Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 10, 2020 20:24:11 GMT -5
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? Oscar Bush would have been referring to the foot outerwear prints made by the kidnappers when he talked about the ribbed impression appearance left behind in the ground, and I don't know if the prints observed on the nursery floor and suitcase would have been distinct enough to conclude they were made by the same golf hose, although it would seem to be a pretty good assumption. In any case, the prints left in the ground which were attributed to Anne seemed to have been made by conventional footwear and if they were made by a golf style shoe, they would have left a fairly distinct heel and sole impression.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2020 6:41:30 GMT -5
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? That piece of information has always been something that's made little sense to me and where he got it I have no idea. First, Thayer never saw the prints in the nursery. Second, because Anne doesn't strike me as the type to walk around her house with mud on her shoes. Next, she wasn't wearing golf shoes while out on her walk. Finally, those who actually did see them described them as merely footprints, but when Bornmann was specifically asked about them called them more like this... The first was more of a strike mark " as if someone sliding their foot down had scarped the edge of the suite case." Anyone think Anne's golf shoes created that? There were no smudges on the window sill or radiator top. There was another print at the base of the suitcase on the wood floor. The last one was on about the center of the rug which was " about midway between the window and the crib." Bornmann claimed it was going in the direction of the crib, none after that and none heading back toward the window. Overall, he claimed they were " not exactly footprints, just smudges of mud," " you could say they were a sole of a foot," and " very irregular, not distinct." This is consistent with what the other witnesses saw, and nothing about golf shoes or patterns within the prints.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2020 6:55:40 GMT -5
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. Just wanted to come back to this for a second.... You don't have a problem with them going directly to the window with the warped shutters? That they also seemed to know the window was unlocked? Either of these things aren't true and they have to make a complete racket to gain entrance by breaking the shutters and destroying the window frame. Next, based upon what the troopers observed, it appeared as though they came in feet first. So, while its possible, we should note they missed knocking over the stein. And without getting into the fingerprint or both the missing dog and barking dog issues, there was a "toy" on top of that suitcase that someone obviously moved. Seems almost impossible that it was the Kidnappers coming in feet first. One theory is that Anne or Betty moved it before closing the shutters. So why didn't they put it back? Are all of these circumstances just "coincidence" or simply "blind luck?"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2020 7:36:10 GMT -5
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? This is a new one. Are you now saying these people were walking around outside near the house while using a flashlight? 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. People working on the house put them there so they wouldn't get their feet muddy. 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. Anne didn't wear shoes on her walk. Just as we would expect, she wore "rubbers." I was going to tell you Joe but I didn't want to be the one to stand in the way of your quest to buy womens shoes. Heck, I was thinking you might go all in and get a dress and wig too. But this is starting to spin out of control so I'm left with no choice. There were several versions of these in the 1930s and it seems to me that she wore those most practical. They looked like this: Of course there were versions of ones with heels like those designed for women who were walking in the rain down 5th Avenue. My guess is that you'll pick those because you are so hell bent on having Anne strutting around gravel and mud in the middle of nowhere while wearing wearing heels. This despite the fact no one saw heels marks in those prints between the house and the boardwalk. She was residing on what Lindbergh referred to as a "farm" and not living in the Carlton Ritz. Anne was intelligent and practical. She was also trying to live up to her husband's expectations.
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. No report about any examination of footwear. Police were given information and merely accepted it. TT p382
Q [Reilly]: To a certain extent. And you found a foot print didn't you? A [Bornmann]: I did.
Q: And you knew it wasn't the Colonel's foot print, didn't you? A: And I knew it wasn't the bulter's foot print.
Q: Did you take him out and measure it? A: I questioned him.
Q: Never mind about questioning him. Did you take his shoe off and try to fit it in there? Did you? A: No, I did not.
Q: Because you asked a man what size shoe he wore you came to the conclusion that was not his foot print, is that it? A: I knew he hadn't been out there.
Q: Did you see this house before you were sent for? A: No.
Q: How did you know he wasn't out there? A: I had his word for it.
Q: Oh, you took his word for it? You took the word of that man who has since died that he hadn't gone outside the house, is that it? A: That is correct.
Q: When you saw the woman's footprints, did you take anybody's word for it as to who was outside? A: Yes.
Q: Who? A: Mrs. Lindbergh.
Q: Did you take Betty Gow's word? A: She hadn't been out.
Q: You don't mean to say you asked Mrs. Lindbergh whether she was outside the house in the mud? A: I did.
Q: You wouldn't accuse Mrs. Lindbergh of anything?
(Objection Wilentz)
p384
Q: You knew it wasn't the Colonel's, didn't you? A: I knew it was none of the men that was found there that night.
Q: But you didn't measure the butler's footprint, did you? A: I had his and the Colonel's word that he hadn't been outside.
Q: Why, did you know that the butler was alone in that house on the ground floor for two hours while his wife and Betty Gow were upstairs? Did you know that?
(Objection Wilentz)
Q: Did you know that night that this child was for two hours from eight o'clock until ten, as far as any servants were concerned, absolutely alone; did you know that? A: As to the question of servants, yes.
Q: Well my goodness, you don't believe everybody that you question when you are sent out to investigate a crime, do you? A: I take a statement from them then investigate.
Q: And if you like the statement, you believe it, is that it? A: No.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 11, 2020 7:49:47 GMT -5
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? That piece of information has always been something that's made little sense to me and where he got it I have no idea. First, Thayer never saw the prints in the nursery. Second, because Anne doesn't strike me as the type to walk around her house with mud on her shoes. Next, she wasn't wearing golf shoes while out on her walk. Finally, those who actually did see them described them as merely footprints, but when Bornmann was specifically asked about them called them more like this... The first was more of a strike mark " as if someone sliding their foot down had scarped the edge of the suite case." Anyone think Anne's golf shoes created that? There were no smudges on the window sill or radiator top. There was another print at the base of the suitcase on the wood floor. The last one was on about the center of the rug which was " about midway between the window and the crib." Bornmann claimed it was going in the direction of the crib, none after that and none heading back toward the window. Overall, he claimed they were " not exactly footprints, just smudges of mud," " you could say they were a sole of a foot," and " very irregular, not distinct." This is consistent with what the other witnesses saw, and nothing about golf shoes or patterns within the prints. While this is great information relative to the smudges found in the nursery, there is a general lack of detail describing the footprint trail alongside the house, which was attributed to Anne. It would seem they were largely overlooked by investigators due to the early conclusion made, that they belonged to her.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 11, 2020 8:06:35 GMT -5
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? This is a new one. Are you now saying these people were walking around outside near the house while using a flashlight? Before we go down another rabbit hole here, are you saying they wouldn't have thought to bring one if there were going into a pitch black nursery? (Joe)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. People working on the house put them there so they wouldn't get their feet muddy. Exactly, and they would have probably remained there until it was deemed reasonable to remove them. In the meantime, weather and soil conditions do change each and every day, despite what you may think. (Joe)
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. Anne didn't wear shoes on her walk. Just as we would expect, she wore "rubbers." I was going to tell you Joe but I didn't want to be the one to stand in the way of your quest to buy womens shoes. Heck, I was thinking you might go all in and get a dress and wig too. But this is starting to spin out of control so I'm left with no choice. There were several versions of these in the 1930s and it seems to me that she wore those most practical. They looked like this: Of course there were versions of ones with heels like those designed for women who were walking in the rain down 5th Avenue. My guess is that you'll pick those because you are so hell bent on having Anne strutting around gravel and mud in the middle of nowhere while wearing wearing heels. This despite the fact no one saw heels marks in those prints between the house and the boardwalk. She was residing on what Lindbergh referred to as a "farm" and not living in the Carlton Ritz. Anne was intelligent and practical. She was also trying to live up to her husband's expectations.
Oooohh.. ouch.. touche old sword, that's quite an image! I've never heard it was determined conclusively that Anne wore rubbers. Something new here that just came to light perhaps? What is your source for this and were they worn over her shoes or were they some kind of slip-on affair that went directly over her feet? Wearing something like those in the photo would no doubt have made the footprints look considerably larger than shoes alone. (Joe)
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 11, 2020 10:32:36 GMT -5
Let's get real here, folks. Anne was sensible, agreed. There's a lot of clay and mud outside, some of which was found in the child's nursery. Anne is not going to take a walk outside around the house in high heels. She is not feeling well, remember? So she takes a walk, probably for her health, and she is going to dress for the whether, especially since she is suffering from a cold. She does mention to investigators that she took this walk, but unfortunately no casts were made of the footprints--which should have been done immediately, and in a few hours there was hundreds of footprints around the area created by the curious and the press. The smaller prints observed earlier could have been made by a man who was short and of light weight.
(Note that I am not suggesting that the prints were made by aliens who had just alighted from a UFO although someone would probably be delighted to seize on this idea and develop it, and some members of the public would be happy to believe it.)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 11, 2020 10:39:15 GMT -5
Let's get real here, folks. Anne was sensible, agreed. There's a lot of clay and mud outside, some of which was found in the child's nursery. Anne is not going to take a walk outside around the house in high heels. She is not feeling well, remember? So she takes a walk, probably for her health, and she is going to dress for the whether, especially since she is suffering from a cold. She does mention to investigators that she took this walk, but unfortunately no casts were made of the footprints--which should have been done immediately, and in a few hours there was hundreds of footprints around the area created by the curious and the press. The smaller prints observed earlier could have been made by a man who was short and of light weight. (Note that I am not suggesting that the prints were made by aliens who had just alighted from a UFO although someone would probably be delighted to seize on this idea and develop it, and some members of the public would be happy to believe it.) No one mentioned anything about high heels here. Check out examples of 1930's women's casual and sports footwear. They basically all had some kind of cuban-shaped heel.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 11, 2020 11:05:10 GMT -5
Thanks, Joe. I now recall that John Condon pointed out a footprint that he claimed was made by the man with whom he spoke at length in the cemetery. This footprint was measured and said to be a size 8. The member of the kidnapping gang who met with Condon may also have been present when the kidnapping occurred and made a footprint there also. Again, both prints may have been made by a short man with a light weight.
When the ground is wet and muddy, people generally wear boots and rubbers. I do not recall what the condition of the ground was in the cemetery. It was cold, but leaving a footprint would indicate that the ground was not frozen.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 11, 2020 13:31:07 GMT -5
Michael, in response to your recent post where you posed some questions for me, I will make an attempt to explain my thinking on what you presented. I'll attempt to keep this short, but thus far my track record for short posts is not good!
I am a strong believer in coincidences and random luck because I saw so much of it through the years in my career. We all know that both coincidences and luck are a part of life, but I saw both occur in investigations so many times that they could never be outright dismissed. I certainly agree with you that too many incidents of "luck" need to be examined with a critical eye, however I believe that one can very easily in retrospect make too many asumptions that an event or act is based solely on luck or coincidence.
The Lindbergh house would have been a very easy place for perpetrators to surveil (especially at night) prior to executing any kidnapping. I see no reason why a good surveillance could not have revealed the nursery location and a warped shutter on one of the window which never seemed fully closed. I've picked up much more minor details on surveillances. It could have been their good luck (or prior inside information/help) that the window itself was not locked that night. Knowing the warped shutter would not be locked they could have easily approached the scene with a simple glass cutter to relatively quietly cut a small hole to reach in and unlock the window. These old style windows were most probably single pane with the simple latch type lock. Just suggesting all of this to say the perpetrators were not in fact relying on blind coincidental good luck to gain entry. The good luck here just meant they did not have to bother with a glass cutter.
I don't believe it is outragious to believe that Anne or Betty moved the toy that night in their fight with the warped shutter, and in their frustrations failed to put it back on the suitcase. Nor do I believe it is outragious to believe that the perpetrator who entered the nursery first reached in and moved the stein out of the way and then replaced it when he retreated (if I remember correctly that stein could have been reached from the window). Putting the stein back (and not greatly distubing the crib) could have been the perpetrator's attempt to leave the room looking as pristine as possible in hopes that anyone who quickly looked into the darkroom to check on the child would have been satisfied that all was well without actually going to the crib. This would buy them more time before the household actually knew the child was not in the crib.
To me, Lindbergh gave a reasonable explanation as to why he did not take the dog to Hopewell. Although in retrospect one could look at this as a very suspicious coincidence, I for one can accept the explanation. All of us who have dogs know that they can sometimes frustrate us when they are not cooperating! Lindbergh was ready to leave for Hopewell and the dog was not cooperating with him so he simply left without the dog, telling the Next Day Hill staff to take care of the situation. This absolutely turned out to be "great luck" for the kidnappers, but only becomes suspicious looking good luck if one believes Lindbergh was involved in this crime. Lindbergh gave a candid reason for leaving the dog at Englewood.
For me, many of these instances of coincidences and luck can have factual basis that in reality have nothing to do with either luck or coincidence. One does have to be extremely careful what they are looking for. I think it is human nature for most of us to "find what we are looking for". I always found that the best Agents I worked with never seemed to have that trait.
If this was a staged crime scene, i would expect to see more obvious things such as: obvious footprints and evidence of the approach to the house and around the walkway and ladder placement; much more disturbance to the nursery scene; the ladder being left in place against the house wall (I believe the perpetrators were attempting to take the ladder even when they moved to the back of the house on their panicked retreat but quickly realized they could not make the long retreat to their vehicle with that ladder). Obviously, the purpose of a staged crime scene is to create a scene that screams out to the police, press and general public that this was a real crime. This means littering the scene with everything but the proverbial "kitchen sink". One does not make ANY attempts at a clean scene. One creates as many fingerprints, footprints, disturbances etc. as possible and makes no attempts to conceal or hide.
If this was a staged crime/scene, then by default Lindbergh was involved by hiring others to stage a fake kidnapping to eliminate his son from his life. In that case I would expect Lindbergh to do what virtually every "invoved victim" does---create a great alibi for the time of the alleged crime. Lindbergh had the perfect alibi that night by simply attending the event in NYC, but he didn't. He also would have made certain that he spent the day with highly respectable associates who would have vouched for his whereabouts that entire day, but he didn't. He came home and was there when this crime occurred. That's a real red flag to me. A staged crime almost always screams out with all of the above things, and thus far i am not hearing the screams.
Just my thoughts at this time Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 11, 2020 14:13:38 GMT -5
I read that Anne had "rubber soles" on her feet at the scene outside below the nursery window earlier in the day on March 1, 1932.
But I got that information from reading:
Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover by Richard Hack, published in 2004.
Hack was a protégé of author Truman Capote.
Capote gave his investigative notes to Hack. Included must have been Capote's interview with Betty Gow.
The story about Anne throwing the pebbles at the window to get Nurse Gow's and the baby's attention is covered in Hack's book.
Truly begs the question: Who currently has the Capote/Gow interview?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 11, 2020 19:50:03 GMT -5
Michael, in response to your recent post where you posed some questions for me, I will make an attempt to explain my thinking on what you presented. I'll attempt to keep this short, but thus far my track record for short posts is not good! I am a strong believer in coincidences and random luck because I saw so much of it through the years in my career. We all know that both coincidences and luck are a part of life, but I saw both occur in investigations so many times that they could never be outright dismissed. I certainly agree with you that too many incidents of "luck" need to be examined with a critical eye, however I believe that one can very easily in retrospect make too many asumptions that an event or act is based solely on luck or coincidence. The Lindbergh house would have been a very easy place for perpetrators to surveil (especially at night) prior to executing any kidnapping. I see no reason why a good surveillance could not have revealed the nursery location and a warped shutter on one of the window which never seemed fully closed. I've picked up much more minor details on surveillances. It could have been their good luck (or prior inside information/help) that the window itself was not locked that night. Knowing the warped shutter would not be locked they could have easily approached the scene with a simple glass cutter to relatively quietly cut a small hole to reach in and unlock the window. These old style windows were most probably single pane with the simple latch type lock. Just suggesting all of this to say the perpetrators were not in fact relying on blind coincidental good luck to gain entry. The good luck here just meant they did not have to bother with a glass cutter. I don't believe it is outragious to believe that Anne or Betty moved the toy that night in their fight with the warped shutter, and in their frustrations failed to put it back on the suitcase. Nor do I believe it is outragious to believe that the perpetrator who entered the nursery first reached in and moved the stein out of the way and then replaced it when he retreated (if I remember correctly that stein could have been reached from the window). Putting the stein back (and not greatly distubing the crib) could have been the perpetrator's attempt to leave the room looking as pristine as possible in hopes that anyone who quickly looked into the darkroom to check on the child would have been satisfied that all was well without actually going to the crib. This would buy them more time before the household actually knew the child was not in the crib. To me, Lindbergh gave a reasonable explanation as to why he did not take the dog to Hopewell. Although in retrospect one could look at this as a very suspicious coincidence, I for one can accept the explanation. All of us who have dogs know that they can sometimes frustrate us when they are not cooperating! Lindbergh was ready to leave for Hopewell and the dog was not cooperating with him so he simply left without the dog, telling the Next Day Hill staff to take care of the situation. This absolutely turned out to be "great luck" for the kidnappers, but only becomes suspicious looking good luck if one believes Lindbergh was involved in this crime. Lindbergh gave a candid reason for leaving the dog at Englewood. For me, many of these instances of coincidences and luck can have factual basis that in reality have nothing to do with either luck or coincidence. One does have to be extremely careful what they are looking for. I think it is human nature for most of us to "find what we are looking for". I always found that the best Agents I worked with never seemed to have that trait. If this was a staged crime scene, i would expect to see more obvious things such as: obvious footprints and evidence of the approach to the house and around the walkway and ladder placement; much more disturbance to the nursery scene; the ladder being left in place against the house wall (I believe the perpetrators were attempting to take the ladder even when they moved to the back of the house on their panicked retreat but quickly realized they could not make the long retreat to their vehicle with that ladder). Obviously, the purpose of a staged crime scene is to create a scene that screams out to the police, press and general public that this was a real crime. This means littering the scene with everything but the proverbial "kitchen sink". One does not make ANY attempts at a clean scene. One creates as many fingerprints, footprints, disturbances etc. as possible and makes no attempts to conceal or hide. If this was a staged crime/scene, then by default Lindbergh was involved by hiring others to stage a fake kidnapping to eliminate his son from his life. In that case I would expect Lindbergh to do what virtually every "invoved victim" does---create a great alibi for the time of the alleged crime. Lindbergh had the perfect alibi that night by simply attending the event in NYC, but he didn't. He also would have made certain that he spent the day with highly respectable associates who would have vouched for his whereabouts that entire day, but he didn't. He came home and was there when this crime occurred. That's a real red flag to me. A staged crime almost always screams out with all of the above things, and thus far i am not hearing the screams. Just my thoughts at this time Michael. Hoage was an insurance fraud investigator band fully believed this entire scene to be staged. His opinion stemmed from several things: the total lack of fingerprints, the fact the note was left on the window (as if to say "WE WENT OUT THIS WAY!") and the fact the ladder was left behind, and in direct line of sight from the window, as if to misdirect. There would be zero reason for these kidnappers to trek through the mud out that way when they made a perfectly clean approach inbound. Surveillance doesn't work here as anybody who surveilled would know the family wasn't there on weeknights. They also went directly to the nursery, entered feet first and had no idea what they'd be walking in on upon entry. Could have been the whole family in the room for all they knew. As far as Lindbergh missing the NYU event. I think you drastically underestimate his ego. He didn't need any excuse, for anything. Him not attending is a massive red flag and the police never really even bothered to follow-up on it. He was never even really questioned seriously about his day. Further, he liked control. It would be truly surprising if this kind of thing were to go down and he weren't around in some way to manage it, even from a distance.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 12, 2020 9:31:06 GMT -5
According to Mark Fanzini, the two sets of footprints led to a chicken coop in a direction opposite Featherbed Lane. We can then infer what happened next. Inferences: There may have been three persons involved; two were involved in the actual kidnapping, and a third remained with the cars. Two sets of tire tracks were found in Featherbed Lane. No casts were made of the tracks. At the chicken coop, which was not being used, the burlap bag would be opened and inspected to determine the condition of the child who was probably either deceased or dying. The two kidnappers could use a flashlight to make their inspection and decide what to do. The child's sleeping suit would be removed at that time in case it would be needed later. The two then made their way to Featherbed Lane, reported the disaster to the individual waiting for them, placed the child in the burlap bag in the trunk of the second car and proceeded to drive away. They did not bring a shovel with them, having not anticipated the unfortunate outcome and so had to create a make-shift grave down the road by digging with their shod feet. If they were stopped and searched, they would not want police to discover a dead child in their possession, so they needed to rid themselves of any obvious evidence of the crime. The ladder was not important to them; it had been made for only one purpose so it was left behind. The chisel they brought with them was not needed and forgotten. The two cars may have been borrowed from their owners, or at least one may have been borrowed. The driver of the first car, the one seen by Ben Lupica, was waiting for the second car with his accomplices to show up. The group was made up of a bunch of amateurs, but all knew that the baby was dead, including the one who spoke with John Condon at the cemetery and claimed the ransom money.
The three involved had, at least, inspected the layout of the Lindbergh house and grounds, so they knew about the location of the nursery and also Featherbed Lane and the location of the chicken coop, plus the absence of chickens which are not quiet when awakened suddenly at night. The "casing of the joint" was throughly done, but one fatal mistake was made that night, leading to the death of the child.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 12, 2020 10:47:44 GMT -5
I've never heard it was determined conclusively that Anne wore rubbers. Something new here that just came to light perhaps? What is your source for this and were they worn over her shoes or were they some kind of slip-on affair that went directly over her feet? Wearing something like those in the photo would no doubt have made the footprints look considerably larger than shoes alone. OMG! Are you seriously questioning my source right now? What if I told you it was the same source you have for Anne wearing a heeled shoe? That would be unacceptable - right?
Truly begs the question: Who currently has the Capote/Gow interview? I'd like to read it. All we can do is cross our fingers that it resurfaces one day. Unfortunately, so much over the years has gotten thrown out or destroyed. Michael, in response to your recent post where you posed some questions for me, I will make an attempt to explain my thinking on what you presented. I'll attempt to keep this short, but thus far my track record for short posts is not good! Fine by me, make them as large as needed! Okay, so I am reading all of the recent posts and enjoying them all. It's a perfect example of everyone seeing the same situation logically - but differently. On the issue of the shutters, its my understanding that they could be closed, just not locked. So they pulled together its just that the wood supposedly swelled enough to prevent the slide bolt from lining up. From here our imagination can get the better of us since no one really knows where the swelling occurred which caused this. Was the misalignment up, down, in, or out? Frustrating that Schwarzkopf accidentally destroyed them or we might now know. Regardless, I'm not sure how surveillance would reveal that they could not be locked unless they were there on enough windy days to notice them being the only ones to move around or blown open in the wind. The other thing, since you brought it up, are the dogs. Since they are BOTH major obstacles I'm quite sure you'd agree they had to be planned for. Can someone tell me how exactly? Surveillance would show one should have been in the nursery. Even if they didn't see it earlier, they still should have planned for it being there, and odds are even if this was legit I'd expect them to still conclude he might be even if they hadn't spotted him. Next is Wahgoosh who absolutely barked at noise regardless of Lindbergh denying it on the stand. I suppose their intel might be that he'd be where he actually was, but the absence of Skean emphasizes how important Skean was to this whole thing. Plus, taking on a house with two dogs requires drastic measures. All it takes is one bark and the jig is up. So for me this screams inside knowledge, especially when looking at everything that was necessary for this to come together to have happened. This doesn't necessarily mean "involvement" but they would have to be getting it from someone in the know. Another point while I'm on a roll .... anyone in that time-period home should be able to tell when a door or window is opened during a windstorm. Next, again, the locks on those windows are what sealed them. It was less for security and more about the weather. And I agree with Joe that these people were using a flashlight. Impossible not to. So think about that as well. People inside the house while intruders are navigating a boardwalk and erecting a ladder waving around at least one flashlight. For my monies worth, if someone were to be engaged in staging this event, they would want to be very careful not to create evidence that could not later be undone. I also consider everything I see and/or read about the prints and it seems they were walking away from the house - not running. If true, that is important as well. As far as Lindbergh missing the NYU event. I think you drastically underestimate his ego. He didn't need any excuse, for anything. Him not attending is a massive red flag and the police never really even bothered to follow-up on it. He was never even really questioned seriously about his day. Further, he liked control. It would be truly surprising if this kind of thing were to go down and he weren't around in some way to manage it, even from a distance. Exactly. Typical patterns of behavior may not apply to an atypical personality. Lindbergh was not a "normal" type of individual so I'd agree the rules governing most do not apply as it concerns him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 12, 2020 14:39:28 GMT -5
I've never heard it was determined conclusively that Anne wore rubbers. Something new here that just came to light perhaps? What is your source for this and were they worn over her shoes or were they some kind of slip-on affair that went directly over her feet? Wearing something like those in the photo would no doubt have made the footprints look considerably larger than shoes alone. OMG! Are you seriously questioning my source right now? What if I told you it was the same source you have for Anne wearing a heeled shoe? That would be unacceptable - right?
Yes, and I'm pretty sure The Almighty is also questioning your source because you haven't yet provided one, unless I missed it somehow amidst your imaginative previous response involving women's heels and fashion. And I have a feeling if I don't press you for it, you're going to rubber stamp "Anne was wearing rubbers" (without a source) into fact before long, so you can start repeating it freely in the future. Who knows, she may even sprout a matching umbrella and raincoat before too long. What is your source documentation for your statement that Anne was wearing rubbers on her feet when she walked alongside the house on the afternoon of March 1? Don't get me wrong, as I'm certainly not arguing against her having worn rubbers. I just want to know how you determined that. We've had plenty of past discussion about this and I don't recall you once ever mentioning this. Or are you just assuming that being a practical woman, she would have done so automatically?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 12, 2020 15:49:31 GMT -5
i tried years ago to find it i dont know where it is
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 13, 2020 9:02:03 GMT -5
Michael, I just wanted to address a couple of things in your post of Oct. 11th. First I want to say that in no way I'm I attempting to change anyone's mind in regards to what they believe on the LKC. I'm just attempting to explain my thoughts on this case based on my experiences. I know that everyone who posts on the forum have their own interpretations of the evidence and events, and that most believe that Lindbergh was culpable in the taking and death of his son. Although I currently disagree with that theory, I can respect it. Most on here have more knowledge of this case than i do. As to the dogs. The photo and Chicago Bureau dispatch that I am attempting to attach certainly relates that at least one other person other than Lindbergh (who had apparently visited/stayed at Highfields) believed that Wahgoosh was worthless as a watchdog. If the below dispatch is unreadable let me know and i will write it out. I can't see why Ollie Whately's brother would have any reason to say this if he didn't believe it was true. Is it possible that Wahgoosh was one of those nervous little dogs that was an incessant barker that everyone eventually just tunes out. This would certainly make it useless as a watchdog as Lindbergh and Reginald were trying to point out. Prior surveillances of the house by the kidnappers may have allowed them to observe two dogs at the house, but more importantly they would have seen that there was no dog kept outside at night. That of course would have been a game changer. I see no way that surveillances would have allowed the kidnappers to determine that one or both of the dogs actually slept in the nursery with the child. I think this could only have been known by inside information. If they had no inside information of this, then they would have approached the house that night knowing there was no outside dog to contend with, and no real expectation that a dog would be in the nursery. If an unplanned for dog such as Skean had been in the nursery that night and started barking as the ladder climber reached the area of the window, that simply means that they would have immediately fled the scene and (as I believe Anne stated) no kidnapping would have occurred that night. The kidnappers would now know that a dog slept with the child and any further attempts to snatch the child at Highfields would not be possible. They would have come up with a different plan or abandoned it altogether and moved on to an easier target. I'm not one to believe that because Skean wasn't there, and the snatch of the child was able to occur, then the person who was responsible for Skean's absence (Lindbergh) was therefore involved in the crime. This could very well be an example of "good luck" for the kidnappers. If this "good luck" had not occurred than it simply means that the kidnapping attempt would have been foiled that night (without reading anything further into it). No criminal can foresee all the varibles that can occur when perpetrating a crime. Anyone who attempts to enter an occuppied residence during the nighttime would know that it is an extremely dangerous act. It can turn deadly in a heartbeat. One either has the mindset to do such a thing or they don't (and fortunately 99% of the population don't). The kidnapper that night of March 1st who made entry into that dark nursery would have known he was facing alot of unknows--that's just part of the deal. An unexpected barking dog would be a whole lot better than a homeowner sitting there with a shotgun. (I do understand that if one thinks that there is enough evidence to believe that Lindbergh was involved in this crime, than of course his leaving Skean at Next Day Hill was an intentional act). As to the flashlights . I always thought that the shutters on all four of the first story windows (diningroom/livingroom/library) on that side of the house were closed that night. If the shutters were closed allowing no interior lights to shine through the windows and give the kidnappers some light, than the reverse is also true--no one inside of these rooms could see the light of a 1932 low voltage flashlight/handlantern being used low to the ground by the kidnappers. Prior surveillances would have determined that there was no need to worry about any outside security guard making routine rounds that could have observed flashlights. We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of a "staged" crime scene. We all have our own opinions and experiences on this, and at this point I know what my experiences of crime scenes (and my gut) is telling me. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2020 9:54:35 GMT -5
Yes, and I'm pretty sure The Almighty is also questioning your source because you haven't yet provided one, unless I missed it somehow amidst your imaginative previous response involving women's heels and fashion. And I have a feeling if I don't press you for it, you're going to rubber stamp "Anne was wearing rubbers" (without a source) into fact before long, so you can start repeating it freely in the future. Who knows, she may even sprout a matching umbrella and raincoat before too long. What is your source documentation for your statement that Anne was wearing rubbers on her feet when she walked alongside the house on the afternoon of March 1? Don't get me wrong, as I'm certainly not arguing against her having worn rubbers. I just want to know how you determined that. We've had plenty of past discussion about this and I don't recall you once ever mentioning this. Or are you just assuming that being a practical woman, she would have done so automatically? Curious. So the rules are different for me then? Okay well since you asked... As most who read this board already know, I often complain about having a source but not being able to find it or remember reading a point but not being able to find it, etc. Its a cross to bear that comes with having "too much" material and "too many" sources. It gets frustrating so, at times, I wait until I have it in hand before bringing it up which is what I did here. However, and I blush to admit, I did have it earlier but didn't have the heart to stop your experiment. Actually, I thought it would be quite funny if I went ahead and let you traipse around in mud in a pair of women's shoes. Maybe that was wrong, but I still chuckle to myself thinking about it. Somehow I think you will still go through with it so there's that at least. But no, I didn't merely invent it as you did about what Anne was wearing. My source is Bornmann, who also stated that Anne did not make those prints in the nursery. Michael, I just wanted to address a couple of things in your post of Oct. 11th. First I want to say that in no way I'm I attempting to change anyone's mind in regards to what they believe on the LKC. I'm just attempting to explain my thoughts on this case based on my experiences. I know that everyone who posts on the forum have their own interpretations of the evidence and events, and that most believe that Lindbergh was culpable in the taking and death of his son. Although I currently disagree with that theory, I can respect it. Most on here have more knowledge of this case than i do. Your observations are very interesting and considering them are vitally important. I personally try not to start with Lindbergh when considering any of these facts and situations, however, I must admit its impossible for me not to conclude there is inside assistance going on. Fact is, Olly himself mentioned to Reporters that he believed it was an "inside job" because Wahgoosh did not bark. I have something on Whateley's brother so I'm going to have to search for it before responding to this. Regardless of what I find, Wahgoosh barked by all sources except Lindbergh. Anne, Olly, Elsie, Betty, and the Cops all said he was a "barker." Whether or not that made him a good "watchdog" by the definition of the word I cannot say. But what I can say is that a barking dog would be an obstacle. So for Lindbergh to say he would not expect Wahgoosh to bark is suspicious, but playing "Devil's Advocate" it could also be that he was defending himself from scrutiny because he was actually the one who left him behind. Next, I look at what these men did that night. If one suggests surveillance, which I believe absolutely necessary unless everyone in the house was aware, then they'd see dogs in the house at some point. This idea that they wouldn't want to account for them before striking out isn't something I can personally can accept. Concerning my experiences most men who break into homes avoid dogs. So it seems to me if the target is one where TWO dogs are expected there must be a plan to properly deal with them. Here, there's too much planning going on to avoid this issue. They build the ladder to the proper specs, they know the baby was there when he's usually not, they strike when the baby would be alone for a period of time, they hit the precise window and set of shutters that allowed this to occur, they do not fall or knock anything over, the dog that normally slept in the nursery was left behind for the 1st time, grabbed the child itself without him waking and screaming out, and they had written a note with the secret symbol on it, left on the window sill and shut the window without it the wind blowing it off from the high wind. Had it been under the stein I would be okay with that but not just sitting there on the sill. The idea that they came when the baby should not have been there has been used by some to say this was a "spontaneous" event that was "ad-libbed." I reject that. Others say it was all "luck." As I've said before, luck in one place maybe, but not everywhere. So they surveiled or had inside information or both. Striking out when the baby was alone in the nursery shows they were accounting for the occupants. That's the first thing to prepare for, and the next is actual execution. Are we really to believe the Dogs weren't considered and/or prepared for?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 14, 2020 6:46:04 GMT -5
Yes, and I'm pretty sure The Almighty is also questioning your source because you haven't yet provided one, unless I missed it somehow amidst your imaginative previous response involving women's heels and fashion. And I have a feeling if I don't press you for it, you're going to rubber stamp "Anne was wearing rubbers" (without a source) into fact before long, so you can start repeating it freely in the future. Who knows, she may even sprout a matching umbrella and raincoat before too long. What is your source documentation for your statement that Anne was wearing rubbers on her feet when she walked alongside the house on the afternoon of March 1? Don't get me wrong, as I'm certainly not arguing against her having worn rubbers. I just want to know how you determined that. We've had plenty of past discussion about this and I don't recall you once ever mentioning this. Or are you just assuming that being a practical woman, she would have done so automatically? Curious. So the rules are different for me then? Okay well since you asked... As most who read this board already know, I often complain about having a source but not being able to find it or remember reading a point but not being able to find it, etc. Its a cross to bear that comes with having "too much" material and "too many" sources. It gets frustrating so, at times, I wait until I have it in hand before bringing it up which is what I did here. However, and I blush to admit, I did have it earlier but didn't have the heart to stop your experiment. Actually, I thought it would be quite funny if I went ahead and let you traipse around in mud in a pair of women's shoes. Maybe that was wrong, but I still chuckle to myself thinking about it. Somehow I think you will still go through with it so there's that at least. But no, I didn't merely invent it as you did about what Anne was wearing. My source is Bornmann, who also stated that Anne did not make those prints in the nursery. Okay.. so why all the rhetoric, Michael? If you're claiming it was Bornmann, why didn't you just say so in the first place? I don't recall you ever mentioning his name here before on the trail of footprints alongside the house and we've had loads and loads of past discussion on this subject. Maybe some day you'll find that report but with all due respect, perhaps this one might best be served for now in the To Be Determined category.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2020 7:21:26 GMT -5
Okay.. so why all the rhetoric, Michael? If you're claiming it was Bornmann, why didn't you just say so in the first place? I don't recall you ever mentioning his name here before on the trail of footprints alongside the house and we've had loads and loads of past discussion on this subject. Maybe some day you'll find that report but with all due respect, perhaps this one might best be served for now in the To Be Determined category. Joe, Reread my post below. It explains and answers all of your questions. As you will see, I do have the source in front of me which is exactly why I brought it out now.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 14, 2020 8:23:24 GMT -5
mike, is there anyway to get the grand jury papers from flemington or is it still sealed
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 14, 2020 8:52:18 GMT -5
Thanks Lurp, and as always you provide more great thoughts to consider.
I agree with your point about the surveillance of the house and some measure of good luck which resulted in a much easier entry than would have been expected. A previous attempt may even have revealed to the kidnappers that the shutters were not secured, but I tend to believe the chisel was brought for the purpose of trying to defeat what they probably believed would have been locked shutters. Given the ergonomics of being on a ladder on a dark and windy night, they might well have discovered this action was not possible and even given up, hence no kidnapping. True crime must be filled with events where unexpected good luck intervened on the part of the perpetrator to assist them, such as the unlocked shutters and window. This crime was so high risk as to be off the charts, and I’m sure the kidnappers would have had a strong list of potential obstacles that at any time, would have shouted ABORT. I also wonder though how general perception about the Lindbergh’s style of life and relatively relaxed and normal existence on Cold Soil Road as portrayed by the press and perceived by the public might have played a role in this. Would they have even expected a heightened degree of security present, especially if they had also engaged in some pointed physical surveillance of Highfields beforehand?
I’ve also always had a major problem with this event having been staged, notably due to the fact that among Lindbergh’s first reactions, was to call in the police. I feel if this had have been a staged event known to Lindbergh, he would have located the anticipated ransom note envelope right away, opened it and of course, taken heed of the expected warning not to notify authorities. This would then have given him ample time to ensure the "ransom negotiations" were maintained in secrecy within the household for the time being. What he did do was grab a rifle from the bedroom and run outside to try and intervene if the kidnappers were still on the property. This strikes me as an independent action, one much more in line with someone who was universally known for his quick thinking and decision making, and I’m sure he would have been ready to use that rifle in the event of an altercation with the kidnappers. Having realized the perpetrators had left the premises and confirming that Charlie was not in the house, I feel he took the next reasonable step, which was to immediately seek a police response for something he now realized was beyond his immediate control.
As Lindbergh was such a painfully-private person, one who Scott Berg described as just having brought the boiling pot of publicity to a simmer five years after his 1927 flight, would someone with such a debilitating aversion to the press and public clamouring have ever opted for a kidnapping plan necessitating an immediate notification of the police, which by extension would then have guaranteed the entire world be brought to his front doorstep via that same press once again? I have real problems with that.
But let’s just assume for a minute here that Lindbergh had actually conspired to eliminate Charlie from his life. This is essentially murder. Would there not have been far better options than a fake kidnapping which by process would have essentially ensured a maelstrom of publicity and required follow up actions, all guaranteed to further keep Lindbergh subjugated by the press he despised? And Charles Lindbergh may have had a penchant for being overbearing not only within the upbringing of his child and his delight in playing practical jokes on those he knew well, but he was no murderer.
So, while the major key for me is his handling of the ransom note eventually discovered on the window sill and the fact he did not open it right away, there is also his recognition and insistence that this was now a crime scene and should not be altered in any way until police arrived. At this point, with the kidnappers and his child now gone, what would have been gained by opening the now-discovered envelope before the police arrived? I believe real kidnappers made a couple of errors here, first by placing the envelope on the window sill and not in the crib where it might have triggered an immediate emotional response to open it, and perhaps secondly by not reinforcing the “no police” involvement on the outside of the envelope. The very fact that Lindbergh did not open the envelope, is a very strong indication to me that he was not part of a scripted plan, but that he was again thinking and acting independently.
Finally and as an aside, I find it most unlikely that Charles Lindbergh would have decided to deceive not only himself, immediate and extended families, friends and acquaintances but also all of the state and federal law enforcement agencies who had even just an investigative brush with this case, every American as well as foreign news agency that reported on this crime, the governments of affected states and the entire political structure of the United States, all the way up to the office of the president, and finally an entire planet of sympathetic people, who were shocked and revolted by the strangeness and potential enormity of this crime.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 14, 2020 11:56:43 GMT -5
Does anyone know what size shoe Isidor Fisch wore? He was a short guy. The small footprints might have been his. Several people reported that he was seen in a car with two other men a week or so before the kidnapping. They may have been checking out the site.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2020 18:02:33 GMT -5
mike, is there anyway to get the grand jury papers from flemington or is it still sealed I've never seen them and have no idea where they'd be. I'd like to get my hands on them so if you ever find out please let me know. Seems to me they are releasable under Byrne's EO. If the Wendel Grand Jury transcripts are then certainly the Hauptmann Grand Jury docs should be too. Problem is they aren't at the NJSP Archives, so if Hoffman had them they weren't among the papers found in his garage. Does anyone know what size shoe Isidor Fisch wore? He was a short guy. The small footprints might have been his. Several people reported that he was seen in a car with two other men a week or so before the kidnapping. They may have been checking out the site. Speaking for myself, I've never seen any reference to them. The archives have a lot of his stuff, to include his toothbrush but I've never seen his shoes or reference to his shoe size anywhere. That doesn't mean I didn't miss it. I doubt it - but its possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2020 18:30:29 GMT -5
As to the flashlights . I always thought that the shutters on all four of the first story windows (diningroom/livingroom/library) on that side of the house were closed that night. If the shutters were closed allowing no interior lights to shine through the windows and give the kidnappers some light, than the reverse is also true--no one inside of these rooms could see the light of a 1932 low voltage flashlight/handlantern being used low to the ground by the kidnappers. Prior surveillances would have determined that there was no need to worry about any outside security guard making routine rounds that could have observed flashlights. First, the issue of Whateley's brother, I haven't found the report but my memory is pretty clear on it after thinking about it. A Painter who was at the Mt. Rose house said, in essence, Wahgoosh was vicious toward him when he first started to work but over time became friendly towards him. For this reason he told someone that he believed it was an "inside job." Whateley's brother and daughter came by from Detroit to visit during this time but I cannot remember anything else attached to him. Now to the bottom shutters. Would it change your mind if they were open? Not putting you on the spot but can you or anyone else come up with a source to indicate they had been closed? I ask because during the May 18th conference, Inspector Walsh said the bottom shutters had a mark in them presumably made by the ladder once it broke. Whether that's true or not, it could not have happened if those shutters were closed. Likewise with the mud. It was on the top of that bottom shutter. A shutter, once in the open position, was directly under that ladder once staged up against that house. So again, if it was open, does this make you adjust your position at all? I’ve also always had a major problem with this event having been staged, notably due to the fact that among Lindbergh’s first reactions, was to call in the police. I feel if this had have been a staged event known to Lindbergh, he would have located the anticipated ransom note envelope right away, opened it and of course, taken heed of the expected warning not to notify authorities. This would then have given him ample time to ensure the "ransom negotiations" were maintained in secrecy within the household for the time being. What he did do was grab a rifle from the bedroom and run outside to try and intervene if the kidnappers were still on the property. This strikes me as an independent action, one much more in line with someone who was universally known for his quick thinking and decision making, and I’m sure he would have been ready to use that rifle in the event of an altercation with the kidnappers. Having realized the perpetrators had left the premises and confirming that Charlie was not in the house, I feel he took the next reasonable step, which was to immediately seek a police response for something he now realized was beyond his immediate control. This is a perfect example how two people can see things so differently. Not a criticism at all and just pointing it out. According to Lindbergh's statement, the first call that HE made was to his Lawyer. And we have the phone logs concerning the calls he made afterwards to the NJSP. But let’s just assume for a minute here that Lindbergh had actually conspired to eliminate Charlie from his life. This is essentially murder. Would there not have been far better options than a fake kidnapping which by process would have essentially ensured a maelstrom of publicity and required follow up actions, all guaranteed to further keep Lindbergh subjugated by the press he despised? And Charles Lindbergh may have had a penchant for being overbearing not only within the upbringing of his child and his delight in playing practical jokes on those he knew well, but he was no murderer. He was a Eugenicist. If he believed his son would grow up to be "abnormal" would people with such beliefs back then actually believe its "murder?" I can't remember the book, but he wrote about the animals growing up in Minn. If he considered his son an "it" would be believe any differently? These are questions that shouldn't be immediately dismissed in light of the circumstances and material I've revealed. Judge Pearlman has taken it a step further so there's even more food for thought there even if one doesn't buy her theory. In short, one doesn't have to believe a theory to accept that certain facts exists. It's not "one or the other." I think some try to distance themselves from certain information merely because it harms their personal positions. What's real needs to be accepted. Instead there's this alternative universe where the impossible can exist just to navigate away from "harmful" facts. So, while the major key for me is his handling of the ransom note eventually discovered on the window sill and the fact he did not open it right away, there is also his recognition and insistence that this was now a crime scene and should not be altered in any way until police arrived. At this point, with the kidnappers and his child now gone, what would have been gained by opening the now-discovered envelope before the police arrived? I believe real kidnappers made a couple of errors here, first by placing the envelope on the window sill and not in the crib where it might have triggered an immediate emotional response to open it, and perhaps secondly by not reinforcing the “no police” involvement on the outside of the envelope. The very fact that Lindbergh did not open the envelope, is a very strong indication to me that he was not part of a scripted plan, but that he was again thinking and acting independently. Here again, I believe MOST people in this position, legitimately that is, would immediately tear that envelope open. It's a common sense position to believe it may have contained the location of his son and/or how to get him. By pretending to be a Cop, Lindbergh's actions seem to indicate, to me anyway, that he was prepared for this and knew what the note said. I can't imagine waiting around, telling police not to touch anything, and then taking control like he did. In the meantime, he told Gow (her own admission) she "wouldn't be touched," and there's that supposed statement Kelly overheard when he threatened her to keep her mouth shut.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 14, 2020 19:55:25 GMT -5
thanks mike
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 14, 2020 20:03:50 GMT -5
Joe, I enjoyed reading your last post regarding your thoughts on Lindberg and on the crime scene. Your thoughts on the LKC always provide me with some great insights on this case. As I have said before, you and Michael provide excellent contrasts in how the evidence and events in this case can be approached and interpreted. I know that I certainly benefit from your posts. I won't comment on everything in your recent post, as I totally follow what you are saying about the crime scene and Lindbergh's alleged involvement in the crime.
I've always agreed with your observations on the incongrous situation between Lindbergh's know obsession with privacy (and his apparent almost hatred of the press) and the idea that he would stage a crime that would most certainly destroy his privacy and bring the world's press to his doorstep. This is a very logical observation on your part that begs to be addressed if one is to accept that Lindbergh instigated this crime to eliminate his son from his life. This would be an example of Lindbergh doing something totally out of character with his known traits. A couple of recent posts seemed to disagree with my opinion that Lindbergh (if involved in this crime) would have done what virtually everyone else in that position has done--establish a rock sold alibi for the time of the crime. It was opined that establishing an alibi and staying away from the house that evening is something Lindbergh wouldn't do because it would be out of character due to his ego/control issues/atypical personality, etc. What is more out of character for him than losing his beloved privacy and bring in the press. To me, this is an example of what Michael has so correctly stated on numerous occasions that when viewing this case "you can't have it both ways". There must be some consistency here. Lindbergh either acts out of character or he doesn't.
For me, regardless of all the opinions we all hold concerning a staged crime scene (and whether or not Lindbergh was involved in this crime), it all really circles back to one thing--MOTIVE on the part of Lindbergh. Most people know that when evaluating the culpability of any crime suspect, three things have to be examined extremely thoroughly if there's any hope of sustaining a successful prosecution against that suspect--Means, motive and opportunity. Virtually every parent(s) has the means and opportunity to remove a child from their life. Fortunately very, very few have any motive to do so. If a very strong and convincing motive can't be tied to Lindbergh, then there is no case for this theory that he staged a fake kidnapping. It becomes a real kidnapping crime regardless of what the scene may look like. I'm reminded here of the phrase made popular by Carl Sagan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The only motive I have heard is that due to Lindberg's personality, interest in eugenics, etc., etc., he determined that his 20 month old son's physical/mental health was so compromized that the child would not have a normal life. Most parents who have been charged in the death of their child have subsequently been defended on the basis of insanity. I think that most people would believe that for Lindbergh or anyone else to do this to their chid would have to be insane. We can all agree that Charles Lindberg definitely had an atypical personality, but to jump to the word of insane is a major, major leap. The Lindbergh's certainly had the financial resources to place the child in an institution, ala what the Joseph Kennedy family did with a daughter. We have the advantage today of looking back on the 40 plus years that Lindbergh lived after 1932, and his track record is one of having children and grandchildren, not eliminating them. His life certainly included controversies, but I have never seen instances of insanity and I don't know of any historians who say Lindbergh was insane during his 70 plus years.
Thus far, I do not see that "extraordinary evidence" to support a strong motive for Lindbergh to act in an insane manner and have his son eliminated, and as you say Joe, essentially commit (felony) murder. So for me at this time I see a real kidnapping crime.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 14, 2020 20:23:07 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for the information on Wahgoosh and the house shutters. I most definitely defer to you on any documentation and recall on the position of the first story window shutters that night. I know that all the photos I have of the house that next morning show the Troopers by the windows with opened shutters. I don't recall any source document that i have seen on this. I believe my thinking about the position of the house shutters is based on previous forum discusions where most people seemed to be saying that with closed shutters at night no prior surveillances would have been successful in viewing what was going on in the house. Also I guess i had an assumption that on such a stormy night the house shutters would be closed. With the first story window shutters opened it would certainly mean any perpetrators would have to be MUCH more careful on their approach. I think it might also mean that they had some inside lights coming through the windows that gave them a better visual without flashlights. I'll have to do a little more thinking on this.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 15, 2020 0:17:46 GMT -5
Interesting that two of Lindbergh's German mistresses were physically handicapped. These were the Hessheimer sisters, Marietta and Brigitte. They had trouble walking, it was said because of childhood illnesses. Lindbergh had three children by Brigitte and two by Marietta. They remember him as a kindly and generous father.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2020 8:06:47 GMT -5
Okay.. so why all the rhetoric, Michael? If you're claiming it was Bornmann, why didn't you just say so in the first place? I don't recall you ever mentioning his name here before on the trail of footprints alongside the house and we've had loads and loads of past discussion on this subject. Maybe some day you'll find that report but with all due respect, perhaps this one might best be served for now in the To Be Determined category. Joe, Reread my post below. It explains and answers all of your questions. As you will see, I do have the source in front of me which is exactly why I brought it out now. Michael, are you referring to Bornmann's March 3rd and 9th reports where he talks about him and DeGaetano following prints made by rubber boots or overshoes along the abandoned road and onwards to the chicken coops and road? I know this from Gardner's footnotes (no pun there) but is there also a reference within either of those reports (or another report) to the trail of footprints alongside of and heading towards the back of the house, which were later attributed to Anne? I don't recall ever having seen such a reference, so can you quote it from the report you have in front of you?
|
|