|
Post by Sue on Oct 17, 2020 15:44:14 GMT -5
Carpenter Richard Hauptmann exhibited and sold his handiwork in New York City.
Was that one-of-a-kind kidnap ladder a custom order from someone at a convention for unemployed German artisans?
Could Hauptmann have unwittingly built the ladder according to a client's specifications?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 20, 2020 14:11:22 GMT -5
great stuff sue, its better then the dead end stuff we read here
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 20, 2020 22:42:47 GMT -5
Steve,
The German-American Conference was an employment agency, of sorts, that helped unemployed immigrants.
The German-American Conference was located at 208 West 24th Street in New York, NY.
Within that organization was the Craftsmen's Master Guild, which was presided over by Karl T. Marx.
According to author William Buehler Seabrook, Hauptmann showed and sold handcraft articles at the Guild's exhibitions.
The William Seabrook book I am referring to is called These Foreigners, published in 1938. The House of Craftsmen's Skill was located at 115 East 60th Street in New York, NY. Hand-made items from unemployed men were exhibited here, and the pieces were offered to the public at moderate prices.
I do believe Hauptmann sold his hand-made merchandise at these exhibitions.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 21, 2020 5:27:36 GMT -5
If Hauptmann was interested in demonstrating his skills and proving his ability in order to acquire more jobs, then he would not make a poorly constructed ladder which could only injure his reputation. This does not make any sense.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 21, 2020 5:38:55 GMT -5
The ladder used in the kidnapping was brought into court during Hauptmann's trial. Hauptmann was asked if he made the ladder. He looked it over and responded, "I am a carpenter." The implication was clear: no professional carpenter would have made such a poorly constructed ladder.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 21, 2020 7:40:35 GMT -5
it was made to fit in his car and to be used one time. who said he was a professional carpender. time wasnt on his side
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 21, 2020 8:12:15 GMT -5
First of all, Richard Hauptmann finished the equivalent of middle school in Germany (eighth grade) and then took vocational training to become a carpenter. He was not an amateur who just happened to take up the trade in the U.S. Anna Hauptmann displayed a chest she said was made by her husband; a photo of this chest shows elaborate handicraft. My point is that Hauptmann would not publicly exhibit any of his work and then agree to make some junk for a client. This would not be good advertising for his reputation or his business which would have been the reason for the display in the first place.
If Hauptmann made the ladder used in the kidnapping, he would have made it hurriedly and with the knowledge that it would be used only one time and for a specific purpose. On the Monday afternoon (the day before the kidnapping), it's possible that he was given directions by a gang member to hurry up and finish making the ladder as it was to be used Tuesday evening. On Monday at noon Anne Lindbergh called Next Day Hill to report that the baby had a cold and so the Lindberghs would not leave Hopewell until he was better. The information was relayed to a member of the kidnapping gang who then recognized an opportunity and finalized their plans in case the Lindberghs stayed over on Tuesday also. If the ladder had not been completed, then it would need to be finished Monday afternoon. The ladder was made of different pieces of wood, none of which had been weathered and appeared to be leftovers from previous jobs. One of the rails appeared to be taken from Hauptmann's attic. If he was in a hurry, he might had grabbed whatever was available to finished the job in time. This was not a professional piece of work. It had only one purpose.
My point was simply that this ladder could not have been a professional work made for the response of a client.
Whether Hauptmann actually constructed the ladder used in the kidnapping in another question.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2020 9:39:18 GMT -5
it was made to fit in his car and to be used one time. who said he was a professional carpender. time wasnt on his side What do you mean that time wasn't on his side? Are you suggesting he didn't have time to surveil the home? Or prepare for the kidnapping ahead of time? One of the first theories police had when they examined the ladder in connection with the crime scene was to consider it was a "prop." On considering that this ladder was so vitally important for the commission and success of a real kidnapping, one can see why they entertained the idea. Whoever built that ladder should have done so as if their life depended on it. Because if this was a real kidnapping - it did. To get around this problem, Koehler asserted Hauptmann was a "poor" carpenter. That seems to explain it. And yet, Hauptmann was respected among his peers because the inlaid box he built was such a fine piece of workmanship it was placed in the display window. The trunk he built for the back of his car was/is unanimously regarded as something a "poor" carpenter did not build.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 21, 2020 12:46:58 GMT -5
Hauptmann also built the garage for the car he purchased and in which the ransom money was found.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 21, 2020 18:09:15 GMT -5
mike we dont know what kind of carpenter he was this ladder was made quick in my view and it had to fit in his car we know it wasnt a perfect ladder but he built it to fit his moronic crime
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 22, 2020 8:29:21 GMT -5
It's hard to know exactly what Koehler meant when he said the ladder was the work of a poor carpenter. The design and function were deadly effective, considering it could be extended to 18-1/2 feet, weighed only 38 lbs and its sections could be nested into one unit that fit into Hauptmann's car. On the downside were the nails used to fasten the rungs to the rails, where screws could have been used to increase load capacity. The real Achilles Heel though was the dowel holes drilled into the rails, which were not reinforced at their very ends. I often wonder how things might have turned out much differently, if Hauptmann had wrapped a 2 or 3 foot length of steel wire around the ends of each rail to lessen the possibility of splitting along the grain. Maybe Koehler should have termed it more like an innovative carpenter prone to taking stupid shortcuts?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2020 10:24:46 GMT -5
It's hard to know exactly what Koehler meant when he said the ladder was the work of a poor carpenter. The design and function were deadly effective, considering it could be extended to 18-1/2 feet, weighed only 38 lbs and its sections could be nested into one unit that fit into Hauptmann's car. On the downside were the nails used to fasten the rungs to the rails, where screws could have been used to increase load capacity. The real Achilles Heel though was the dowel holes drilled into the rails, which were not reinforced at their very ends. I often wonder how things might have turned out much differently, if Hauptmann had wrapped a 2 or 3 foot length of steel wire around the ends of each rail to lessen the possibility of splitting along the grain. Maybe Koehler should have termed it more like an innovative carpenter prone to taking stupid shortcuts? I think the answer to this question is obvious. If I were to say that you, Joe, were a "poor" driver how would you take that? Would that mean you were good but liked to take shortcuts? No, it would mean that your driving sucks. Anyway, there's a whole entire chapter in V3 that pretty much explains Koehler's position. And here is something from his report that I quoted on page 247: The construction of the ladder in general is very crude, showing poor judgement in the selection of the lumber and in the design of the ladder, and poor workmanship. For a job that was to pull down $50,000, it showed poor workmanship.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 22, 2020 12:16:35 GMT -5
It's hard to know exactly what Koehler meant when he said the ladder was the work of a poor carpenter. The design and function were deadly effective, considering it could be extended to 18-1/2 feet, weighed only 38 lbs and its sections could be nested into one unit that fit into Hauptmann's car. On the downside were the nails used to fasten the rungs to the rails, where screws could have been used to increase load capacity. The real Achilles Heel though was the dowel holes drilled into the rails, which were not reinforced at their very ends. I often wonder how things might have turned out much differently, if Hauptmann had wrapped a 2 or 3 foot length of steel wire around the ends of each rail to lessen the possibility of splitting along the grain. Maybe Koehler should have termed it more like an innovative carpenter prone to taking stupid shortcuts? I think the answer to this question is obvious. If I were to say that you, Joe, were a "poor" driver how would you take that? Would that mean you were good but liked to take shortcuts? No, it would mean that your driving sucks. Anyway, there's a whole entire chapter in V3 that pretty much explains Koehler's position. And here is something from his report that I quoted on page 247: The construction of the ladder in general is very crude, showing poor judgement in the selection of the lumber and in the design of the ladder, and poor workmanship. For a job that was to pull down $50,000, it showed poor workmanship. Michael, I always get a kick out of how easily you can turn apples and oranges into one big fruit salad. And I wouldn't overlook the possibility that Koehler might also have been trying to get Hauptmann to react negatively to his assertion he was a poor carpenter.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 22, 2020 18:41:51 GMT -5
It's hard to know exactly what Koehler meant when he said the ladder was the work of a poor carpenter. The design and function were deadly effective, considering it could be extended to 18-1/2 feet, weighed only 38 lbs and its sections could be nested into one unit that fit into Hauptmann's car. On the downside were the nails used to fasten the rungs to the rails, where screws could have been used to increase load capacity. The real Achilles Heel though was the dowel holes drilled into the rails, which were not reinforced at their very ends. I often wonder how things might have turned out much differently, if Hauptmann had wrapped a 2 or 3 foot length of steel wire around the ends of each rail to lessen the possibility of splitting along the grain. Maybe Koehler should have termed it more like an innovative carpenter prone to taking stupid shortcuts? I think the answer to this question is obvious. If I were to say that you, Joe, were a "poor" driver how would you take that? Would that mean you were good but liked to take shortcuts? No, it would mean that your driving sucks. Anyway, there's a whole entire chapter in V3 that pretty much explains Koehler's position. And here is something from his report that I quoted on page 247: The construction of the ladder in general is very crude, showing poor judgement in the selection of the lumber and in the design of the ladder, and poor workmanship. For a job that was to pull down $50,000, it showed poor workmanship. Michael, I have read your discussion of Koehler in VIII, and it states that Koehler was on loan from the Forest Products Laboratory in February of 1933 to examine the ladder. I assume this was for the purpose of assessing the various types of wood (forest products) in the ladder with the hope this examination could assist in the ongoing investigation. Your extensive and damaging discussion of Koehler's subsequent conduct and trial testimony as an expert witness was extremely interesting and it prompted a couple of questions. I may have missed this, but what background/training/experience did Koehler have in carpentry that allowed the Trial Judge in Flemington to admit him as an expert witness on carpentry, and make statements to the jury as to what does and doesn't constitute a good or poor carpenter? Knowledge of "forestry products" is one thing; carpentry something else. Do you know if Koehler had ever testified as an expert witness in any other prior trial(s). I realize that this trial was in 1932 and this Trial Judge made many questionable decisions, but I have personally testified in federal court as an expert witness on federal firearms investigations, and one's curriculum vitae has to be extensive and spot on for the court to allow someone to address a jury as an expert. If I missed this in VIII, just give me the page number and don't bother to take the time to respond here in writing (I want you to finish V IV as many are looking forward to getting it!!)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2020 9:36:17 GMT -5
I may have missed this, but what background/training/experience did Koehler have in carpentry that allowed the Trial Judge in Flemington to admit him as an expert witness on carpentry, and make statements to the jury as to what does and doesn't constitute a good or poor carpenter? Knowledge of "forestry products" is one thing; carpentry something else. Do you know if Koehler had ever testified as an expert witness in any other prior trial(s). I realize that this trial was in 1932 and this Trial Judge made many questionable decisions, but I have personally testified in federal court as an expert witness on federal firearms investigations, and one's curriculum vitae has to be extensive and spot on for the court to allow someone to address a jury as an expert. If I missed this in VIII, just give me the page number and don't bother to take the time to respond here in writing (I want you to finish V IV as many are looking forward to getting it!!) Here is something Koehler typed up and is in the files at the NJSP: Attachment DeletedHe testified as a witness in several lawsuits and hearing: 1923: Identification of wood 1925: Identification of wood 1929: Identification of wood 1932: Quality of wood 1933: Quality of wood To better understand what took place in Flemington I'd have to review the transcripts. I should know what occurred without looking but its something I'd like to make sure of. As I recall, Pope argued there was no such thing as a "wood expert" but obviously his position failed. Let me know if you'd like me to look this up for you. What we can see above is that his carpentry skills are outlined there and this has to be the best possible light since Koehler himself put this together. Thanks for the encouragement on V4. Slow going but its going. Still needing to return to the Archives for a couple of things but God only knows when (or if) it will open back up again.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 23, 2020 19:28:36 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for the information and the document. No need for you to research any further. You posted what I was looking for.
Koehler's "expert witness" qualification statement as it pertains to carpentry is what I had suspected--outragious. It contained one paragraph consisting of three sentences to explain his expertise on carpentry; and that paragraph started with "Although not a carpenter by trade". There is no way any Trial Judge should have allowed Koehler to say anything about carpentry to a jury. In addition, from the list you provided as to his prior trial experience, it certainly appears that he never provided any expert testimony on carpentry, nor was he ever involved in a criminal trial. His first experience in this was a murder trial where Hauptmann's life was on the line. Just outragious.
As I see it, this problem with Koehler's testimony that you relate in Volume III arises from the written statement that he submitted to the NJSP on March 4, 1933 in which he went beyond his expertise in wood types and declared that this ladder was crudely made with very little skill; essentially saying it was not made by any professional carpenter. This kind of subjective interpretation of a piece of evidence (while an investigation is ongoing with no suspects) should NEVER be reduced to a written statement. It just locks the potential witness into a belief that may very well come back to bite them in the rearend. This just shows me the inexperience with criminal investigations on the part of Koehler and the NJSP. Expressing this kind of opinion orally to the investigators in an attempt to help them focus in on a suspect is one thing, reducing it to writing at that point in the investigation can be disastrous.
And sure enough, Koehler makes this written statement in March of 1933 and in September of 1934 a trained and experienced professional carpenter is charged with the crime. Wilentz now has a real problem with the jury hearing his expert witness's statement about who did and didn't make that ladder. Wilentz has to convince the jury that Hauptmann made and possessed that ladder or his case will probably fail. I think Wilentz had only one solution here and that was to have his expert Koehler testify that although Hauptmann was a professional carpenter, he was a poor one and thus made this crude ladder. If (in convincing the jury that Hauptmann build this crude ladder because he was a very poor carpenter) it required Koehler to engage in some very questionable testimony, then "so be it". I can't see Wilentz letting this case be lost because of Koehler's inappropriate prior written statement. "Adjustments" in testimony was required.
I won't get into my reasonongs at this point, but I do believe that it took someone with Hauptmann's training and experience in carpentry to first create this type of ladder in his mind and to then execute the construction of it. For me, the alleged expert carpentry witness Koehler just served to muddy up the water and create confusion on this part of the ladder evidence. I believe that Hauptmann made this ladder. Just expressing some thoughts on Koehler and the ladder.
Michael, glad to hear that you are making progress on Volume IV. I didn't realize that the Archives in West Trenton was still closed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2020 9:19:22 GMT -5
Here's a summary of Koehler's involvement in two of the cases I referenced above:
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 28, 2020 13:05:53 GMT -5
So there are two theories regarding the ladder. Either it was used in the actual kidnapping or it was a ruse to throw law enforcement off (and not used in the kidnapping). The one agreed on fact is that the 3 ladder sections were found about 75 from the house. This shows how the sections were found: Note that the two lower sections of the ladder were found dis-assembled and parallel to each other. This is confirmed by DeGaetano's March 9 statement: Whether the ladder was a ruse or actually used in the kidnapping, why would anyone take the time to drag the sections 75 feet away from the house and then completely dis-assemble the sections? If Hauptmann was the lone-wolf kidnapper, imagine him coming down the ladder with Charlie, grabbing the ladder (the 2 bottom sections that were used), taking both Charlie and the ladder 75 feet away, stopping, putting Charlie on the ground, dis-assembling the two bottom sections, putting them side by side, picking up Charlie and then walking away. Does that make sense to anyone? And if the ladder was a ruse, why not leave it against the house (which would be the main idea). Why take it 75 feet away and then dis-assemble it?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 28, 2020 14:30:15 GMT -5
And why take that route out at all and, in addition to the ladder, leave behind incriminating footprints? The kidnappers panicked when they dropped CAL Jr.? There were no indications of a fall below the nursery window, and considering how the ladder sections were laid down deliberately, the kidnappers were not "panicked". So, absent that, why waste getaway time by taking off through a muddy field in the dark, on foot, when they obviously had a car and must've used it to drive up to the house, since there were no approach footprints? Even if they walked up the driveway on the approach, why not take that clear path back out? No, they were spoonfeeding investigators, making it as easy as possible for them to connect the dots so they'd get the clearest possible picture of what supposedly happened. Genuine kidnappers wouldn't do any of this--i.e. they were not genuine kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 28, 2020 15:04:29 GMT -5
And why take that route out at all and, in addition to the ladder, leave behind incriminating footprints? The kidnappers panicked when they dropped CAL Jr.? There were no indications of a fall below the nursery window, and considering how the ladder sections were laid down deliberately, the kidnappers were not "panicked". So, absent that, why waste getaway time by taking off through a muddy field in the dark, on foot, when they obviously had a car and must've used it to drive up to the house, since there were no approach footprints? Even if they walked up the driveway on the approach, why not take that clear path back out? No, they were spoonfeeding investigators, making it as easy as possible for them to connect the dots so they'd get the clearest possible picture of what supposedly happened. Genuine kidnappers wouldn't do any of this--i.e. they were not genuine kidnappers. Ruse or use, either way, it really makes no sense to dis-assemble it, does it?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 28, 2020 17:05:09 GMT -5
No, and if they had disassembled the ladder--especially while panicking--there would've been a scramble of footprints wherever that was done, either at the house, at the spot where the ladder was found, or someplace in between. Instead, we just have two neat sets of prints leading away. I think the ladder was brought there with the bottom two sections attached, each guy carrying one end. They pivoted the ladder up on the boardwalk (managing to stay on it themselves, except for one stray misstep). The bottom section was stuck into the mud, with the top section leaving scrapes on the house. The sections were taken to and left where they were found. Now, how the rails of one section split--since that clearly didn't happen in a fall due to the ladder being overloaded--that I don't know. And as valuable as the drawing above is, I've read in certain places that the two lower ladder sections were found attached, but the drawing seems to show otherwise. Do you know which it is?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 28, 2020 17:40:37 GMT -5
No, and if they had disassembled the ladder--especially while panicking--there would've been a scramble of footprints wherever that was done, either at the house, at the spot where the ladder was found, or someplace in between. Instead, we just have two neat sets of prints leading away. I think the ladder was brought there with the bottom two sections attached, each guy carrying one end. They pivoted the ladder up on the boardwalk (managing to stay on it themselves, except for one stray misstep). The bottom section was stuck into the mud, with the top section leaving scrapes on the house. The sections were taken to and left where they were found. Now, how the rails of one section split--since that clearly didn't happen in a fall due to the ladder being overloaded--that I don't know. And as valuable as the drawing above is, I've read in certain places that the two lower ladder sections were found attached, but the drawing seems to show otherwise. Do you know which it is? Here's page 1 of DeGaetano's March 9th statement. He was either the third or fourth LE to see the ladder. It's there in black and white. All 3 sections "...were separate and laying parallel..."
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 28, 2020 18:00:20 GMT -5
I wonder how those scrape marks got higher up on the side of the house then, without at least two of the sections being attached...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 7:07:55 GMT -5
No, and if they had disassembled the ladder--especially while panicking--there would've been a scramble of footprints wherever that was done, either at the house, at the spot where the ladder was found, or someplace in between. Instead, we just have two neat sets of prints leading away. I think the ladder was brought there with the bottom two sections attached, each guy carrying one end. They pivoted the ladder up on the boardwalk (managing to stay on it themselves, except for one stray misstep). The bottom section was stuck into the mud, with the top section leaving scrapes on the house. The sections were taken to and left where they were found. Now, how the rails of one section split--since that clearly didn't happen in a fall due to the ladder being overloaded--that I don't know. And as valuable as the drawing above is, I've read in certain places that the two lower ladder sections were found attached, but the drawing seems to show otherwise. Do you know which it is? Here's page 1 of DeGaetano's March 9th statement. He was either the third or fourth LE to see the ladder. It's there in black and white. All 3 sections "...were separate and laying parallel..." View Attachment Wayne, I'm not questioning the veracity of DeGaetano's report here, but if he was the third or fourth LE to actually see the ladder, is it possible anyone of the previous LE might have picked it up and separated the sections? It would have been a crazy thing for any investigator to do, but these guys for the most part, would not have been seasoned crime scene investigators.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 8:20:53 GMT -5
Some personal thoughts here on what took place.
One of the lower ladder rails had split and Lindbergh heard that sound around 9:00 pm. If the ladder had impacted the first floor study shutter, I believe the kidnapper was well down the ladder with the child at that point. This doesn't necessarily mean he fell off the ladder, but he could have been startled enough to have then been forced to make an awkward descent the rest of the way. The holes formed in the ground by the ladder rails do not support the ladder itself having been tipped at all significantly sideways. The one stockinged footprint in the ground just to the left of the lower left rail was the result of a left foot impact from his descent and also shows that the kidnapper was not thrown off the ladder laterally to any great degree.
There was no original intention on the part of the kidnappers to leave the ladder behind. The plan would have been to disassemble it quickly and efficiently and nest it back together for ease of carrying back down the driveway and to the car. The unexpected breaking of the ladder threw a large monkey wrench into the original plan to exit the setup scene the same way they arrived, ie. alongside the house. What happened when the man on the ladder got back down then was a kind of controlled panic, in which the first reaction was to remove everything of evidence and gain whatever distance could be achieved immediately from the vicinity of the house. That is why they headed away at 90 degrees from the house in the general direction of where they knew their car was.
75-or-so-feet out is where they took stock to ensure no lights had suddenly come on, in response to the noise associated with the ladder breaking. Here, they attempted to restore the ladder to its nested configuration for ease of carrying, but this proved to be too formidable a task by then. The decision was then made to abandon what they realized even at that point, was a potential piece of evidence left behind. They had to take that risk however, just to be able to get away. The chisel, which they were using to disassemble the ladder by the clump of bushes, was also not intended to have been left behind, but dropped in the desperation of the moment and possibly could not be located, before they left the scene.
The general absence of discernible footprints near the house and at the base of the ladder is a clear indication the ground was not soft and impressionable enough there to support their ready appearance, until the kidnappers got further away from the east side of the house where the leeward effect of the house to generally north-west originating rains, no longer applied.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 8:27:03 GMT -5
No, and if they had disassembled the ladder--especially while panicking--there would've been a scramble of footprints wherever that was done, either at the house, at the spot where the ladder was found, or someplace in between. Instead, we just have two neat sets of prints leading away. I think the ladder was brought there with the bottom two sections attached, each guy carrying one end. They pivoted the ladder up on the boardwalk (managing to stay on it themselves, except for one stray misstep). The bottom section was stuck into the mud, with the top section leaving scrapes on the house. The sections were taken to and left where they were found. Now, how the rails of one section split--since that clearly didn't happen in a fall due to the ladder being overloaded--that I don't know. And as valuable as the drawing above is, I've read in certain places that the two lower ladder sections were found attached, but the drawing seems to show otherwise. Do you know which it is? Here's page 1 of DeGaetano's March 9th statement. He was either the third or fourth LE to see the ladder. It's there in black and white. All 3 sections "...were separate and laying parallel..." View Attachment Wayne, I find it very interesting that DeGaetano reports, "With my flashlight, I discerned footprints that appeared to be made by a stockinged foot." He makes no comment on how many individuals he believed made those footprints.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2020 11:16:15 GMT -5
Ruse or use, either way, it really makes no sense to dis-assemble it, does it? Part of the issue when examining the clues is that we tend to get tunnel vision. Consider that this thing developed into stages. For one, the child was removed. For me most likely handed out of the front door and taken away. We have several car sightings. I believe some are definitely connected: Windling, Conover, Lupica, and Moore. So my guess is this car had the child but we cannot exclude it was an confederate but did not actually have him. Also, other car sightings cannot be excluded based on any number of reasons. Neither too can the possibility of other Dodges being present opposed to just one. Also, other events due to the timing cannot be excluded. I've considered the child was first removed, then the staging occurred after. Who is in charge of staging the scene? Definitely not someone who is an actual Kidnapper, rather, one who believes how a Kidnapper would act instead. So when we have Kutcha's dog chasing after someone around 9, its probably not the "kidnapper" but if there's staging going on at that time then here's your answer. This isn't thinking "outside the box" but instead thinking outside of a room with no windows and the door painted shut. Take the nursery when obviously the prints were wiped off of most everything. This was to impress upon the Police, in my opinion, that the kidnapper wore gloves. But removing everyone's prints came from someone untrained in committing such an offense. Why? They would have just worn gloves. So to give that impression, they reveal something else instead. Same with this ladder. The idea may have been something other than what police or all these years later "we" make of it ourselves. In my opinion, it shows intent to remove it from the side of the house first. Next, it shows these people "leaving the scene" which is designed to prove its outsiders. Again, these would be things whoever is calling the shots would "believe" is necessary to formulate the scenario played out in their mind. Next, it indicates it was being prepared for further transport by being disassembled before being nested. It suggests an interruption. Left behind because they were "startled by something." So the fear wasn't supposed to have occurred until that point. Why? Perhaps if Lindbergh was coming home there would be a question as to whether or not he'd see the ladder on the side of the house? This also calls into question why Lindbergh didn't see the car the Moores saw, or the car parked on the side of Wertsville Road before turning onto his private lane. Knowing what we do, he certainly should have if he actually came home when he did. So he either lied about what time he came home, lied about not seeing the car, he's totally involved - or all three.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2020 11:21:17 GMT -5
Wayne, I find it very interesting that DeGaetano reports, "With my flashlight, I discerned footprints that appeared to be made by a stockinged foot." He makes no comment on how many individuals he believed made those footprints. But Wolf did. And so did many other people.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 14:58:38 GMT -5
Wayne, I find it very interesting that DeGaetano reports, "With my flashlight, I discerned footprints that appeared to be made by a stockinged foot." He makes no comment on how many individuals he believed made those footprints. But Wolf did. And so did many other people. I understand that, and tend to believe there was more than one kidnapper involved, but I've never been 100% convinced by Trooper Wolf's report, or anyone else's. Wolf's description is, " apparently two sets of fresh foot prints leading off in a southeast direction." Clearly, he's inferring throughout his report that there were "kidnappers," but is this because he actually saw two sets of footprints that were both made by kidnappers, or is he assuming this because of his personal interpretation of what must have taken place? And he would also seem to corroborate De Gaetano's claim that the ladder was fully disassembled.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2020 11:13:29 GMT -5
I understand that, and tend to believe there was more than one kidnapper involved, but I've never been 100% convinced by Trooper Wolf's report, or anyone else's. Wolf's description is, " apparently two sets of fresh foot prints leading off in a southeast direction." Clearly, he's inferring throughout his report that there were "kidnappers," but is this because he actually saw two sets of footprints that were both made by kidnappers, or is he assuming this because of his personal interpretation of what must have taken place? And he would also seem to corroborate De Gaetano's claim that the ladder was fully disassembled. There's more to consider than just Wolf. The position that more than one person walked away from the scene only evaporated due to the Prosecution's theory. Look at Williamson. Look at Kutcha. Etc. Look also at the 1932 "Richard Roe," "Peter Roe," and "Helen Doe" indictments. Think that was arbitrary? I know you read my books so are you forgetting this stuff?
|
|