propose one possible theory after another, many of them fanciful, some totally unrealistic. What is needed is a new approach. Yes, many years have passed, but the case has not passed away. We need step by step to take a look at what actually happened, consider actions in terms of possibilities, and use science and common sense to reconstruct what happened--not guesswork. The problem with many researchers to date is that they have a theory and sift through the actions looking for clues that support that theory while ignoring everything else. What is needed now is a new look at the case with no theory in mind but an objective examination of what happened with reasonable inferences based on the facts and science. This is a method employed by trained researchers and may yet lead us to a conclusion based on reality.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 8, 2020 7:54:37 GMT -5
At the onset we need to understand that there is a distinction between real crime and crimes found in mystery fiction. Fictional crime, whether those of Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle etc. has a number of identifiable motifs and operates for the most part within those motifs entirely under the control of the author. Real crime does not resemble fictional crime-- except under deliberate circumstances when a criminal actually plans a real crime after the fictional motifs, but this is rare. The kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby was a real case and so cannot be solved or approached in the manner of solving a fictional crime. The kidnappers of the Lindbergh child were not likely devotees of Arthur Conan Doyle. So the criteria for solving fictional mysteries should not be used to solve this case. We are bound to reality, and coincidence does happen, but there are many coincidences in the Lindbergh case and these need to be seriously. They may not be, in fact, coincidences. Writers of fiction often use coincidence to move the plot (story line), but again, this is not fiction.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2020 9:02:07 GMT -5
Michael, I've been following the post exchanges between you and Joe on this topic and I just wanted to post a couple of thoughts. If I were a betting man, I would say that one group of people (excluding tightrope walkers) who could successfully walk that walkway (even under low light conditions and carrying and placing a ladder), it would be carpenters. Construction carpenters become very experienced at walking on very narrow walkways including scaffoldings, foundation walls, floor joists, roof rafters, etc., and yes many times carrying a ladder. If the ladder in the two photos that I am attempting to attach are in the correct location of the ladder prints (and if the uniformed Trooper is standing on the walkway as it appears to me), then I believe that someone experienced with ladders could stand on that walkway and successfully mount the ladder. If a partner is holding the ladder from the walkway to stabilize it, then an experienced ladder climber could swing their leg around to the first rung and use his arms to complete the mount. Not a particularly easy maneuver, but I think totally doable by a strong experienced ladder climber. If the kidnappers were hellbent at this point to leave no footprints at the scene, I think this could be a way for them to do it. Is it possible that when the climber did this mount he momentarily lost some of his balance (ladder movement, etc.) and was forced to take one step back to the ground with one leg (foot) in order to regain his balance. This would result in a somewhat forceful foot impression in the mud next to the ladder. At this point the climber was committed to the climb and had to climb the ladder with one very muddy foot. Obviously these are justs some thoughts on this. Since no one confessed to this crime and subsequently cooperated, all the little details concerning the crime scene may never be totally resolved. So many times all of an Investigator's hypotheses on how a crime occurred are totally and completely crushed when listening to the defendant's detailed confession. Sometimes I would think that defendants got a great deal of satisfaction when during a confession they would hear an Agent say "oh, so that's how the hell it happened". Hi Lurp, and thanks for weighing in on this discussion. Michael and I can get pretty colourful in our language as we address each other’s points, to the extent where the real message can sometimes become overshadowed by hyperbole. We began studying this case about the same time and have been hammering away at it, and each other most of the time since it would seem. I can assure everyone though, it’s all good naturedly. I’ve attached the crime scene photo of the ground where the lower ladder rails imprinted the soil under the weight of the kidnapper who apparently ascended and descended. From the attached link and based on the hole formations and the fact the holes remained open and did not close over after removal of the ladder, this type of soil appears to be in the range of clay to clay loam, with a moisture content at 50% or greater. www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_051845.pdfThe other noticeable thing I find about the crime scene photo, is just how narrow that boardwalk (6” tongue and groove flooring?) is where multiple kidnappers would have had to have raised and removed the ladder, assuming the desired number of sections were already connected. I understand your point about how carpenters, roofers and other tradesmen have by necessity, developed an adeptness at navigating places that the average person would find much more of a challenge. I’d like to know your thoughts as to why you feel the kidnappers would have felt compelled to remain on that boardwalk given the actual soil conditions that appeared to have been present in that immediate area by the house, when minutes later they retreated to the east leaving a telltale set of footprints in ground that was decidedly softer and impressionable, and which were not at all difficult for investigators to follow. Where I'm really going with all of this. I feel it's absolutely critical to most accurately determine the exact soil conditions alongside the house and beyond, (Where is Liz Pagel?) in order to determine the true chain of events within what was either an actual ladder climb in and out of the nursery, a one-way entry into the nursery, or some kind of staging that was only meant to appear like an entry and exit.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2020 18:12:13 GMT -5
At the onset we need to understand that there is a distinction between real crime and crimes found in mystery fiction. Fictional crime, whether those of Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle etc. has a number of identifiable motifs and operates for the most part within those motifs entirely under the control of the author. Real crime does not resemble fictional crime--except under deliberate circumstances when a criminal actually plans a real crime after the fictional motifs, but this is rare. The kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby was a real case and so cannot be solved or approached in the manner of solving a fictional crime. The kidnappers of the Lindbergh child were not likely devotees of Arthur Conan Doyle. So the criteria for solving fictional mysteries should not be used to solve this case. We are bound to reality, and coincidence does happen, but there are many coincidences in the Lindbergh case and these need to be seriously. They may not be, in fact, coincidences. Writers of fiction often use coincidence to move the plot (story line), but again, this is not fiction. In theory this sounds great but in reality ... not so much. What do I mean? Well, what is "fiction" and what isn't? Who gets to determine what it is and who does not? For example, I grew up with "historical facts" about the case that relied on bad information. I didn't find that out until I read the actual source documentation for myself. I'll go back to a simple example... History records that Prosecutor Marshall asked Lindbergh at the morgue if the body was his child. That "fact" had been solidified after being repeated by just about every book on the case. That is until I read Marshall's secret Grand Jury testimony that he wasn't there that night - and even then some don't like what they believe my theory is, so they continue to say Marshall was there attempting to undermine me instead of embracing the truth. Anyway - the FACT is a game of "whisper down the ally" was the actual purveyor of truth when it came to the Marshall/Lindbergh/Body story. And listen, there have been people who have told me to my face that I was "wrong" about FACTS that I read in a report - not because they read the report (they didn't) but because of their profession. So for example, by this argument, a Lawyer is always right. Yet, they are always opposed in any case. And somebody wins and somebody loses right? Same with Handwriting Experts. So if they are wrong in court they could be wrong elsewhere - especially if they haven't done their homework or actually read the source material. Or how about a Professor? I recently read one's book and there are mistakes where there shouldn't be. How dare I? So again, who should be the person who determines what is fiction? Should it be Joe? He's done quite a bit of research. But with all due respect to him, he's got emotional attachments to certain charters. So, for example, mention something negative about Condon and he won't even consider it. Instead his mind is on speed-dial with about ten different excuses designed specifically to neutralize the point. Same with Lindbergh. He hates the idea that he's considered a suspect so any mention of it draws an immediate negative response regardless of the point itself - he'd argue the sky wasn't blue if it was somehow connected to a theory that involved Lindbergh. Next, I've heard many LE over the years tell me they don't "believe" in coincidence. I happen to. But what I don't believe in is coincidence piled upon coincidence. Same with luck - it happens. But when it starts to happen everywhere there is something else going on. So what's fiction? There are some people who believe that MS-13 isn't real. So if I start to tell a story about my experiences concerning that gang those people will label that story "fiction." When its not.
So I'll rely on myself to determine what I consider fact and/or fiction and continue to use discussion/debate on this board to make adjustments when necessary. In the places we do not know then the "possibilities" need to be examined. Get enough possibilities where the dots start to line up then logical theories emerge. Some are better than others but again, its up to the individual to decide that for themselves. Of course I'm all ears to whatever positions you have, as always, and welcome them. So don't let my rant dissuade you. Sometimes I just need to post what's on my mind at the time I'm thinking about it. ++++++ Sorry Joe
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 9, 2020 3:32:01 GMT -5
Perhaps I should have defined the word "fiction." It's not a matter of "truth" versus "lies." Fiction means short stories and novels, literature that is created by authors to instruct or entertain. Crime fiction is a literary genre that was created in the nineteenth century and became popular in the early twentieth century. The writers of this literature use certain motifs to create interest in the readers. My point is that real crime is not like literary crime and should not be treated as such to discover guilt and innocence. The Lindbergh kidnapping was a real crime, not a short story such as Doyle or Christie would have written, and the solution is not reached by the methods they used in their story lines--which obviously is under the control of the author.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 9, 2020 9:43:58 GMT -5
Joe, I always enjoy reading the post exchanges between you and Michael. The 20 plus years or so that you both have devoted to the LKC is absolutely amazing. Some of the people writing books on this case would be better served if they just had a quarter of the knowledge and research you all have. The recall that you both possess concerning the documents, facts, evidence, cast of characters,etc. is second to none. I can tell that you both respect each others knowledge and dedication on this case. One can learn a great deal by reading the opposite interpretations you both have of certain evidence and events. With my limited knowledge I attempt to keep an open mind as to what actually occurred on March 1st, and the "bantering" posts between you and Michael help me to do that.
Thanks for posting the photo and link to the soil moisture article. I agree with you that the soil conditions around the Lindbergh house on March 1st are important when considering the value of the footprint evidence. Obviously crime scene evidence is crucial to any criminal investigation, and normally you only get one "crack' at it. I can see your point that the soil conditons that are very close to the house foundation can be different from the soil further away from the house (especially the side of the house that is protected from driven rain storms). I also agree that so many of the NJSP reports (though plentiful) are really lacking in the required thoroughness. Many that i have read just leave me asking "where is the rest of the information". At this point I don't know if it is possible to actually know the real soil conditions on that side of the house between the walkway and the house foundation on that night. Michael has certainly shown that there were woman's tracks in that area allegedly made by Anne that very afternoon. Additionally he has shown that virtually everyone that night attested to the very overall muddy conditions (from having grown up in Hopewell I do know that the months of March and April were always muddy affairs).
The crime scene appears to indicate no suspect footprint evidence on the approach to the house, but very muddy footprint tracks on the retreat. If this were a real kidnapping (as I currently believe), this would suggest to me that the kidnappers may have been attempting to perpetrate this crime as quickly as possible and with as little disturbance to the crime scene as possible---but something happened to change the plan. They approached the nursury window area via the driveway and then the walkway leaving no real footprints. Two suspect with the ladder and one standing back as a lookout. Having taken this careful approach to the house, I would suggest that they planned to retreat via this same route with the child and the ladder leaving very little footprint evidence, and getting back to their vehicle quickly. Something happened as the snatch was underway and they paniced (it certainly appears that at the very least one of the ladder rails split and who knows what kind of noise and commotion that created). At this point the kidnappers wanted to get away from the house quickly, and they wanted no part of retreating towards the front of the house and the driveway. They abandoned the ladder and used the much longer route of the "construction drive" to stay hidden on their retreat to the vehicle (I think they certainly could have been familiar with this rough drive). This was a wet area that night and they were forced to forget any idea of not leaving footprints.
I've always thought that reporter DeLong's confidential interview of Schwarzkopf conducted shortly after the kidnapping provided a good look at what the NJSP initially believed happened that night. Delong had apparently agreed to not immediately release any of the interview details thus allowing Schwarzkopf to be candid with his answers. Schwarzkopf clearly relates that there were three sets of footprints at the scene, two near the ladder and one standing back as if "a lookout". Investigators followed these footprints down the construction drive (one in front with two following) as they proceeded to where it came out on the real driveway at the front road entrance. They crossed the driveway and continued a short distance north past the chickenhouse (this was where the Investigators observed dog tracks along with the footprints suggesting the neighbors barking dogs had joined in). The tracks ended near the road alongside of tire tracks (at this location north of the driveway entrance, Lindbergh would never have seen the vehicle if he had come home at this time as he would have approached his driveway from the south). To me it makes little sense to believe that the kidnappers took great care on their approach to the house and then to retreat leaving that trail of muddy prints and taking a much longer route to their vehicle unless they truly paniced and feared going towards the front of the house and back down that driveway. They were committed to getting back to their vehicle so a longer muddy route was their only choice, and probably at this point they had no interest in hauling that ladder with them.
I'm just attempting (not very succinctly unfortunately) to explain some of my current thoughts on this crime scene. There are certainly many, many varibles here and I know that many posters believe that this was a staged crime scene. I have seen staged crime scenes in Arson for Profit investigations and at this time, for me, the LKC crime scene just doesn't pass the smell test for having been staged.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2020 9:49:09 GMT -5
Michael, I find the irony absolutely palpable here. Have you been reading Goebbels again? This ongoing OCD kind of insistence that I have an emotional attachment to Lindbergh and Condon, when I believe what we’re actually experiencing is little more than an outward projection of your own denial. My attachment to each and every character, begins and ends with a desire to know as much about them as I reasonably can, both good and bad within a neutral sense and relative to their involvement in this case. As individuals, both Lindbergh and Condon in real life, would probably annoy me to no end. I respect some of their personal achievements, but honestly I don’t even really like them and probably would have had little to do with either one if we had somehow ended up within the same circles. I’m curious though if there might be someone else you’re now in the process of grooming to join this little fraternity, as the first two begin to wear thin. What about Breckinridge? Through his very close relationship to Lindbergh and later affiliation with Condon, this savvy and well-respected legal mind must have known something about the “fauxnapping” you’re in lockstep with, right? Sigh.. I suppose he’ll be next on your list as someone I’m secretly emotionally attached to, and wouldn’t be surprised if we’ll soon be hearing more of that familiar drip.. drip.. drip.. Getting back to the subject of denial and projection, I’m no psychologist but I know that every one of them will tell you they go hand-in-hand. Let’s talk a little here about that dashing and rapier-like image of Richard Hauptmann, calculating his next brilliant move within the courtroom as he fights for his life, that you adopted as your personal avatar and whom you’ve previously stated was the “Face of the Case.” Nice try there, but I’d venture it’s much more about your personal man-crush affections and admiration for the unfortunate carpenter, whom you believe got hung out to dry by Big Bad Lindy and the Wicked Old Nitwit of the Bronx. And what about those miserable mug shots of the sorry sack of nails that have for years adorned your website home page, with his characteristic self-absorbed theme: “Better they should let a hundred men live than to send me, an innocent man, to the chair. What harm could I do anybody behind these walls? Why don’t they hold me until we get a chance to prove my innocence?” Innocence.. lol? Good one there, old sock! I don’t think it’s too difficult to see what's really going on here and the reason and agenda behind all of this haranguing about Lindbergh and Condon you’ve been tossing my way all these years.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 9, 2020 10:12:11 GMT -5
Hi Lurp. Great post above. For a long time I viewed the crime scene in a similar way to what you describe--that the kidnappers panicked and ran off--but then it occurred to me that there was no indication of a panic really. That boardwalk was very narrow, so if the kidnappers panicked, wouldn't there have been a scramble of footprints in the area below the nursery window? Instead, they seemed to manage to stay on the boardwalk, except for one stray footprint, and then walked away, along the route you describe. In short, to me, they seemed calm and deliberate throughout. And being calm and deliberate, there was no reason for them to waste getaway time or leave behind possibly-identifiable footprints by taking off through a muddy field in the dark--especially when they had a car and must've used it to drive up to the house, since there were no approach prints. Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out to avoid being tracked? All these reasons are why I lean towards a staged crime scene.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2020 10:16:24 GMT -5
Perhaps I should have defined the word "fiction." It's not a matter of "truth" versus "lies." Fiction means short stories and novels, literature that is created by authors to instruct or entertain. Crime fiction is a literary genre that was created in the nineteenth century and became popular in the early twentieth century. The writers of this literature use certain motifs to create interest in the readers. My point is that real crime is not like literary crime and should not be treated as such to discover guilt and innocence. The Lindbergh kidnapping was a real crime, not a short story such as Doyle or Christie would have written, and the solution is not reached by the methods they used in their story lines--which obviously is under the control of the author. Okay I've got you now. I can't really relate since I haven't read a novel cover to cover since high school and those books had nothing to do with crime at all. The only novel that concerns this that I've ever even opened was Jim Bahm's book for the reasons that are mentioned in V1. “Better they should let a hundred men live than to send me, an innocent man, to the chair. What harm could I do anybody behind these walls? Why don’t they hold me until we get a chance to prove my innocence?” Innocence.. lol? Good one there, old sock! I don’t think it’s too difficult to see what's really going on here and the reason and agenda behind all of this haranguing about Lindbergh and Condon you’ve been tossing my way all these years. The Hauptmann quote has nothing to do with my personal feelings about anything actually. I simply felt it was a fit for placement under his mugshot. Anyway, I thought you'd enjoy what I wrote about your attitudes concerning the case and your reaction certainly did not disappoint! A little slow on the trigger though as I expected it sooner. I'm just attempting (not very succinctly unfortunately) to explain some of my current thoughts on this crime scene. There are certainly many, many varibles here and I know that many posters believe that this was a staged crime scene. I have seen staged crime scenes in Arson for Profit investigations and at this time, for me, the LKC crime scene just doesn't pass the smell test for having been staged. This is an excellent post. Back in college I had a Professor in one of my classes that used to have us do two scenarios. One to explain the circumstances for innocence and the other to explain the exact same situation as indication of guilt. Looking at it from that perspective, this would be one for the "real" kidnapping theory. And coming from you its a rather important perspective. Hi Lurp. Great post above. For a long time I viewed the crime scene in a similar way to what you describe--that the kidnappers panicked and ran off--but then it occurred to me that there was no indication of a panic really. That boardwalk was very narrow, so if the kidnappers panicked, wouldn't there have been a scramble of footprints in the area below the nursery window? Instead, they seemed to manage to stay on the boardwalk, except for one stray footprint, and then walked away, along the route you describe. In short, to me, they seemed calm and deliberate throughout. And being calm and deliberate, there was no reason for them to waste getaway time or leave behind possibly-identifiable footprints by taking off through the a muddy field in the dark--especially when they had a car and must've used it to drive up to the house, since there were no approach prints. Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out to avoid being tracked? All these reasons are why I lean towards a staged crime scene. And here's one that takes up the staged scene theory. So we're able to look at differing positions as a tool in developing our own personal theories. It may or may not change minds but its possible some may switch over to the other side of it. Heck, from reading both there might be a third theory developed so my idea of one or the other could even be smashed. It's why this board and our exchange of ideas are so important.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2020 11:55:28 GMT -5
Lurp, I’d venture the soil conditions in my back garden are similar in overall nature to that of the original mainly clay-based ground immediately around the east wall of Highfields. I know well that it demonstrates the same kind of appearance and probable characteristics when it’s moisture content is relatively high. This is the kind of ground in which you want to avoid doing any digging or replanting at all costs during the dry summer months, as it can become almost rock-like when it’s moisture content is low. After I cut back all of my perennial hostas and other plants in a couple of weeks, I’m going to do a little simulation experiment to test the imprinting effect of different footwear under similar conditions. I’ll wait until the ground is more saturated with fall rains and just before the snow, when the air temperature is in the 35 – 40F range. I have an old pair of moccasins that I can slip a pair of ribbed socks over, and I’m going to pick up an old pair of ladies 30’s-style shoes at the thrift store. (No worries, I’ll donate them back later!) I weigh in the range of 180 lbs. so I’d be exerting that much force downwards and I can also approximate the step of someone weighing perhaps half that. Anyway, you probably understand where I’m going with this and I’ll report back.
Establishing the true soil conditions at the crime scene are essential if one wants to fully understand what actually took place, especially as in this case where there are so many reasonable questions based upon the physical evidence left behind. I also agree about your comment that the scene at large does not indicate a staging, and I believe researchers these days are probably better informed than many of the original investigators at the scene. I’m not saying source documentation is a dirty word here, but clearly there were things overlooked and got wrong from the very beginning in this case, mainly by state troopers, pulled off their traffic violations routine and pressed into service as investigators in one of the most celebrated cases of the century. Many of them also would have had no opportunity to be able to cross-reference their own findings with other investigators to make further notes as to where they might have gotten something wrong. We also have the benefit of being able to put the pieces from both a broader and more defined perspective through debate dialogue. I understand that for some, the term ”muddy conditions” might mean one thing and one thing only, and probably based on some kind of personal reference, so this can easily lead to speculation. I know that real soil conditions and their area distribution do not work that way. I’ve also talked about how the east wall of the house would have presented a very important leeward effect from what would have been seasonal rains primarily from the north-west, and I don’t believe one single investigator ever even mentioned this effect.
From what I’ve learned to date, I believe a party of probably two kidnappers approached the southeast corner of the house from the driveway area, with ladder and supplies previously dropped off near the house. (Anne’s recollection of hearing what she thought was the sound of car tires on the driveway just past 8:00 pm) They followed the general outline of the boardwalk, which would have slightly visible in the dark, due to its contrasting lighter appearance from the surrounding soil. Their eyes would also have become accustomed to the dark conditions by having traversed the Lindbergh driveway from the main road where their car was parked. I believe they would have had little worry about stepping off the boardwalk, as they would have sized up soil conditions very quickly. They would have stepped off the boardwalk here and there due to what they had to do, but the soil conditions in that immediate area would not have supported printing impressions of their soft foot coverings. Anne most likely would have been wearing at least a small hard heel and her approximately 110 lb. weight would have registered distinct impressions more so than those of the kidnappers. The kidnappers’ original intention would have been to retrace their steps, via the driveway. Tracking across open field would not have crossed their minds unless something catastrophic had happened, ie. splitting of the ladder rail which caused the ladder climber descending to come down hard on his left foot where the impression was observed. The other larger impression to the right could well have been the sack with the child in it, having been dropped. The resulting panic would have caused the kidnappers to lose their focus and want to distance themselves immediately from the house, so they took off directly to the east, eventually realizing they needed to correct their path by turning approximately north-east back to their vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2020 9:50:57 GMT -5
From what I’ve learned to date, I believe a party of probably two kidnappers approached the southeast corner of the house from the driveway area, with ladder and supplies previously dropped off near the house. (Anne’s recollection of hearing what she thought was the sound of car tires on the driveway just past 8:00 pm) They followed the general outline of the boardwalk, which would have slightly visible in the dark, due to its contrasting lighter appearance from the surrounding soil. Their eyes would also have become accustomed to the dark conditions by having traversed the Lindbergh driveway from the main road where their car was parked. I believe they would have had little worry about stepping off the boardwalk, as they would have sized up soil conditions very quickly. They would have stepped off the boardwalk here and there due to what they had to do, but the soil conditions in that immediate area would not have supported printing impressions of their soft foot coverings. Anne most likely would have been wearing at least a small hard heel and her approximately 110 lb. weight would have registered distinct impressions more so than those of the kidnappers. The kidnappers’ original intention would have been to retrace their steps, via the driveway. Tracking across open field would not have crossed their minds unless something catastrophic had happened, ie. splitting of the ladder rail which caused the ladder climber descending to come down hard on his left foot where the impression was observed. The other larger impression to the right could well have been the sack with the child in it, having been dropped. The resulting panic would have caused the kidnappers to lose their focus and want to distance themselves immediately from the house, so they took off directly to the east, eventually realizing they needed to correct their path by turning approximately north-east back to their vehicle. You were doing really good with the above theory up and until you started inventing things. They "sized" up the soil "quickly" but without a light source? And in seconds they knew it better than those who believed it was necessary to put down the boards there in the first place? And of course this completely ignores the evidence, such as the other footprints, which disprove your position. So what to do? Okay, invent "heels" in order to explain those pesky prints (supposedly) coming from a woman during daylight hours who weighed near 100 lbs as a way to explain that MEN, one of which weighed at least 185 lbs. and carrying a Ladder (probably among other things in your scenario) but did not make any prints in the same area. Doesn't work Joe. Even still, I have all of the documentation concerning these prints. Unless you have something I do not, no one noticed a heel in any print between the boardwalk and the house. They are all characterized as "small" or "the smaller" footprints. They were judged as coming from a "woman" because of their size and not because of "heel" marks.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 10, 2020 12:49:34 GMT -5
From what I’ve learned to date, I believe a party of probably two kidnappers approached the southeast corner of the house from the driveway area, with ladder and supplies previously dropped off near the house. (Anne’s recollection of hearing what she thought was the sound of car tires on the driveway just past 8:00 pm) They followed the general outline of the boardwalk, which would have slightly visible in the dark, due to its contrasting lighter appearance from the surrounding soil. Their eyes would also have become accustomed to the dark conditions by having traversed the Lindbergh driveway from the main road where their car was parked. I believe they would have had little worry about stepping off the boardwalk, as they would have sized up soil conditions very quickly. They would have stepped off the boardwalk here and there due to what they had to do, but the soil conditions in that immediate area would not have supported printing impressions of their soft foot coverings. Anne most likely would have been wearing at least a small hard heel and her approximately 110 lb. weight would have registered distinct impressions more so than those of the kidnappers. The kidnappers’ original intention would have been to retrace their steps, via the driveway. Tracking across open field would not have crossed their minds unless something catastrophic had happened, ie. splitting of the ladder rail which caused the ladder climber descending to come down hard on his left foot where the impression was observed. The other larger impression to the right could well have been the sack with the child in it, having been dropped. The resulting panic would have caused the kidnappers to lose their focus and want to distance themselves immediately from the house, so they took off directly to the east, eventually realizing they needed to correct their path by turning approximately north-east back to their vehicle. You were doing really good with the above theory up and until you started inventing things. They "sized" up the soil "quickly" but without a light source? And in seconds they knew it better than those who believed it was necessary to put down the boards there in the first place? And of course this completely ignores the evidence, such as the other footprints, which disprove your position. So what to do? Okay, invent "heels" in order to explain those pesky prints (supposedly) coming from a woman during daylight hours who weighed near 100 lbs as a way to explain that MEN, one of which weighed at least 185 lbs. and carrying a Ladder (probably among other things in your scenario) but did not make any prints in the same area. Doesn't work Joe. Even still, I have all of the documentation concerning these prints. Unless you have something I do not, no one noticed a heel in any print between the boardwalk and the house. They are all characterized as "small" or "the smaller" footprints. They were judged as coming from a "woman" because of their size and not because of "heel" marks. On what basis do you assume that kidnappers who expected to find a darkened nursery, would not have thought about bringing a flashlight? Would have been just a bit shortsighted of them, what? Do you know exactly when those interior tongue-and-groove floorboards were laid alongside the house, or do you perhaps believe there was someone present each day by the corner of the house to lift them if they weren't really needed and then replace them again when they were needed? They had become a fixture, plain and simple Michael whether they were needed at any given time or not. Sorry to throw you for a loop here, but if Anne went for a walk down the driveway on a wet and windy afternoon and then went to the base of the nursery window, she was wearing something similar to this ladies 1930-style shoe, not soft foot coverings like the kidnappers wore. These likely would have made some kind of imprint in the type of soil condition present alongside the house. And please tell us exactly what your exalted source documentation says exactly about the smaller footprints? As in detail about length, width, relief impression detail, suspected type of footwear, estimated force and weight of the individual, etc. Where do you come up with the idea that one of the kidnappers weighed at least 185 lbs.? Source documentation is great, as long as it's accurate, tells a story that is complete and not open to myriad interpretations that are not verifiable against other know facts. I know all too well the one interpretation you like here, as you sift through all of the source documentation you’ve seen, carefully extracting the pieces you need while ignoring such important things as Newtonian physics and plain logic. It’s tempted you like a siren call for well over fifteen years now and doesn’t seem to be letting up any time soon. BTW, I'm reading Suspect No. 1 right now and getting a real enriched dose of that same process.. interesting how your Hauptmann avatar keeps popping into my mind for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 10, 2020 17:30:52 GMT -5
Joe, I'm attempting to attach a photo of the shoes that Anne Linbergh was wearing in some of the photos I have of her. The shoes to the extreme right in the photo appear in photos of her where she is wearing pants, not a dress or skirt. If I remember correctly, it was alleged even on the night of the crime that those footprints near the house wall where made by her. I believe even Hopewell Officer Williamson referred to it on that night. One would certainly think that there is a NJSP report stating that they confirmed this by requesting Anne's shoes from that walk and comparing them directly with the footprints. That report would certainly give a description of the shoes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 10, 2020 18:33:16 GMT -5
Joe, I'm attempting to attach a photo of the shoes that Anne Linbergh was wearing in some of the photos I have of her. The shoes to the extreme right in the photo appear in photos of her where she is wearing pants, not a dress or skirt. If I remember correctly, it was alleged even on the night of the crime that those footprints near the house wall where made by her. I believe even Hopewell Officer Williamson referred to it on that night. One would certainly think that there is a NJSP report stating that they confirmed this by requesting Anne's shoes from that walk and comparing them directly with the footprints. That report would certainly give a description of the shoes. That is a great compilation Lurp, and I recognize most of them from photos now that I think about it! It's my understanding that women in the 1930's, wore at the very least a small heel indoors and out and even when engaged in sporting activities. I’m not sure if investigators even made it to the point of requesting the shoes Anne wore that afternoon, as I believe it became generally accepted by them, that that particular trail of footprints which led to the back of the house, was made by her. As we know from her statement and testimony, she walked down and back up the length of the cinder drive, before detouring to what appears to have been the rear of the house, where she would have thrown the pebbles at the nursery French window to attract Charlie’s attention. This seems evident as the apparent pathway was alongside and fairly tight to the house, and she would have had to have stepped well back into the east side area of the yard if her target had actually been the south-east corner window. The illustrated pair of shoes on the far right I find interesting, as I had thought the saddle type design would have been more of a late 40’s or 50’s style. Do you know when that particular one was taken? All of the other shoe designs appear to have been of a fairly rigid construction with a very defined heel. Because the heel would have been pressing into the ground at somewhere up to and including a weight of about 110 lb., I think it’s clear to see why there appeared such a distinct trail of footprints made by Anne with her conventional footwear, when there was very little trace of the kidnappers by virtue of the soft foot coverings they wore, despite what would have been a considerable disparity in their weight.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 10, 2020 19:10:29 GMT -5
Joe, these are two of the photos where she is wearing those shoes, but I don't have the dates.These shoes on her are the only ones that I have seen that don't have the dress type "clunky" heels. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 10, 2020 19:13:43 GMT -5
Joe, I'm attempting to attach a photo of the shoes that Anne Linbergh was wearing in some of the photos I have of her. The shoes to the extreme right in the photo appear in photos of her where she is wearing pants, not a dress or skirt. If I remember correctly, it was alleged even on the night of the crime that those footprints near the house wall where made by her. I believe even Hopewell Officer Williamson referred to it on that night. One would certainly think that there is a NJSP report stating that they confirmed this by requesting Anne's shoes from that walk and comparing them directly with the footprints. That report would certainly give a description of the shoes. That is a great compilation Lurp, and I recognize most of them from photos now that I think about it! It's my understanding that women in the 1930's, wore at the very least a small heel indoors and out and even when engaged in sporting activities. I’m not sure if investigators even made it to the point of requesting the shoes Anne wore that afternoon, as I believe it became generally accepted by them, that that particular trail of footprints which led to the back of the house, was made by her. As we know from her statement and testimony, she walked down and back up the length of the cinder drive, before detouring to what appears to have been the rear of the house, where she would have thrown the pebbles at the nursery French window to attract Charlie’s attention. This seems evident as the apparent pathway was alongside and fairly tight to the house, and she would have had to have stepped well back into the east side area of the yard if her target had actually been the south-east corner window. The illustrated pair of shoes on the far right I find interesting, as I had thought the saddle type design would have been more of a late 40’s or 50’s style. Do you know when that particular one was taken? All of the other shoe designs appear to have been of a fairly rigid construction with a very defined heel. Because the heel would have been pressing into the ground at somewhere up to and including a weight of about 110 lb., I think it’s clear to see why there appeared such a distinct trail of footprints made by Anne with her conventional footwear, when there was very little trace of the kidnappers by virtue of the soft foot coverings they wore, despite what would have been a considerable disparity in their weight. Robert Thayer writes in his report of March 3, 1932: "Foot-prints on the floor [in the nursery] later proved to be those of Mrs. Lindbergh, identified by three indentations caused by knobs on her golf shoes." If she was wearing golf shoes on March 1, her prints in the mud outside should have been easy to identify based on that distinctive pattern. Were they found? Oscar Bush thought he saw prints made by golf hose. A fashionable person like Anne Lindbergh would likely have worn golf shoes with golf hose. Is it known what size the golf hose imprints were?
|
|