|
Post by firebird on Dec 28, 2021 15:24:32 GMT -5
There were mens foot prints and womens foot prints under the window. Has it been suggested that Hauptmanns sweet little innocent wife (I never knew his name)was his co conspirator that night and it was going to be her job to care for the baby until he dropped the bag
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 28, 2021 17:22:23 GMT -5
There were mens foot prints and womens foot prints under the window. Has it been suggested that Hauptmanns sweet little innocent wife (I never knew his name)was his co conspirator that night and it was going to be her job to care for the baby until he dropped the bag A few things: 1) She was working that night. This was documented. The question became whether or not he was there to pick her up that night, which would prove he was not in Hopewell. There continues to be no actual evidence Hauptmann was present in Hopewell on the night of the kidnapping (no fingerprints, forensic evidence, legitimate car sightings, etc). Even the shoe casts were "lost" before the trial, which Hauptmann believed was done to not give the defense exculpatory evidence. Even the ladder was dusted for fingerprints, including areas underneath the rungs which the maker of the ladder would have had to touch, and his prints were not present. 2) He didn't drop the bag. This was something the prosecution made up at the last minute, as they were forced to change from their initial story that the chisel had been used to murder the baby (it was pointed out that there was no blood found anywhere). Nobody knows how the child died. The coroner originally thought it might could have even been a bullet. The "dropped" story makes no sense for a few reasons: a) the ground was soft mud and took footprints, given this there should have been an indentation or clear evidence of a dropped bag. This was not present. b) Is some soft mud enough to kill a child? Probably not. Anna Hauptmann spent the rest of her life trying to prove her husband's innocence. I think you'll be more fruitful looking towards the household staff who was on hand that night as to who may have created those footprints. As I mentioned in my post on the other thread, I would strongly recommend reading Gardner's book. This is one of those cases where the popular history is far different from the reality. The actual reports, police notes and the robust information available tell a very different story.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Dec 28, 2021 17:51:52 GMT -5
It's been suggested that the child was dropped and that the ladder fell on his head. When he was placed in a burlap bag is another question. Where would Hauptmann get a burlap bag? These contain ground animal feed and are found on farms. It's not a good idea to put a kid or any living thing into one of these bags as the ground meal is very dusty. it would be difficult to breathe when trapped in one of these bags, especially if the child already had a cold in the chest. I was brought up on a farm. We bought many of these feed bags for the stock, esp. in the winter. The chicken coop near the Lindbergh property may have had burlap bags with feed for the chickens. Charlie Shippell on the farm nearby would probably have several also.
|
|
|
Post by firebird on Dec 28, 2021 20:28:26 GMT -5
Thanks trojanusc I have The case that never dies" by C Lloyd Gardner on my reading list. The two lindberg books I read were pretty much sterilized about the kidnapping. I would think Hauptmann had found some means of transporting the child. If it was a stolen feed sack mabey turn it inside out with a few shakes.
Any body know if Hauptmann was left or right handed.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 28, 2021 22:05:12 GMT -5
Thanks trojanusc I have The case that never dies" by C Lloyd Gardner on my reading list. The two lindberg books I read were pretty much sterilized about the kidnapping. I would think Hauptmann had found some means of transporting the child. If it was a stolen feed sack mabey turn it inside out with a few shakes. Any body know if Hauptmann was left or right handed. The burlap bag found near the body came from the local area, not from the Bronx where Hauptmann lived. Nobody at the scene could believe, quite frankly, that the child was kidnapped as Lindbergh claimed. The nursery was far too neat. It would require a feat of acrobatics to get in and darn near impossible to do so without making sounds. Also, because of the shutters, the kidnapper had no idea whether the room upstairs was full of people until he ascended the ladder. What kind of kidnapper would do such a thing at an hour when the whole house is awake? What if Lindbergh himself was sitting in there? Meanwhile the shutters themselves were the only ones that would not bolt shut. People in the house knew this was a problem yet Lindbergh basically lied about why he didn't have it fixed, saying the house was "too new," while still calling to have a sticky front door fixed. Many believe the child was basically just handed out the front door, with the ladder climb a staged event or just to drop the note. Even the footprint evidence likely pointed to at perhaps three perpetrators, but this was all dropped when Hauptmann was arrested. Oddly, the kidnappers appeared to have followed a very narrow boardwalk around the house, as no footprints existed on the approach to the house. Staying on this without a flashlight was likely impossible, yet Lindbergh claimed to have been in his study during the kidnapping (at least in one version of the events). Then, being so careful to avoid footprints on the approach, they exit in a totally different direction and leave tons of footprints. One investigator, Leon Ho-age, believed that both the ladder and ransom note were carefully staged as if to have a flashing neon sign saying "WE WENT THIS WAY," in an effort to misdirect police from what really happened. As far as "turn it inside out with a few shakes" - I'm not entirely clear what this means? In my opinion, trying to work backwards from "Hauptmann was the kidnapper so how did he do it" is a mistake. Read some of the more non-biased books on the case and follow the threads to where they lead you, working from the evidence at the scene, not where history has whitewashed things.
|
|
|
Post by firebird on Dec 28, 2021 23:21:37 GMT -5
Thank you trojan usc. Metje thought a feed bag from the nearby farm orchicken coop could have been used to transport the baby but would be too dusty for him to keep his breath. . I suggested turn the burlap feed bag inside out to eliminate the dust that was on the inside.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Dec 29, 2021 5:43:49 GMT -5
Actually the bag's thick burlap threads become saturated with the dust so just turning it inside out would not help. Michael does a good job tracing the origin of the area's burlap bags in his "Dark Corners."
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Dec 29, 2021 6:06:51 GMT -5
The point really is that an empty bag that once held animal feed is not an article one would find in the Bronx. it would have been used on a farm with chickens or livestock. Hauptmann or a city dweller would not have ready access to a used burlap bag or have much knowledge of it. An empty burlap bag would have had to be found on a farm, probably one near the Lindbergh estate.
|
|