Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 8, 2023 12:52:51 GMT -5
I’ve been following the recent threads especially as they relate to what actually occurred at the scene of the crime, with much interest. As Occam’s Razor essentially states, “If you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one, unless it can be conclusively proven the more complex one is preferable.” I believe the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, is a classic case of overlooking the obvious for something far more imaginative and hotly conspiratorial. And there is good reason for this. What other case before the Kennedy Assassination, O.J. Simpson or the World Trade Attacks attracted so much attention and sleuthing, leaving in its wake, such a disproportionately small amount of relevant evidence opposite a veritable mountain of irrelevant chaff. The crime scene evidence, largely investigated by inadequately trained and inexperienced men, is one such area that opens up almost innumerable avenues and offshoots. These in turn often lead to seemingly endless loops in logic that when tested rigorously, usually come out battered and bruised but nevertheless are routinely represented as being the best alternative, seemingly by whoever has the desire and fortitude to keep lobbying for them the most vociferously.
Rather than attempt to comment on or rebut all of the recent points under the ‘The Second Story Window’ thread, of which there are some excellent observations, I thought I’d lay out what I believe happened, for what it may be worth. For simplicity’s sake, I note the singular here when referring to the kidnapper, or kidnappers, because I really don’t know if this crime involved one or two perpetrators. Three would have been a crowd though, totally unnecessary and more of a liability. As this theory is a continually evolving process, the following is my current personal snapshot. My advance apologies for the length of this dissertation. At the same time, I accept that none are needed if it helps to spur further interest, input and discussion.
The kidnapper, with car headlights turned off, drove up the Lindbergh driveway at approximately 8:00 pm for the purpose of dropping off the ladder and supplies near the house. His tires might well have been the ones which Anne claimed to have heard on gravel shortly after 8:00 pm, although I do wonder if he would have risked coming within potential earshot of anyone within the house. Perhaps though, the kidnapper believed the windy conditions of that evening might have drowned out the sound of his vehicle. And it seems reasonable that Anne might never have noticed this “sound of tires,” had she not been so attentively waiting for the arrival of Charles, her ears tuned to the sound of his approaching car. The ladder and supplies (bag, chisel, possibly a length of rope) would have been placed just off the driveway a short distance from the house and importantly, to the left of the driveway as it bends left towards the house. Doing so would eliminate the possibility of an unexpected and incoming car’s headlights possibly training on them. There were several sparsely situated evergreen trees close to the house, but a little farther east of these, would have been some ideal bush and scrub cover locations for this purpose. As it turned out, Lindbergh arrived home about 8:25 pm, so he would have passed right by the concealed ladder and supplies. And he would also have come within about 15 minutes of being in a position of ‘boxing in’ the kidnapper’s vehicle heading back down the driveway.
At approximately 8:45 pm, the kidnapper, who may or may not have been aware of the Lindbergh’s car arriving home, would have walked back up the driveway in the overcast darkness, following the visible path of its lighter coloured gravel. His car had been parked off Hopewell-Wertsville Rd., just north of the Lindbergh driveway. Now he would have been carrying a flashlight, ready to use it if required to locate the hidden ladder and supplies, during setup and of course later within the nursery.
Based upon previous surveillance of the house, the kidnapper knew exactly where the nursery was and the nighttime routine of preparing the child for bed. No inside information was required for this, it would all have been available to him through his own surveillance and the public record. He would never have risked developing an ‘inside connection’ with anyone having specific knowledge of the comings and goings of the Lindbergh family. And as far as he was concerned, the Lindberghs were now permanent residents of Hopewell and Highfields. I understand this premise is highly debatable and so I’m prepared to back up these statements. At the same time, the commission of this crime demanded the participation of someone who was prepared to take an enormous amount of risk, even when its degree could not be reasonably minimized. A lot of money and a misguided sense of needing to achieve what would be his greatest challenge ever, were the two main motivating factors here. The kidnapper, now prepared to strike, carefully approached the house via the driveway with ladder and supplies. Entering the immediate outer area of the house through the low stone walls that bordered the drive, he made his way to the north-east corner of the east wing, where he removed his rubber boots. These would be put back on after the abduction and before his planned retreat back down the driveway. Now in heavy sock-covered feet and using the narrow tongue-and-groove flooring walkways as a general guide, he came to the base of the nursery window. Another area of regular disagreement is the condition of the ground immediately adjacent to both sides of the walkway. Some claim the kidnapper never stepped off the walkway during his approach or during the raising and positioning of the ladder against the wall of the house. They do this by pointing to the one muffled footprint which appeared to the left of the ladder’s left rail, and which faced the house. I say this would have been an impossible feat to achieve, unless the kidnapper somehow managed to raise and position the ladder and plant it firmly into the ground without once stepping off that one narrow width of tongue-and-groove flooring in the dark, before he leapt from it, managed to do a 180 degree turn before coming down with only left foot on the ground, his right foot ostensibly landing on the first rung or still in the air, prior to making his ascent. The obvious question begged here, is why would anyone even think of planning and doing such an unnecessary thing? Occam’s Razor comes strongly into play here.. It had been raining much of that day and so one would naturally expect exposed areas of the yard to be relatively muddy and impressionable to a person’s foot. But the driving rains of earlier that day were coming in from the north-west and the eastern side of the house would have represented a protected leeward area from excessive moisture. The crime scene photo of the ladder impressions clearly shows the condition of the ground here to have been moist to a degree, but also of the dense and firmly-packed clay-based soil, which it was. What the kidnapper was wearing on his feet to minimize any sound made during his time in the nursery, were simply incapable of making the kind of telltale impressions in the ground on which he walked during his travel alongside the house and when he raised and positioned the ladder, that would otherwise have been made by hard edged footwear.
The presence of a woman’s footprints along the area between walkway and east wall of the house, appears to challenge this premise, however we know that Anne was wearing rubbers or galoshes, which in the 1930’s and like the shoes she routinely wore, would have had a relatively sharp sole and heel edge. Bottom line here, the combination of her 110 lbs. of weight and the distinctively-shaped footwear she had on, would have left significantly more of an impression in the same type of ground within the immediate area of the east wall of the house, than that of the soft foot cover wearing kidnapper, who probably weighed a good 50% more. I tend to believe the kidnapper had previously assembled two sections of the ladder which he would then have ascended with the intent of defeating the locked shutters with the chisel, however he would quickly have been able to determine they were unlocked. As well, the Lindberghs routine of leaving the upper floor windows unlocked, as many people do, would have provided an unexpected and fortuitous stroke of luck for the kidnapper. I say perhaps, as I don’t discount the possibility that he had previously surveyed the house at close quarters prior to the evening of March 1, and had observed the south-east corner window shutters were not flush to the wall of the house, and therefore unlocked. In any case, two assembled sections would be needed to manually pull back the two shutters for subsequent attachment of the third section for entering the nursery, if it was actually used. Why did the kidnapper choose a position for the ladder, which was right of centre to the nursery window, as opposed centre or left of centre? I tend to side with the belief that there was less likelihood he would have been seen by anyone who happened to come into the downstairs study right below the nursery. I also think that anyone capable and dexterous enough to achieve what was done here, would have had no concerns about using their ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ side indiscriminately as necessary. I wasn’t there, but given the choice I would rather have kept my ‘greater’ side as my base on the ladder. I routinely use my left hand for many things optional to the use of my right hand, and I believe that anyone who built this ladder and knew how to use it, ostensibly someone whose ‘bread and butter’ lies within the use of their hands and physical and manual abilities, would have felt comfortable in either position demanded. With either two or three sections of the ladder being used, what the kidnapper achieved between ascent and descent of the ladder on that windy evening, of course would have been an extraordinary feat for the average person but still possible for someone capable of doing so, as was demonstrated during investigator re-enactments.
During the descent from the nursery, the left lower rail of the ladder unexpectedly cracked due to more force being applied to its hinge position than it was capable of sustaining. This could have been the result of a sudden lateral shift off balance point or that more weight was now being applied to the ladder than during the ascent. I don’t discount the possibility here that a sole kidnapper had no pre-conceived notion of trying to make his way out the window carrying the 30 lb. Charlie in a bag, and instead, simply lowered him to the ground using the length of rope he may have carried with him. If there had have been an accomplice at the scene, then certainly that person would have taken the child in a hand-off out the window. I just don’t believe one can summarily make the assumption that if this was a ‘lone wolf’ operation, that the kidnapper out of necessity, would have had to have been carrying Charlie with him when he exited the window, and/or doing so, while descending the ladder.
The sharp cracking sound Lindbergh heard around 9:00 pm, was the sound of the ladder breaking and either impacting the right library shutter or it suddenly shifting against the house enough to register the impact vibration as an audible noise, from where he was sitting in the living room. The kidnapper would have come down relatively hard at this point by design or otherwise, on his left foot, which left a roughly discernible foot shaped impression in the ground to the immediate left of the ladder’s left rail. The less distinct impression to the ladder’s right could have been the bag which dropped unexpectedly to the ground, or was put down in haste. This unexpected breakage of the ladder would now have suddenly forced the kidnapper to make a decision. To retreat as planned down the driveway while at the same time risking an encounter with anyone who might have head the noise coming outside to investigate, or to try and distance himself from the scene as quickly as possible across open field in whatever straight line to the car could be determined in the darkness. I believe a certain amount of irrationality held sway here in the decision made and that really it would have made little difference which way he exited, if someone had immediately come outside to investigate.
The pace dictated by the kidnapper’s retreat, as shown by the now-registering footprints in the “muddier” ground further away from the house, would have made this a self-preserving and balancing exercise on two accounts: i) getting away quickly enough not to be caught, and ii) not slipping in the unexpected ground conditions, going down, dropping something and ultimately taking longer to get away, ie. doing it right the first time. Compared to the relatively firm ground alongside the house, which would have been protected by its leeward effect from rains coming from the north-west earlier than day, they would soon have discovered that relatively speaking, they were venturing into a potential quagmire in the open field areas. I believe the disposal of the ladder and accidental loss of the chisel at a point only 75 feet from the house indicates the kidnapper was in no mood to have to hamper his progress in the same kind of open exposed field ground conditions for another half mile of travel and simply decided at this point to “lighten his load,” now treating the ladder as expendable. This path of retreat he chose, indicates perhaps an underestimation of these actual ground conditions, but one he was now essentially committed to. Even though the driveway retreat would normally have been the longer route, in a perfect world without the ladder breaking it would have represented a safer and more controlled exit environment, with the kidnapper knowing the child might not be looked in on for some time. The anxiety which would have been produced by the breaking of the ladder though, forced a potentially shorter route but one which would have been heightened by the uncertainty of not knowing if the noise had been heard by anyone who decided to investigate its source.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2023 8:24:02 GMT -5
I’ve been following the recent threads especially as they relate to what actually occurred at the scene of the crime, with much interest. As Occam’s Razor essentially states, “If you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one, unless it can be conclusively proven the more complex one is preferable.” I believe the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, is a classic case of overlooking the obvious for something far more imaginative and hotly conspiratorial. And there is good reason for this. What other case before the Kennedy Assassination, O.J. Simpson or the World Trade Attacks attracted so much attention and sleuthing, leaving in its wake, such a disproportionately small amount of relevant evidence opposite a veritable mountain of irrelevant chaff. The crime scene evidence, largely investigated by inadequately trained and inexperienced men, is one such area that opens up almost innumerable avenues and offshoots. These in turn often lead to seemingly endless loops in logic that when tested rigorously, usually come out battered and bruised but nevertheless are routinely represented as being the best alternative, seemingly by whoever has the desire and fortitude to keep lobbying for them the most vociferously. I would appreciate this more if you didn't invent a pair of magic boots, ignore an obvious muddy situation under the window, or create new imaginary terms like "controlled panic." Seems to spit in the face of Occam and smacks of hypocrisy. Other than that, Lupica saw a dodge with a ladder in it at 6PM very near Highfields. The Conovers saw a car on Featherbed Lane which seemed to them to be stuck in the mud between 6:30-7PM. The Moores saw a car at 8:22(3) covered in mud race past their home away from Highfields on a little traveled road. Parker, applying Occam's Razor, looked at all of the accounts, drove the distance to Moore's from Highfields, and determined the crime occurred at 8PM.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 9, 2023 8:57:30 GMT -5
I share your preference for the simple rather than the complex in the LKC.
Conspiracy theories are inherently attractive because they provide the adherent with a feeling of being special, of possessing special insights which the “sheep” following the simpler theory (“poor deluded souls”) cannot see. Gross improbabilities and lack of factual support for a conspiracy are explained away. Belief has replaced evidence. Trump did win! Ha! Ha!
Your posting Joe covers the actual kidnap and it is clear that, following Occam’s razor, the simpler solution of the lone operator is your preferred solution. However I cannot agree that the lone operator is in fact the simpler solution vs. an inside job. It is in my view far more complicated and relies on a series of “pure dumb luck” events to carry it off.
Concept BRH chooses the highest profile child in the USA as his intended victim. With many other children of rich parents available, this is his choice. Intense publicity and thorough investigation are predictable.
Materiel He constructs a rickety home-made ladder instead of buying a more sturdy, reliable, and difficult-to-trace alternative.
Intelligence He surveils the Lindbergh home and reaches the wrong conclusion that they are in permanent residence. By pure chance they are in fact there on March 1st. His surveillance has revealed the location of the nursery, the hour of the child’s bedtime, and the “do not disturb” rule between 8 and 10 pm. It also showed the family had dogs so he’s hoping they won’t be around on March 1st.
Execution He drives 70 miles from the Bronx with his ladder in full view in the back of his car (Lupica?) but nobody else comes forward saying they saw it. He erects the ladder just to the right of Lindbergh’s study window where at any moment someone may enter, turn on he light, leave papers on L’s desk and glance idly out of the window to check the weather. He climbs his ladder in silence, executes a difficult entry manoeuvre from ladder to window, doesn’t knock over any ornaments and lifts the silent child into his unfamiliar arms. He then exits the room smoothly bearing the child, onto the ladder or as you suggest lowers the child in a bag to an accomplice on the ground. The child, still silent, is placed on the ground while he takes the ladder and places it some 75 feet away from the house. He rejoins his car not bothering to cut the phone line in order to hinder pursuit. This in spite of knowing the child is sick and that in spite of the 8-10 rule a spot check on his condition could be made at any time.
Care of the child No solid evidence has emerged regarding BRH’s plan for child care until the ransom is paid.
So, and once again restricting ourselves to the actual planning and execution of the abduction the lone operator theory depends on a long list of uncertainties rather than the precise “nothing can go wrong” plan which one would expect in a $50,000 caper. I draw a parallel with an accumulator bet on a series of horses in different races. The winnings from the first are bet on the second etc. The potential reward is great, as is the risk of losing at any stage..
The insider job theory removes most if not all of these obstacles to the actual kidnap phase. It is not without its own problems however but these are mostly related to other phases of the LKC: the theoretical chain of command from Lindbergh to the hands-on perp, the weak (to us) justification for a eugenics - justified killing based only on the documented mild rickety condition and crossed toes shown by Charles Jnr., etc. etc. These areas, outside the events of March 1st, are still unresolved and may be taken in support of the lone operator theory.
But taking the abduction in isolation, as you have done Joe, Occam’s razor to me at least suggests an inside job as the simpler solution. This is far from proof that it was, just that on the balance of probabilities, it is the most likely.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 9, 2023 22:11:27 GMT -5
Joe, that is quite a detailed summary of how the kidnapping might have been accomplished that night. You certainly know a lot about this crime. I do have a couple of points I want to comment about.
My understanding is that the driveway is very long and not a straight drive. It has no lighting to assist someone driving up or away. I cannot get on board with a kidnaper driving without headlights on that long driveway. That does not work for me.
I think only one man doing all this would take too long. He has no get away time after he stashes the body of Charles Jr allowing him to get far enough away from the scene before the child is discovered missing.
There are footprints at the scene for two people not one if you discount the female print Anne said she made. I really think two abductors are involved in this.
I think the ground must have been muddy enough at the scene that mud was picked up on the feet of the kidnapper who climbed the ladder. How else do you explain the chunk of mud that was found on the lower level shutter? Michael talks about this in Chapter 14 of Volume 1 of The Dark Corners book series.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2023 11:07:12 GMT -5
Joe, that is quite a detailed summary of how the kidnapping might have been accomplished that night. You certainly know a lot about this crime. I do have a couple of points I want to comment about. Over the past twenty-two years, it’s what I’d call an ever-evolving jigsaw puzzle gradually being filled in. I’ve never been able to shake an almost immediate image of Richard Hauptmann front and centre and just don’t buy the Lindy-Did-It theory. I understand that naming those responsible goes beyond the intent of my original thread but Hauptmann for me is the only one who aligns with or does not come into conflict with other areas of the puzzle that I do talk about.
My understanding is that the driveway is very long and not a straight drive. It has no lighting to assist someone driving up or away. I cannot get on board with a kidnaper driving without headlights on that long driveway. That does not work for me. I’m not recommending you try this, but if the lights on your vehicle can be turned off while driving forward, you might be surprised what the visible contrast between a lighter coloured base on which you’re on will be to the surrounding vegetation at night under varying conditions, and once you've pre-accustomed your eyes to the dark. The Mayans in Mexico built roads of lighter-coloured gravel called ‘sacbe’s’ (meaning ‘white road’) on which they traversed great distances by foot in the dark in order to avoid the heat of the sun during the day. Even on moonless and overcast nights, they found their way. I think only one man doing all this would take too long. He has no get away time after he stashes the body of Charles Jr allowing him to get far enough away from the scene before the child is discovered missing. As I said, I’m still not sure if there was one or two kidnappers. Knowing who was clearly involved by virtue of the ladder and wood evidence, the ransom note handwriting and financially accounting for a minimum of 80% of the ransom proceeds though, unless he bumped off his never-discovered accomplice who otherwise appears to have settled for far less, this was Hauptmann’s crime all the way.
There are footprints at the scene for two people not one if you discount the female print Anne said she made. I really think two abductors are involved in this. Simply put, I don’t put 100% faith in Trooper Wolf’s observation that the two sets of footprints he claimed to have seen, represented those of two retreating kidnappers.
I think the ground must have been muddy enough at the scene that mud was picked up on the feet of the kidnapper who climbed the ladder. How else do you explain the chunk of mud that was found on the lower level shutter? Michael talks about this in Chapter 14 of Volume 1 of The Dark Corners book series. The ribbed heavy textile coverings worn by the kidnapper(s) during their approach to the base of the nursery window, certainly would have picked up something, as evidenced by the trace amounts of mud left on the suitcase and nursery rug. I’d consider it more of a saturated film though as opposed to a heavy buildup on the foot covering undersides. The reason for this is clear to me. Given the leeward protection from rains afforded by the east wall of the house, this would not have been a case of them sinking ankle deep in oozing, sloppy mud beside the house while they moved around raising and lowering the ladder. It was not until they had travelled a short distance away from this leeward protection and now wearing their outer footwear, that their movement now in now much softer and oozing ground, became readily discernible in the form of deeper, visible prints. As for the small chunk of mud discovered on the shutter, (and I only make the assumption here that it occurred during the ladder ascent or descent) I would tend to believe that it did not represent the overall condition of the underside of the ladder climber’s foot covering. If it had, a much larger amount of mud would have been seen on the ladder rungs and in the nursery.
I’ve experimented with a number of conditions in my own back garden which also has a highly clay-based soil, (damp in the spring but not oozing) and did so again this past weekend. Wearing very heavy winter socks over my bare feet, I can put my full weight of about 180 lbs. and walk its length leaving virtually no trace of my travels, while at the same time, leave quite distinct sole and heel prints from my regular footwear, with what would be less than half of my weight exerted downwards.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 10, 2023 21:12:01 GMT -5
Joe, that is quite a detailed summary of how the kidnapping might have been accomplished that night. You certainly know a lot about this crime. I do have a couple of points I want to comment about. Over the past twenty-two years, it’s what I’d call an ever-evolving jigsaw puzzle gradually being filled in. I’ve never been able to shake an almost immediate image of Richard Hauptmann front and centre and just don’t buy the Lindy-Did-It theory. I understand that naming those responsible goes beyond the intent of my original thread but Hauptmann for me is the only one who aligns with or does not come into conflict with other areas of the puzzle that I do talk about. Twenty-two years? Sounds like you are married to this case. What is it that has kept you so interested this long if you think the case was solved by the authorities? Are you writing a book too?My understanding is that the driveway is very long and not a straight drive. It has no lighting to assist someone driving up or away. I cannot get on board with a kidnaper driving without headlights on that long driveway. That does not work for me. I’m not recommending you try this, but if the lights on your vehicle can be turned off while driving forward, you might be surprised what the visible contrast between a lighter coloured base on which you’re on will be to the surrounding vegetation at night under varying conditions, and once you've pre-accustomed your eyes to the dark. The Mayans in Mexico built roads of lighter-coloured gravel called ‘sacbe’s’ (meaning ‘white road’) on which they traversed great distances by foot in the dark in order to avoid the heat of the sun during the day. Even on moonless and overcast nights, they found their way.
I will take your word on this. I think only one man doing all this would take too long. He has no get away time after he stashes the body of Charles Jr allowing him to get far enough away from the scene before the child is discovered missing. As I said, I’m still not sure if there was one or two kidnappers. Knowing who was clearly involved by virtue of the ladder and wood evidence, the ransom note handwriting and financially accounting for a minimum of 80% of the ransom proceeds though, unless he bumped off his never-discovered accomplice who otherwise appears to have settled for far less, this was Hauptmann’s crime all the way. If Hauptmann had a partner in this kidnapping, how do you know that the money wasn't being used jointly for the purposes that they undertook this very dangerous criminal act?There are footprints at the scene for two people not one if you discount the female print Anne said she made. I really think two abductors are involved in this. Simply put, I don’t put 100% faith in Trooper Wolf’s observation that the two sets of footprints he claimed to have seen, represented those of two retreating kidnappers. Whose footprints would they be then? Do you think the kidnappers left via the boardwalk?I think the ground must have been muddy enough at the scene that mud was picked up on the feet of the kidnapper who climbed the ladder. How else do you explain the chunk of mud that was found on the lower level shutter? Michael talks about this in Chapter 14 of Volume 1 of The Dark Corners book series. The ribbed heavy textile coverings worn by the kidnapper(s) during their approach to the base of the nursery window, certainly would have picked up something, as evidenced by the trace amounts of mud left on the suitcase and nursery rug. I’d consider it more of a saturated film though as opposed to a heavy buildup on the foot covering undersides. The reason for this is clear to me. Given the leeward protection from rains afforded by the east wall of the house, this would not have been a case of them sinking ankle deep in oozing, sloppy mud beside the house while they moved around raising and lowering the ladder. It was not until they had travelled a short distance away from this leeward protection and now wearing their outer footwear, that their movement now in now much softer and oozing ground, became readily discernible in the form of deeper, visible prints. As for the small chunk of mud discovered on the shutter, (and I only make the assumption here that it occurred during the ladder ascent or descent) I would tend to believe that it did not represent the overall condition of the underside of the ladder climber’s foot covering. If it had, a much larger amount of mud would have been seen on the ladder rungs and in the nursery. I’ve experimented with a number of conditions in my own back garden which also has a highly clay-based soil, (damp in the spring but not oozing) and did so again this past weekend. Wearing very heavy winter socks over my bare feet, I can put my full weight of about 180 lbs. and walk its length leaving virtually no trace of my travels, while at the same time, leave quite distinct sole and heel prints from my regular footwear, with what would be less than half of my weight exerted downwards.Thanks for your explanation. I only know what Michael wrote in his book and what you have explained in your response. I am really not sure how it fits in with this kidnapping. Is it really even that important?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 12, 2023 9:21:43 GMT -5
I share your preference for the simple rather than the complex in the LKC. Conspiracy theories are inherently attractive because they provide the adherent with a feeling of being special, of possessing special insights which the “sheep” following the simpler theory (“poor deluded souls”) cannot see. Gross improbabilities and lack of factual support for a conspiracy are explained away. Belief has replaced evidence. Trump did win! Ha! Ha! Your posting Joe covers the actual kidnap and it is clear that, following Occam’s razor, the simpler solution of the lone operator is your preferred solution. However I cannot agree that the lone operator is in fact the simpler solution vs. an inside job. It is in my view far more complicated and relies on a series of “pure dumb luck” events to carry it off. The insider job theory removes most if not all of these obstacles to the actual kidnap phase. It is not without its own problems however but these are mostly related to other phases of the LKC: the theoretical chain of command from Lindbergh to the hands-on perp, the weak (to us) justification for a eugenics - justified killing based only on the documented mild rickety condition and crossed toes shown by Charles Jnr., etc. etc. These areas, outside the events of March 1st, are still unresolved and may be taken in support of the lone operator theory. But taking the abduction in isolation, as you have done Joe, Occam’s razor to me at least suggests an inside job as the simpler solution. This is far from proof that it was, just that on the balance of probabilities, it is the most likely. Where I find things get very complicated is in even trying to imagine the direct involvement of anyone here other than the one man conclusively proven to have been so incontrovertibly connected to this crime, Richard Hauptmann. If the “Lindy-Did-It” conspiracy theorists are correct, then where is the proven, or even a theoretical chain of command between Charles Lindbergh and Hauptmann? Notwithstanding the suspected lookouts at Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s Cemeteries, shadowy accomplices and back-alley gangs are very easy to concoct because they are as vaporous as the theory which only speculates this connection itself.
Engaging, or even just approaching, real live family, staff, friends and associates to become part of a scheme that they would know involved the “removal” of the most adored toddler and son of the most famous couple in the world, and then seeing things rapidly swell into a case of suspected murder, without one “weak link” ever having been exposed or confessing, smacks of the highest improbability. Such a crime would only, and in fact did, grab the attention of the local police chief, the office of the president of the United Sates and the entire world in between, leading to the front door of one of the most publicity-shunning persons in the world. And exactly what would have had to have been so wrong with this child, one we have such ample evidence of developing normally from the time of his birth until his death, to warrant such a diabolical and insane action as infanticide?
Concept BRH chooses the highest profile child in the USA as his intended victim. With many other children of rich parents available, this is his choice. Intense publicity and thorough investigation are predictable. If this crime was a well-planned as it is commonly believed to have been, where does this place its inception? A year prior, as the kidnapper himself expressed in the ransom notes, or earlier? It seems to me this was no run-of-the-mill kidnapper looking for a quick payoff, and that the target was chosen not only for reasons of the perpetrator then not having to work for a living anymore, but it was also highly-psychologically motivated. Charles Lindbergh Jr. as kidnap victim, also indicates strongly that this choice represented no last-minute change of plans from it originally having been the son of the city planner or a local banker. While I don’t subscribe to everything Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld opined about the psychological makeup of the kidnapper, I believe he was right on the money when he determined this individual would in effect, bring Lindbergh to his knees through the action of stealing his first-born son, and thereby prove to the world he was every bit, if not more so, as great a man as Lindbergh himself.Materiel He constructs a rickety home-made ladder instead of buying a more sturdy, reliable, and difficult-to-trace alternative. He knew the custom-built ladder, when disassembled ad nested together, would fit inside his 1930 Dodge DD Sedan, with a few inches to spare. That it had to be able to reach a second story window. Be lightweight enough to comfortably carry 6/10 of a mile, so it could be removed from the crime scene. That its rungs could be placed a full 19 inches apart to further minimize weight and still allow the builder to scale it effectively based on his known leg stride. How many readily-available ladders would have suitably fit those multiple requirements? And until the ladder broke, what indication is there that the kidnapper ever planned to leave such a key piece of evidence behind? It was after all, initially removed a good 75 feet from the house. I believe the circumstantial physical evidence here demonstrates the ‘tipping point’ for abandoning the ladder occurred when the kidnapper realized the ground conditions had suddenly changed from being workably firm in the immediate vicinity of the east wall of the house, to that of a relative quagmire further east of the house in the rain exposed, open field he was now trudging through.
Intelligence He surveils the Lindbergh home and reaches the wrong conclusion that they are in permanent residence. By pure chance they are in fact there on March 1st. His surveillance has revealed the location of the nursery, the hour of the child’s bedtime, and the “do not disturb” rule between 8 and 10 pm. It also showed the family had dogs so he’s hoping they won’t be around on March 1st. And what kind of person would have planned and devised a fake kidnapping to knowingly coincide with these specific variables, understanding they would out of necessity, be scrutinized and rigorously put to the test by any competent investigator? In virtually any major crime, there is a preponderance of what I’d term both sympathetic and non-sympathetic pieces of evidence. And of course, the larger, more investigated and greater publicized the case, the more fertile its ground becomes for conspiracies.
Execution He drives 70 miles from the Bronx with his ladder in full view in the back of his car (Lupica?) but nobody else comes forward saying they saw it. He erects the ladder just to the right of Lindbergh’s study window where at any moment someone may enter, turn on he light, leave papers on L’s desk and glance idly out of the window to check the weather. He climbs his ladder in silence, executes a difficult entry manoeuvre from ladder to window, doesn’t knock over any ornaments and lifts the silent child into his unfamiliar arms. He then exits the room smoothly bearing the child, onto the ladder or as you suggest lowers the child in a bag to an accomplice on the ground. The child, still silent, is placed on the ground while he takes the ladder and places it some 75 feet away from the house. He rejoins his car not bothering to cut the phone line in order to hinder pursuit. This in spite of knowing the child is sick and that in spite of the 8-10 rule a spot check on his condition could be made at any time. It would have been very easy for the kidnapper to cover the nested ladder with a blanket if he thought it might be seen by anyone who presumably would have found the sight an unusual one and worthy of recall given the time of year, when outdoor climbing would not have been a normally-observed activity.
The most direct entry to the nursery is through the window. The kidnapper knew the ladder had to be placed under either nursery window and perhaps chose the south-east corner one because he observed the shutters there not sitting flush to the wall. Just as he knew he could have been interrupted at any time. It was all part and parcel of the risk vs. reward relationship here. Does he know those risks are very high? Of course, but he also knows the reward is as well. This crime was so far out of the league of a ‘normal kidnapper’ as to be almost absurd.
I believe it was the kidnapper’s intent to smother the child before he was pulled from his crib, feet first. The presence of the blood clot as reported in the autopsy though, might well indicate the child was not dead, but only unconscious when removed from the nursery and was killed shortly afterwards by a blow to the head.
Care of the child No solid evidence has emerged regarding BRH’s plan for child care until the ransom is paid. Agreed. There was a time I held hope this would have been proven otherwise, but knowing so much more now about who was involved here, this has pretty much faded out..So, and once again restricting ourselves to the actual planning and execution of the abduction the lone operator theory depends on a long list of uncertainties rather than the precise “nothing can go wrong” plan which one would expect in a $50,000 caper. I draw a parallel with an accumulator bet on a series of horses in different races. The winnings from the first are bet on the second etc. The potential reward is great, as is the risk of losing at any stage.. Far from thinking “nothing can go wrong,” this kidnapper would have been prepared to adapt and deal with anything he had not adequately prepared for through his self-assuredness, perhaps short of being surrounded by machine-gun toting troopers. Leaving behind the ladder (which he had originally planned to remove) when it broke and he found his path of retreat bogged down by muddier open field conditions than he had bargained for, I believe is but one example.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Apr 12, 2023 10:49:51 GMT -5
In kidnapping cases at that time, a remote place in the country would be chosen for care of the child until the ransom was paid and the child was returned. The child would be expected to make a noise among strangers. There would be a person to stand guard and another, a woman, who would care for the child for a few days. Accordingly, the most simple explanation would involve taking Charlie to a nearby isolated place, Schippel's farm being the most likely, and keeping him there until the ransom was paid. A woman would have been contacted to care for him whether in the house another farm building. I suggest that the woman may have been Violet Sharp's sister, Emily (Edna) Sharp who applied for a Visa the day of the kidnapping and would not have been missed by anyone in Englewood. Schippel vacated the house prior to the kidnapping date but would have been made aware of the use of the farm and probably expected a payment for it. He may have also built the ladder. There was some evidence of the planing by a left-handed individual, and Schippel was ambidextrous and had all the tools for building the ladder. He also had gunny sacks that contained chicken feed at one time. If Lindbergh had followed the instructions and not called the police and furnished the ransom money in a few days, he might have received the child the child back in short time. The problems mounted, however: Lindbergh did call the police. There were difficulties raising the money which the kidnappers apparently did not anticipate. Further, the child died; the death occurred prior to the first meeting of Condon with CJ who asked if he would "burn" if the child were dead. If the child had lived and Lindbergh simply paid the money in a few days, the family would probably have moved from the area--which may have been the real motive for the kidnapping--to get Lindbergh out of the that previously quiet area.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 12, 2023 13:31:23 GMT -5
Hi Guest, for some reason I couldn't seem to use the 'Quote' feature to include the five messages within your previous post, so I've numbered each of my responses accordingly to them. 1. Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, I’m not married to, or obsessed with this case at all, even though I do believe I was born with it in my bones. I have many other passions and interests, which I also find, provide the required rest, perspective and even insight towards so many of the things that have confounded me over the years, and continue to! It’s a true work in progress but I believe there is light.. I’ve thought about writing a book, just not seriously to this point. Years ago, I came up with a title which I’d still go with and would feature my avatar photo for the cover. ‘Hauptmann’s Garage: Inside the Mind of the Lindbergh Baby Killer’ 2. I only referenced this example because I visited Mayan ruins and was told about these ‘white roads’ on the tour. From personal experience, in college days a troop of us would often go out for late night walks after carousing in cottage country and often relied on the same principle to get us home in pitch darkness! The gravel laid down for the Lindbergh driveway would have been locally sourced. Although this specific quarry enterprise closed in 1916 when underground springs filled it in, I believe the attached photo of the Hopewell Quarry would probably represent the general depth and shade of the gravel which would have been used. Hopewell Quarry - Crusher Road.webp (17.15 KB) 3. When you reference the ransom money as having possibly been "used jointly,” do you mean monies used to fund his and an accomplice’s efforts, prior to the kidnapping? 4. I believe the crime scene footprint evidence could well have been compromised and that what Wolf observed might have been the footprints of not two kidnappers, but one kidnapper and one observer. I also believe it was the kidnapper’s (or kidnappers) original intent to leave the scene the same way he had approached, roughly northward, along the east wall of the house and back down the driveway. The original plan changed with the breaking of the ladder, with the kidnapper now sensing the noise might cause someone in the house to come out the front door to investigate, and spontaneously decided to distance himself from this possibility. I don’t treat any of the above as conclusive, but other pieces of evidence indicate to me this decision was made on the spur of the moment here, which compounded by the unexpected very muddy ground further east of the house, then resulted in the ladder, a crucial piece of evidence, being left behind. 5. I hear you on this, in that so much has been written by both of us on the subject of the condition of the ground itself and I know at times it can seemingly become onerous and monotonous reading. At the same time, I believe this is vitally important today, because the true ground conditions were so abysmally reported upon by relatively untrained and inexperienced investigators at the scene. If we are saddled with overly general, inaccurate and conflicting reports, discovering the truth doesn’t bode well unless relevant factors which were not considered are put into play today. As I previously suggested, Ellis Parker, (or Canada’s John Murrary) in his prime and working with a competent assistant would have come up with a much clearer and more accurate picture of what actually took place here.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 12, 2023 16:34:15 GMT -5
Joe, what do you make of Whateley's deathbed confession? Betty Gow felt he implicated her, do you think he actually knew something or did he just say something out of spite. Obviously whatever he said was never acted upon, but this is one of the things that keeps me on the fence about the household involvement.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 13, 2023 8:23:46 GMT -5
Joe, what do you make of Whateley's deathbed confession? Betty Gow felt he implicated her, do you think he actually knew something or did he just say something out of spite. Obviously whatever he said was never acted upon, but this is one of the things that keeps me on the fence about the household involvement. Norma, if Whateley on his deathbed, did in fact implicate Betty Gow, or anyone other than himself as having been even in the smallest way, criminally responsible for Charlie’s abduction, I wouldn’t really call it a confession but more of an opinion or statement of what he considered to be true, given his state of mind at the time he expressed what Alyle Schutter claimed he told him. Semantics aside, it would have been one very serious allegation, which I believe has no basis in fact for more reasons than I can write about here and now. Without access to Ollie’s hospital medical chart, how do we know for example, that he wasn’t in a state of delirium at the time of the purported event, or that specific details were accurately passed along from one person to another until they finally appeared in print? I won't even speculate here. What we have readily available is more than ample evidence that Charlie was loved by all of those around him, and no one in that house expressed even a hint of complicity or guilt in such an imagined scheme for the remainder of their lives. Either Charles, Anne, Betty, Ollie and Elsie agreed to sell their souls as a totally heartless group together here, or none of them did, and I believe the latter scenario applies here.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 13, 2023 14:15:12 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Thanks for your comprehensive response to my posting.
My chief problem with BRH as sole perp is the amazing amount of good luck he enjoyed while executing his far from perfect plan. Allow me to introduce you to Michael Fagan (who?). In July 1982 he somehow got the idea that he would like to have a chat with Queen Elizabeth 11. He was a harmless eccentric rather than a full blown mental case. He went to Buckingham Palace, scaled the outer fence, strolled across the court yard, found an unlocked window, entered the Palace and in the miles of corridors found the Royal Apartments. He had triggered several alarms but these were ignored as being “faulty.” He found the Queen in bed and in some accounts sat on her bed having a chat until security guards were summoned. The jaw-dropping unlikelihood of this happening stunned the UK. But it did happen. A guy with a ramshackle plan or none at all had pulled it off.
BRH as the culprit implies that he had an unrealistic attitude to risk. A rational person would never embark on such a shaky plan and this leads many to conclude that nobody would. I do think that Hauptmann’s concussive injury during WW1 may have affected his reasoning and attitude to risk (convictions in Germany and a triple stowaway). As you know, and maybe Michael has some experience with felons he can share with us, a head injury sometimes predicates violent criminal behaviour in later life.
To your points: “where is the proven chain of command….” Agreed, there isn’t one. A superficially attractive theory but with nothing at present to confirm it existed. Member of staff as inside helper. No, too risky and is contrary to their known characters and behaviour. It also breaks the first rule of crime: the less people involved, the better. A store-bought ladder. Here I disagree. Elements of a commercial ladder could be sawn down to any length for car transport. Joined when needed by rectangular steel tubes as is done today. So commonplace it could be safely left behind. Charlie’s condition. Mild rickets/crossed toes do not justify euthanasia, except to a madman. We can conjecture about hydrocephalus, as I have done, but there’s no documented evidence for it. Choice of victim. If, as you suggest, Hauptmann specifically targeted the Lindbergh child in order to bring Lindbergh “down to size” as it were then he surely was mentally unbalanced. Nobody heard BRH obsessing about Lindbergh however.
So in summary, the only way for Hauptmann to have pulled it off would be if he had a good helping of Fagan’s Luck. Unlikely, but certainly not impossible.
Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 13, 2023 15:16:40 GMT -5
By the way Joe, there was also a quarry on private property in Lawrenceville on Van Dyke Rd, one road up from Cold Soil where the Lindberghs rented White Cloud Farm. We used to frequent it back in our teenage "hippie" days. It is now filled in and inaccessible.
We will probably never know the extent of Ollie Whateley's "confession" but I think he did try to implicate a household member and it may not have been taken seriously due to his state of mind.
Sherlock, speaking of Fagan's Luck, did you see last year's movie "The Phantom of the Open". Hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 13, 2023 15:49:57 GMT -5
Hi stella7, I had not heard of "The Phantom of the Open" but from the reviews it seems to be my "cup of tea." Thanks for the tip. We English enjoy our oddballs and eccentrics and sometimes elect them to high office! Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2023 15:57:18 GMT -5
My chief problem with BRH as sole perp is the amazing amount of good luck he enjoyed while executing his far from perfect plan. Allow me to introduce you to Michael Fagan (who?). In July 1982 he somehow got the idea that he would like to have a chat with Queen Elizabeth 11. He was a harmless eccentric rather than a full blown mental case. He went to Buckingham Palace, scaled the outer fence, strolled across the court yard, found an unlocked window, entered the Palace and in the miles of corridors found the Royal Apartments. He had triggered several alarms but these were ignored as being “faulty.” He found the Queen in bed and in some accounts sat on her bed having a chat until security guards were summoned. The jaw-dropping unlikelihood of this happening stunned the UK. But it did happen. A guy with a ramshackle plan or none at all had pulled it off. From all that occurred, Hauptmann would have needed about 100 times worth of Fagan's luck. BRH as the culprit implies that he had an unrealistic attitude to risk. A rational person would never embark on such a shaky plan and this leads many to conclude that nobody would. I do think that Hauptmann’s concussive injury during WW1 may have affected his reasoning and attitude to risk (convictions in Germany and a triple stowaway). As you know, and maybe Michael has some experience with felons he can share with us, a head injury sometimes predicates violent criminal behaviour in later life. This is probably a better question posed to a Psychologist. There was no one I've ever dealt with that had this type of "reason" for their behavior. Perhaps, but it wasn't in the paperwork or offered to me in any way that I remember. I've heard about head injuries leading to brain damage which impairs judgement. What I do know is that some people who have low IQ lack proper judgement and/or are easily influenced. Other crimes are like a disease (e.g. people who harm children) because almost always they were abused similarly as children themselves. I also remember that Charles Whitman had a brain tumor and supposedly the location of it had something to do with his crime but I don't know enough about that to say myself. “where is the proven chain of command….” Agreed, there isn’t one. A superficially attractive theory but with nothing at present to confirm it existed. It's either Hauptmann or somebody else. Was he in the position to do everything that occurred by himself? If not, then anyone of the others involved could explain it. The footprints at Highfields AND St. Raymond's didn't match Hauptmann's shoe size. That doesn't mean he wasn't there, however, it is evidence that other people were. In fact, nothing places him in Hopewell. Even if he built the ladder, which clearly he had a hand in, or wrote the note - it doesn't mean he brought them there. Member of staff as inside helper. No, too risky and is contrary to their known characters and behaviour. It also breaks the first rule of crime: the less people involved, the better. A couple of things... Was it risky for Anne to take that transcontinental flight? Before she met Lindbergh, would it have been in her character to do such a thing - especially if pregnant, warned against it by doctors, and told not to by her father? Next, about that rule.... I've seen multiple conspiracy convictions that had outrageous numbers of co-defendants. Time and time again and again. I can't tell you how many times someone would come into my office and still say that they didn't get everyone and if they'd have talked they "could be home right now." I've seen men doing 30 years tell the government to "get bent" when asked to flip for a sentence reduction. I've heard leaders having instructed mules through a third party to carry drugs over the border so they could "inform" on these very people to get less time through a deal they worked out. And sometimes the mules knew what was going to occur. So when people like Joe throw around the word "conspiracy" like it never happens I have to laugh at the ignorance behind such a statement. Again, look at the Nosovitsky example in V4. There were four different levels and we still don't know who was in charge. Someone hired someone, who hired someone, who hired someone else. And that's what we know about. By the way, they got away with it. A store-bought ladder. Here I disagree. Elements of a commercial ladder could be sawn down to any length for car transport. Joined when needed by rectangular steel tubes as is done today. So commonplace it could be safely left behind. There was a ladder on the premises. If someone had been casing the home, they would have seen it. But we know they didn't come into this blindly. So there's some basic math here that leads us to the proper conclusion. Charlie’s condition. Mild rickets/crossed toes do not justify euthanasia, except to a madman. We can conjecture about hydrocephalus, as I have done, but there’s no documented evidence for it. Choice of victim. If, as you suggest, Hauptmann specifically targeted the Lindbergh child in order to bring Lindbergh “down to size” as it were then he surely was mentally unbalanced. Nobody heard BRH obsessing about Lindbergh however. See my last post on his. The kid had the best Pediatrician in the country and a father who was an Eugenicist.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2023 16:20:34 GMT -5
Joe, what do you make of Whateley's deathbed confession? Betty Gow felt he implicated her, do you think he actually knew something or did he just say something out of spite. Obviously whatever he said was never acted upon, but this is one of the things that keeps me on the fence about the household involvement. Norma, if Whateley on his deathbed, did in fact implicate Betty Gow, or anyone other than himself as having been even in the smallest way, criminally responsible for Charlie’s abduction, I wouldn’t really call it a confession but more of an opinion or statement of what he considered to be true, given his state of mind at the time he expressed what Alyle Schutter claimed he told him. Semantics aside, it would have been one very serious allegation, which I believe has no basis in fact for more reasons than I can write about here and now. Without access to Ollie’s hospital medical chart, how do we know for example, that he wasn’t in a state of delirium at the time of the purported event, or that specific details were accurately passed along from one person to another until they finally appeared in print? I won't even speculate here. What we have readily available is more than ample evidence for is that Charlie was loved by all of those around him, and no one in that house expressed even a hint of complicity or guilt in such an imagined scheme for the remainder of their lives. Either Charles, Anne, Betty, Ollie and Elsie agreed to sell their souls as a totally heartless group together here, or none of them did, and I believe the latter scenario applies here. While Joe and I haven't seen eye to eye recently, and its quite clear his mind has been closed on this, I agree with something he said here. We don't know Whateley's state of mind at the time. We also don't know exactly what he said. It's why I looked at everything leading up to it. This includes him telling reporters whoever did it was known to the dog before realizing what he said and slipping in something about needing his job. Also his attitude about Betty reflected in what he said to Thayer & Rosner. What Betty said to Garsson. What Kelly supposedly heard Lindbergh say to Betty. Also, and this was recently discussed with "A Guest," Lindbergh believed a door could have been used in the commission of the crime. Curtis had no evidence that he was actually in touch with the kidnappers EXCEPT telling Lindbergh the pantry door was locked from the hallway side, the door was used, and that Whateley was involved. This, despite Lindbergh refusing the lie detector and vouching for his staff to police, caused him to take off with Curtis to "search" for the kidnappers. For anyone interested in this subject, there is information in all four volumes: V1 pages 76-89, V2 pages 9-12, V3 pages 2-5, and V4 pages 7-9. I suspect I'll learn more as time goes by, but this could be all there is as Norma predicts.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 13, 2023 17:00:27 GMT -5
Hi Guest, for some reason I couldn't seem to use the 'Quote' feature to include the five messages within your previous post, so I've numbered each of my responses accordingly to them. 1. Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, I’m not married to, or obsessed with this case at all, even though I do believe I was born with it in my bones. I have many other passions and interests, which I also find, provide the required rest, perspective and even insight towards so many of the things that have confounded me over the years, and continue to! It’s a true work in progress but I believe there is light.. I’ve thought about writing a book, just not seriously to this point. Years ago, I came up with a title which I’d still go with and would feature my avatar photo for the cover. ‘Hauptmann’s Garage: Inside the Mind of the Lindbergh Baby Killer’ Interesting title. It suggests your book would be about Hauptmann and his psychological condition. That would be quite an undertaking.2. I only referenced this example because I visited Mayan ruins and was told about these ‘white roads’ on the tour. From personal experience, in college days a troop of us would often go out for late night walks after carousing in cottage country and often relied on the same principle to get us home in pitch darkness! The gravel laid down for the Lindbergh driveway would have been locally sourced. Although this specific quarry enterprise closed in 1916 when underground springs filled it in, I believe the attached photo of the Hopewell Quarry would probably represent the general depth and shade of the gravel which would have been used. View AttachmentThanks for this link. I could not open it but I googled the quarry to take a look.3. When you reference the ransom money as having possibly been "used jointly,” do you mean monies used to fund his and an accomplice’s efforts, prior to the kidnapping? I was not specifically addressing prior kidnapping monies. I was talking about the actual ransom of $50,000. 4. I believe the crime scene footprint evidence could well have been compromised and that what Wolf observed might have been the footprints of not two kidnappers, but one kidnapper and one observer. I also believe it was the kidnapper’s (or kidnappers) original intent to leave the scene the same way he had approached, roughly northward, along the east wall of the house and back down the driveway. The original plan changed with the breaking of the ladder, with the kidnapper now sensing the noise might cause someone in the house to come out the front door to investigate, and spontaneously decided to distance himself from this possibility. I don’t treat any of the above as conclusive, but other pieces of evidence indicate to me this decision was made on the spur of the moment here, which compounded by the unexpected very muddy ground further east of the house, then resulted in the ladder, a crucial piece of evidence, being left behind. In my opinion, Corp. Wolf's report appears to be a summation of all that was observed by the initial investigating officers that arrived at the scene before all the reports, etc. did. It was the conditions and evidence they observed that night. This is where I am at. Michael's Volume One of his Dark Corners books talks about the many reports and findings and also how the scene was guarded very early on. I cannot figure out when the compromising that you mention would have happened.5. I hear you on this, in that so much has been written by both of us on the subject of the condition of the ground itself and I know at times it can seemingly become onerous and monotonous reading. At the same time, I believe this is vitally important today, because the true ground conditions were so abysmally reported upon by relatively untrained and inexperienced investigators at the scene. If we are saddled with overly general, inaccurate and conflicting reports, discovering the truth doesn’t bode well unless relevant factors which were not considered are put into play today. As I previously suggested, Ellis Parker, (or Canada’s John Murrary) in his prime and working with a competent assistant would have come up with a much clearer and more accurate picture of what actually took place here. I was addressing, specifically, the chunk of mud found on the lower library shutter. Seems like a lot of mud and must have been quite moist for it to stick on the foot of a kidnapper and get carried up that ladder causing it to fall off. I was questioning whether this chunk of mud is really important to the case in some way. My understanding is that it was saved by the investigation officers.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Apr 14, 2023 12:56:52 GMT -5
In kidnapping cases at that time, a remote place in the country would be chosen for care of the child until the ransom was paid and the child was returned. The child would be expected to make a noise among strangers. There would be a person to stand guard and another, a woman, who would care for the child for a few days. Accordingly, the most simple explanation would involve taking Charlie to a nearby isolated place, Schippel's farm being the most likely, and keeping him there until the ransom was paid. A woman would have been contacted to care for him whether in the house another farm building. I suggest that the woman may have been Violet Sharp's sister, Emily (Edna) Sharp who applied for a Visa the day of the kidnapping and would not have been missed by anyone in Englewood. Schippel vacated the house prior to the kidnapping date but would have been made aware of the use of the farm and probably expected a payment for it. He may have also built the ladder. There was some evidence of the planing by a left-handed individual, and Schippel was ambidextrous and had all the tools for building the ladder. He also had gunny sacks that contained chicken feed at one time. If Lindbergh had followed the instructions and not called the police and furnished the ransom money in a few days, he might have received the child the child back in short time. The problems mounted, however: Lindbergh did call the police. There were difficulties raising the money which the kidnappers apparently did not anticipate. Further, the child died; the death occurred prior to the first meeting of Condon with CJ who asked if he would "burn" if the child were dead. If the child had lived and Lindbergh simply paid the money in a few days, the family would probably have moved from the area--which may have been the real motive for the kidnapping--to get Lindbergh out of the that previously quiet area. The house Schippel's mother-in-law owned was probably rented to rum-runners who stored alcohol in the sheds and chicken coop. Cerardi lived on the property for three months, very likely supervising, guarding and distributing the individual bottles intended for their final destination. Schippel would have been given payment for the rental. Cerardi also spent three months on a deserted farm in Liberty, Maine, on a deserted farm, probably for the same reason. Michael includes a photo of Cerardi with a mobster with an untended gazebo in the background. Photos were taken to confirm an agreement. They would not be put in writing because of the printed evidence which could be used against them. The mob did not sponsor the kidnapping, but an individual rum-runner who was acquainted with Schippel's shack and knew the way around Hopewell saw a possibility. Schippel said at one time that Lindbergh was planning to kidnap his daughter Charlotte and so would have agreed to go along with the plan to get the Lindberghs out of the neighborhood. Schippel was not in Hopewell on March 1 but did return about March 21 where he found out what actually had happened. At that time he said he moved the child's body away from his farm so he would not be thought involved in the case. Schippel may have been approached by the kidnappers themselves or by their rep. He would not have been expecting that the child would die but probably anticipated that the ransom would be paid in a week or so and thought he would receive payment when he returned later that month. Someone (obviously a rep.) gave some information to Birratella and Cerrito.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Apr 14, 2023 17:03:20 GMT -5
My interest in the Lindbergh kidnapping case began several years ago when I wondered what the connection between the Morrow/Lindbergh servants and the the ownkidnappers might have been. It does appear that the kidnapper() did have some information regarding the movements of the LIndbergh, especially concerning their presence in Hopewell on March 1. Following what I have already posted, this communication could have taken place between the parties at a tavern. Alcohol was still prohibited, but taverns were thriving and receiving the illegal alcohol esp. in New York and New Jersey via ships bringing the liquor from Canada. The ships were stopped some distance from the shore. Alcohol had to be loaded into smaller ships which brought the booze to shore, and then the bottles were transferred to trucks which took the liquor to storage places (like barns on abandoned farms) and then to the taverns where they were sold. The bootleggers and rum-runners were paid well, as were paid well, as were the owners of the farms where the liquor was stored. In the previous posts I indicated that a rum-runner with good knowledge of the routes from NY to NJ, from Fotr Lee to Princeton may well have been involved and saw possibilities in Schippel's farm which was probably used for booze storage. My suggestion here is that a bootlegger who transported liquor to taverns could have planned the kidnapping and communicated with members of the Morrow household. Several of the servants spent time at the Sha-Toe in Fort Lee, a tavern who sold liquor during prohibition. The planning may have been done there, the contact made via a kidnapper or rep. with someone of the Morrow household, probably a man who drank a good deal. He would have been assured that the child would not be harmed and would be returned in a few days following payment of the ransom. Charles Henry Ellerson would have been the best choice. He began working at Next Day Hill in June of 1931 and would have been in a position to reach out to Violet Sharp and also Betty Gow, two servants who did not spend their time drinking but may have been involved and paid. Violet Sharp deposited $500. in her bank account in October, perhaps a pre-payment for her cooperation. She may have involved her sister Edna (Emily) as well. The two sisters did resemble one another. The bootlegger also would have known Isidor Fisch, who was contacted to launder the ransom money when it was paid and may have introduced some of the parties.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 15, 2023 11:29:21 GMT -5
In kidnapping cases at that time, a remote place in the country would be chosen for care of the child until the ransom was paid and the child was returned. The child would be expected to make a noise among strangers. There would be a person to stand guard and another, a woman, who would care for the child for a few days. Accordingly, the most simple explanation would involve taking Charlie to a nearby isolated place, Schippel's farm being the most likely, and keeping him there until the ransom was paid. A woman would have been contacted to care for him whether in the house another farm building. I suggest that the woman may have been Violet Sharp's sister, Emily (Edna) Sharp who applied for a Visa the day of the kidnapping and would not have been missed by anyone in Englewood. Schippel vacated the house prior to the kidnapping date but would have been made aware of the use of the farm and probably expected a payment for it. He may have also built the ladder. There was some evidence of the planing by a left-handed individual, and Schippel was ambidextrous and had all the tools for building the ladder. He also had gunny sacks that contained chicken feed at one time. If Lindbergh had followed the instructions and not called the police and furnished the ransom money in a few days, he might have received the child the child back in short time. The problems mounted, however: Lindbergh did call the police. There were difficulties raising the money which the kidnappers apparently did not anticipate. Further, the child died; the death occurred prior to the first meeting of Condon with CJ who asked if he would "burn" if the child were dead. If the child had lived and Lindbergh simply paid the money in a few days, the family would probably have moved from the area--which may have been the real motive for the kidnapping--to get Lindbergh out of the that previously quiet area. The house Schippel's mother-in-law owned was probably rented to rum-runners who stored alcohol in the sheds and chicken coop. Cerardi lived on the property for three months, very likely supervising, guarding and distributing the individual bottles intended for their final destination. Schippel would have been given payment for the rental. I am currently reading the chapter on Schippell in V3 of The Dark Corners. Reading what you have said, do you think that rum-runners were responsible for the kidnapping of Charles Jr? What kind of evidence would have been present in Schippell's house to show it was used by rum-runners as you suggest in your post? Cerardi is an interesting character.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 16, 2023 10:22:10 GMT -5
I’ve been following the recent threads especially as they relate to what actually occurred at the scene of the crime, with much interest. As Occam’s Razor essentially states, “If you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one, unless it can be conclusively proven the more complex one is preferable.” I believe the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, is a classic case of overlooking the obvious for something far more imaginative and hotly conspiratorial. And there is good reason for this. What other case before the Kennedy Assassination, O.J. Simpson or the World Trade Attacks attracted so much attention and sleuthing, leaving in its wake, such a disproportionately small amount of relevant evidence opposite a veritable mountain of irrelevant chaff. The crime scene evidence, largely investigated by inadequately trained and inexperienced men, is one such area that opens up almost innumerable avenues and offshoots. These in turn often lead to seemingly endless loops in logic that when tested rigorously, usually come out battered and bruised but nevertheless are routinely represented as being the best alternative, seemingly by whoever has the desire and fortitude to keep lobbying for them the most vociferously. I would appreciate this more if you didn't invent a pair of magic boots, ignore an obvious muddy situation under the window, or create new imaginary terms like "controlled panic." Seems to spit in the face of Occam and smacks of hypocrisy. Other than that, Lupica saw a dodge with a ladder in it at 6PM very near Highfields. The Conovers saw a car on Featherbed Lane which seemed to them to be stuck in the mud between 6:30-7PM. The Moores saw a car at 8:22(3) covered in mud race past their home away from Highfields on a little traveled road. Parker, applying Occam's Razor, looked at all of the accounts, drove the distance to Moore's from Highfields, and determined the crime occurred at 8PM. Who’s inventing things here, Michael? Here is the ladder imprint evidence photo again. I’ll keep the size small to observe any forum limitations. I’m not going to belabour the whimsical and nonsensical nature of your past statements, but please indulge me here with a few legitimate questions. Do you see any indication at all that the kidnapper(s) whom you believe were perched on this single width of tongue-and-groove flooring while they set up and took down the ladder, had pressed this makeshift boardwalk downwards with their weight significantly into what you term “an obvious muddy condition?” Or does it basically appear to be sitting on relatively firm ground, as I've previously noted multiple times? Do you see any wide evidence of mud attached to the edges of the boardwalk, or oozing and advancing over its edges? Have a good look before you answer and please don’t just attempt to derail the subject matter with additional fairy tale rhetoric. We have the opportunity of truly advancing this part of the discussion but it takes work and not avoidance. This Parker theory seems possible if you believe out of necessity, that the car that drove past the Moore’s place was that of the kidnapper(s) leaving the area with Charlie. I see no compelling reason here to believe that or the resulting inference that places the kidnapper in the same nursery within scant minutes of Gow having left it for the last time. A number of unidentified vehicles were reported later to have been witnessed in the immediate area on the evening of March 1, 1932. In V1, you state that it was J. Wilmer Moore who witnessed a non-descript vehicle, headlights splattered with mud going by his house located on the Province Line Rd on March 1, 1932. Yet, your footnote for this account indicates this statement was given to Ellis Parker by David Moore on June 9, 1932, over a month after the kidnapping. Under what circumstances did David Moore acquire this information and why would Parker not have asked J. Wilmer himself, thereby avoiding reliance on second-hand information? And given all of the above, are you not making a leap of significant proportions here when you state that Parker appeared to have nailed down the time of the crime as being about 8:00 pm?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 16, 2023 11:47:51 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Thanks for your comprehensive response to my posting. My chief problem with BRH as sole perp is the amazing amount of good luck he enjoyed while executing his far from perfect plan. Allow me to introduce you to Michael Fagan (who?). In July 1982 he somehow got the idea that he would like to have a chat with Queen Elizabeth 11. He was a harmless eccentric rather than a full blown mental case. He went to Buckingham Palace, scaled the outer fence, strolled across the court yard, found an unlocked window, entered the Palace and in the miles of corridors found the Royal Apartments. He had triggered several alarms but these were ignored as being “faulty.” He found the Queen in bed and in some accounts sat on her bed having a chat until security guards were summoned. The jaw-dropping unlikelihood of this happening stunned the UK. But it did happen. A guy with a ramshackle plan or none at all had pulled it off. I remember this account very well. I’d also venture if one decided to look closely enough into any event of this significance and exposure, some wonderful conspiracy theories could be developed involving staff with chips on their shoulders, a guard who uncharacteristically called in sick, someone who should have locked that window, etc., etc. The LKC didn’t have to be investigated to the nth degree, but for political, emotional and egoic reasons, it was. Like the Kennedy Assassination, O.J. and the World Trade Towers Attack, its ground by default, became that much more fertile for conspiracies even when that ground is so far removed from actual relevance. Can you imagine how much less we would know today if Hauptmann had decided to kidnap the son of a little-known Bronx banker? BRH as the culprit implies that he had an unrealistic attitude to risk. A rational person would never embark on such a shaky plan and this leads many to conclude that nobody would. I do think that Hauptmann’s concussive injury during WW1 may have affected his reasoning and attitude to risk (convictions in Germany and a triple stowaway). As you know, and maybe Michael has some experience with felons he can share with us, a head injury sometimes predicates violent criminal behaviour in later life. I don’t know if Hauptmann’s wartime concussion had anything to do with his choice of victim, but I do believe his psychological makeup indicating him to be highly secretive, extremely determined, unwilling to confess even one iota of involvement, criminally minded, one who adapted well under shifting circumstances, as well as being a risk taker, predisposes him to the key role he was ultimately convicted of. Then there is the circumstantial physical, which simply sets aside any doubts of his guilt.
To your points: “where is the proven chain of command….” Agreed, there isn’t one. A superficially attractive theory but with nothing at present to confirm it existed. Member of staff as inside helper. No, too risky and is contrary to their known characters and behaviour. It also breaks the first rule of crime: the less people involved, the better. A store-bought ladder. Here I disagree. Elements of a commercial ladder could be sawn down to any length for car transport. Joined when needed by rectangular steel tubes as is done today. So commonplace it could be safely left behind. Charlie’s condition. Mild rickets/crossed toes do not justify euthanasia, except to a madman. We can conjecture about hydrocephalus, as I have done, but there’s no documented evidence for it. Choice of victim. If, as you suggest, Hauptmann specifically targeted the Lindbergh child in order to bring Lindbergh “down to size” as it were then he surely was mentally unbalanced. Nobody heard BRH obsessing about Lindbergh however. I disagree with your statement's simplicity when you imply that a commercial ladder could be modified to duplicate the express requirements and characteristics of the kidnap ladder. You will not be able achieve the exacting designed and executed balance of properties based on the requirements of this job from start to finish, with any commercial ladder from that time or today. And I believe there is an equal if not greater motivator here. Hauptmann’s desire to achieve this kidnapping under his own terms and conditions.
I agree that Hauptmann bore no readily outward signs of hostility towards Lindbergh. Actually, I wouldn’t really have expected him to. He did slip up a few times though as he purportedly told one witness at a hunting camp he went to, words to the effect that no one would care about the crime if if wasn’t Lindbergh’s son and what he purportedly told Fred Hahn, words to the effect that if they don’t have evidence or one doesn’t confess, then they can’t convict. I also have a confidential source originating through the son of one of Hauptmann's friends that Hauptmann approached him during a party and asked him to participate in a criminal venture and that the friend bought a gun for protection shortly afterwards.
So in summary, the only way for Hauptmann to have pulled it off would be if he had a good helping of Fagan’s Luck. Unlikely, but certainly not impossible. Hauptmann did pull it off though, even though he eventually got careless enough to get caught. He simply took advantage of each and every circumstance he had or did not have control over. And with so many investigators virtually stumbling over themselves to get to the finish line here, it was fortunate that he and Walter Lyle gave them such a big hand on September 15, 1934.Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2023 12:14:31 GMT -5
Who’s inventing things here, Michael? Here is the ladder imprint evidence photo again. I’ll keep the size small to observe any forum limitations. I’m not going to belabour the whimsical and nonsensical nature of your past statements, but please indulge me here with a few legitimate questions. Do you see any indication at all that the kidnapper(s) whom you believe were perched on this single width of tongue-and-groove flooring while they set up and took down the ladder, had pressed this makeshift boardwalk downwards with their weight significantly into what you term “an obvious muddy condition?” Or does it basically appear to be sitting on relatively firm ground, as I've previously noted multiple times? Do you see any wide evidence of mud attached to the edges of the boardwalk, or oozing and advancing over its edges? Have a good look before you answer and please don’t just attempt to derail the subject matter with additional fairy tale rhetoric. We have the opportunity of truly advancing this part of the discussion but it takes work and not avoidance. The answer to your question is, again, you are the one making things up. This picture simply does not support your ridiculous claim. Know why? We have the sources which prove you are not only incorrect, you are inventing a situation that did not exist. If the ground was "firm," then there would be no female prints. If the ground was firm, Anne wouldn't have testified that it was NOT. If the ground was firm, those planks wouldn't have been laid down because all they would have had to do was walk on the "firm" part. If the ground was firm, there would be a police source that would have mentioned it. If the ground was "firm" there would have been a newspaper source that reported it. You avoid these FACTS because they torpedo your position. The fact is the ONLY source for this claim in YOU. Mud does not have to be "oozing" in order for a man to step in it and leave prints as the evidence absolutely clearly shows. If there are other things you'd expect to see but do not, then shouldn't you be reassessing things instead of trying to explain them away with this nonsense? Look at where the ladder was found. We had prints there. However, the prints disappeared then reappeared on the abandoned road. Know why? Because there was a patch of ground that was firm between the two places. Cops, Witnesses, and Reporters all said the same thing. Find me one source that claims what you do. You won't because it's bullsh*t. For God's sake this isn't rocket science. This Parker theory seems possible if you believe out of necessity, that the car that drove past the Moore’s place was that of the kidnapper(s) leaving the area with Charlie. I see no compelling reason here to believe that or the resulting inference that places the kidnapper in the same nursery within scant minutes of Gow having left it for the last time. A number of unidentified vehicles were reported later to have been witnessed in the immediate area on the evening of March 1, 1932. Of course not. That would be harmful to your overall position wouldn't it? That's what you look at first and foremost before you make any decisions on its validity. That and what you believe I think. It's the craziest damn thing I've ever seen. In V1, you state that it was J. Wilmer Moore who witnessed a non-descript vehicle, headlights splattered with mud going by his house located on the Province Line Rd on March 1, 1932. Yet, your footnote for this account indicates this statement was given to Ellis Parker by David Moore on June 9, 1932, over a month after the kidnapping. Under what circumstances did David Moore acquire this information and why would Parker not have asked J. Wilmer himself, thereby avoiding reliance on second-hand information? And given all of the above, are you not making a leap of significant proportions here when you state that Parker appeared to have nailed down the time of the crime as being about 8:00 pm? It's properly footnoted Joe. Like I often say, I don't write these documents. So now you are trying to make me look bad because of how the statement was written? I cited it as the document is titled. While I don't necessarily like how it is titled myself, I cannot invent something or change it to make it appear like two different statements. Parker was taking David Moore's statement. During the statement, J. Wilmer was called over and his statement was included. Once finished, Parker resumed taking David's statement again until it was finished. It's all in the same statement/document. If I had to do it over again, I might have added a note to explain this - or maybe not - I honestly can't say. And no, its not a leap of faith. Parker was a master at common sense law enforcement and did something here that the NJSP should have done themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 16, 2023 15:30:21 GMT -5
Thanks for your comments Joe. I have to take you up on your description of the ladder: "the exacting designed and executed balance of properties based on the requirements of this job from start to finish" and the ladder's "express requirements and characteristics." This makes it sound like a high precision piece of equipment purpose-built to a demanding specification with tolerance levels in the micron range. In fact it was a crude 3 element nesting ladder made from previously-used timber. This ladder's "express requirements and characteristics" must have been poorly understood by it's maker: he brought 3 elements to the job when only 2 were needed and these failed in service by cracking at the dowel joint. Whether the ladder was made and/or used by BRH or A N Other, it was not in my view tailor-made specifically for the Lindbergh job. With its flat slats instead of conventional rungs, the 19 inch inter-slat distance, the careless single dowel joint, and its general light weight it has all the characteristics of a roofers' or cat ladder. Intended to be crawled on e.g when (re)placing roof tiles. Finally, if the Hopewell ladder is the optimum design for ascending to the nursery window I wonder why this specific type of ladder isn't in widespread use by window-cleaners, gutter repair men, house painters etc. It isn't because it is patently unsuitable; these guys use commercial store-bought ladders. .
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2023 10:11:49 GMT -5
Hi Guest, for some reason I couldn't seem to use the 'Quote' feature to include the five messages within your previous post, so I've numbered each of my responses accordingly to them. 1. Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, I’m not married to, or obsessed with this case at all, even though I do believe I was born with it in my bones. I have many other passions and interests, which I also find, provide the required rest, perspective and even insight towards so many of the things that have confounded me over the years, and continue to! It’s a true work in progress but I believe there is light.. I’ve thought about writing a book, just not seriously to this point. Years ago, I came up with a title which I’d still go with and would feature my avatar photo for the cover. ‘Hauptmann’s Garage: Inside the Mind of the Lindbergh Baby Killer’ Interesting title. It suggests your book would be about Hauptmann and his psychological condition. That would be quite an undertaking.I don’t think I would ever attempt to undertake a purely psychological profile of Richard Hauptmann, relative to his involvement in the LKC. I have some great background reference sources in mind though, and I’d really have to see where things end up before choosing a final title. I know I would need some expert assistance along the way but having developed the essential framework and based on a good general understanding of the case itself, I believe the pieces would ultimately fall into place without being forced. One thing is very clear to me. No modern-day author has done justice to this subject, something I find almost as surprising as the way Hauptmann himself appears to have been so liberally distanced and even ‘exonerated’ from the crime in general.. while the conspiracy theory mill just keeps churning..2. N/A 3. When you reference the ransom money as having possibly been "used jointly,” do you mean monies used to fund his and an accomplice’s efforts, prior to the kidnapping? I was not specifically addressing prior kidnapping monies. I was talking about the actual ransom of $50,000.From what I gather from the accounting exercise evidence, I tend to believe that Hauptmann was and remained the primary beneficiary of the ransom payment, and essentially controlled it until he was arrested. I also believe a conservative estimate of his (and Anna’s) enrichment lies between 80 and 85% percent of the original 50K based on both living and discretionary spending, minus any recovered ransom money. Isidor Fisch might well have been involved in laundering the ransom money. There may be some truth in what Hauptmann claimed, that Fisch left him ‘a box,’ but if so, there can be no doubt he knew of its contents from the beginning. Where do you see the money having been used jointly? 4. I believe the crime scene footprint evidence could well have been compromised and that what Wolf observed might have been the footprints of not two kidnappers, but one kidnapper and one observer. I also believe it was the kidnapper’s (or kidnappers) original intent to leave the scene the same way he had approached, roughly northward, along the east wall of the house and back down the driveway. The original plan changed with the breaking of the ladder, with the kidnapper now sensing the noise might cause someone in the house to come out the front door to investigate, and spontaneously decided to distance himself from this possibility. I don’t treat any of the above as conclusive, but other pieces of evidence indicate to me this decision was made on the spur of the moment here, which compounded by the unexpected very muddy ground further east of the house, then resulted in the ladder, a crucial piece of evidence, being left behind. In my opinion, Corp. Wolf's report appears to be a summation of all that was observed by the initial investigating officers that arrived at the scene before all the reports, etc. did. It was the conditions and evidence they observed that night. This is where I am at. Michael's Volume One of his Dark Corners books talks about the many reports and findings and also how the scene was guarded very early on. I cannot figure out when the compromising that you mention would have happened.The major problem I have with the early crime scene investigation, are those who first responded. Their job should have solely been to set up a perimeter around the house and property, not allowing anyone to gain access other than authorized (and fully qualified) investigators. I’ll withhold any further comments for now, as I’m currently reviewing this subject, and it’s an involved one.5. I hear you on this, in that so much has been written by both of us on the subject of the condition of the ground itself and I know at times it can seemingly become onerous and monotonous reading. At the same time, I believe this is vitally important today, because the true ground conditions were so abysmally reported upon by relatively untrained and inexperienced investigators at the scene. If we are saddled with overly general, inaccurate and conflicting reports, discovering the truth doesn’t bode well unless relevant factors which were not considered are put into play today. As I previously suggested, Ellis Parker, (or Canada’s John Murrary) in his prime and working with a competent assistant would have come up with a much clearer and more accurate picture of what actually took place here. I was addressing, specifically, the chunk of mud found on the lower library shutter. Seems like a lot of mud and must have been quite moist for it to stick on the foot of a kidnapper and get carried up that ladder causing it to fall off. I was questioning whether this chunk of mud is really important to the case in some way. My understanding is that it was saved by the investigation officers.I only know it was saved, due to the possibility of it having come off the foot of a kidnapper who scaled the ladder. I’m not sure it’s possible to state conclusively here that this is what actually happened. Was the ‘chunk of mud’ a wet blob that fell, or was propelled off a kidnapper’s foot, or was it a relatively firm dissociated piece of mud that had become attached to the side of a kidnapper’s foot and fallen off during the ladder scaling? Or could it have existed there from some other previous source, such as a tradesman working on the house? Within the total physical evidence picture outside and inside the nursery, and the crime scene photo of the ladder imprints, I am not seeing the type of ground and relative moisture saturation for a "wet blob of mud" to have been generated in the first place, never mind it having been picked up on the foot of a kidnapper and then dropped off onto the shutter.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2023 11:35:02 GMT -5
Norma, if Whateley on his deathbed, did in fact implicate Betty Gow, or anyone other than himself as having been even in the smallest way, criminally responsible for Charlie’s abduction, I wouldn’t really call it a confession but more of an opinion or statement of what he considered to be true, given his state of mind at the time he expressed what Alyle Schutter claimed he told him. Semantics aside, it would have been one very serious allegation, which I believe has no basis in fact for more reasons than I can write about here and now. Without access to Ollie’s hospital medical chart, how do we know for example, that he wasn’t in a state of delirium at the time of the purported event, or that specific details were accurately passed along from one person to another until they finally appeared in print? I won't even speculate here. What we have readily available is more than ample evidence for is that Charlie was loved by all of those around him, and no one in that house expressed even a hint of complicity or guilt in such an imagined scheme for the remainder of their lives. Either Charles, Anne, Betty, Ollie and Elsie agreed to sell their souls as a totally heartless group together here, or none of them did, and I believe the latter scenario applies here. While Joe and I haven't seen eye to eye recently, and its quite clear his mind has been closed on this, I agree with something he said here. We don't know Whateley's state of mind at the time. We also don't know exactly what he said. It's why I looked at everything leading up to it. This includes him telling reporters whoever did it was known to the dog before realizing what he said and slipping in something about needing his job. Also his attitude about Betty reflected in what he said to Thayer & Rosner. What Betty said to Garsson. What Kelly supposedly heard Lindbergh say to Betty. Also, and this was recently discussed with "A Guest," Lindbergh believed a door could have been used in the commission of the crime. Curtis had no evidence that he was actually in touch with the kidnappers EXCEPT telling Lindbergh the pantry door was locked from the hallway side, the door was used, and that Whateley was involved. This, despite Lindbergh refusing the lie detector and vouching for his staff to police, caused him to take off with Curtis to "search" for the kidnappers. For anyone interested in this subject, there is information in all four volumes: V1 pages 76-89, V2 pages 9-12, V3 pages 2-5, and V4 pages 7-9. I suspect I'll learn more as time goes by, but this could be all there is as Norma predicts. Michael, if within my attempts to consistently present informed and grounded observations and conclusions along with any potentially applicable insights, is being closed minded as you imply, then I’ll take that all day long over what you’ve trotted out above. All the points you raise above may be interpreted in several ways towards their relative value as circumstantial evidence, ie. anywhere from 100% right down to 0% relevance. As you so often choose to portray them only based on their accumulative and visually appealing face value in support of a general theory, I’d only suggest that it’s you who might exercise a bit more open-mindedness in establishing relevance of each individual event in isolation, in addition to how they might reasonably be interconnected.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2023 12:19:45 GMT -5
Thanks for your comments Joe. I have to take you up on your description of the ladder: "the exacting designed and executed balance of properties based on the requirements of this job from start to finish" and the ladder's "express requirements and characteristics." This makes it sound like a high precision piece of equipment purpose-built to a demanding specification with tolerance levels in the micron range. In fact it was a crude 3 element nesting ladder made from previously-used timber. This ladder's "express requirements and characteristics" must have been poorly understood by it's maker: he brought 3 elements to the job when only 2 were needed and these failed in service by cracking at the dowel joint. Whether the ladder was made and/or used by BRH or A N Other, it was not in my view tailor-made specifically for the Lindbergh job. With its flat slats instead of conventional rungs, the 19 inch inter-slat distance, the careless single dowel joint, and its general light weight it has all the characteristics of a roofers' or cat ladder. Intended to be crawled on e.g when (re)placing roof tiles. Finally, if the Hopewell ladder is the optimum design for ascending to the nursery window I wonder why this specific type of ladder isn't in widespread use by window-cleaners, gutter repair men, house painters etc. It isn't because it is patently unsuitable; these guys use commercial store-bought ladders. . Design, from conceptual point of view to its more practical and working form, are two entirely different things from the actual quality of construction. Hauptmann simply built a minimalist version of a ladder which met all of the requirements he had determined upfront and before driving his final nail. Speaking of nails, he probably blunted their points before they were cleanly driven to minimize wood splitting. Basically everything about the ladder's construction shows it was probably built by a carpenter, and not always a careful one, and it was built only for the business of kidnapping the Lindbergh child, as well as getting to and from this job. Hauptmann's Achilles Heel was in not reinforcing the drilled dowel holes, which were placed too closely to the rail ends, thereby allowing them to open when the wood split along the grain, and the ladder to suddenly fail. A few winds of wire wrapped around the rail ends could have prevented this. Like so many other criminals, he was both smart and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2023 13:15:33 GMT -5
Michael, if within my attempts to consistently present informed and grounded observations and conclusions along with any potentially applicable insights, is being closed minded as you imply, then I’ll take that all day long over what you’ve trotted out above. All the points you raise above may be interpreted in several ways towards their relative value as circumstantial evidence, ie. anywhere from 100% right down to 0% relevance. As you so often choose to portray them only based on their accumulative and visually appealing face value in support of a general theory, I’d only suggest that it’s you who might exercise a bit more open-mindedness in establishing relevance of each individual event in isolation, in addition to how they might reasonably be interconnected. Sorry Joe, this word salad you decided to post does not address the basic facts. Furthermore, it doesn't take "all day" to address them. Just one upsets your fantasy and there's many, some I didn't even post because it's overkill. You want everyone to believe an area that yielded the prints of a petite female would not yield them of a man, or men, carrying a ladder. This, you've already explained, was because Anne, the woman who claimed she made those prints, was wearing a pair of a specific type of boot when all she claimed to be wearing were "rubbers." This being unknown to even HER because she was apparently mistaken when she claimed that area was muddy enough to leave footprints. And of course, the men working construction didn't wear boots, but if they did, they wore the non-magical kind because, in your mind, the ground was firm enough to support their weight. This despite their obvious belief it was not ... something that caused them to lay the boards down in the first place. So the evidence from those who were actually there should all be discarded in order to accept your fairy tale. No thanks.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2023 13:51:25 GMT -5
Michael, if within my attempts to consistently present informed and grounded observations and conclusions along with any potentially applicable insights, is being closed minded as you imply, then I’ll take that all day long over what you’ve trotted out above. All the points you raise above may be interpreted in several ways towards their relative value as circumstantial evidence, ie. anywhere from 100% right down to 0% relevance. As you so often choose to portray them only based on their accumulative and visually appealing face value in support of a general theory, I’d only suggest that it’s you who might exercise a bit more open-mindedness in establishing relevance of each individual event in isolation, in addition to how they might reasonably be interconnected. Sorry Joe, this word salad you decided to post does not address the basic facts. Furthermore, it doesn't take "all day" to address them. Just one upsets your fantasy and there's many, some I didn't even post because it's overkill. You want everyone to believe an area that yielded the prints of a petite female would not yield them of a man, or men, carrying a ladder. This, you've already explained, was because Anne, the woman who claimed she made those prints, was wearing a pair of a specific type of boot when all she claimed to be wearing were "rubbers." This being unknown to even HER because she was apparently mistaken when she claimed that area was muddy enough to leave footprints. And of course, the men working construction didn't wear boots, but if they did, they wore the non-magical kind because, in your mind, the ground was firm enough to support their weight. This despite their obvious belief it was not ... something that caused them to lay the boards down in the first place. So the evidence from those who were actually there should all be discarded in order to accept your fairy tale. No thanks. I won't belabour this point anymore with you. This is certainly not the first time you've shown this almost insane rigidity and intractability towards case scenarios, many of which we still have the opportunity today to correct and see beyond the limitations imposed by shortsighted and incompetent investigators in 1932. And have some meaningful discussions, not to mention a bit of fun at the same time. Meanwhile, as you keep backing up further and further on the thin limb you've chosen to inhabit for the past two decades, you may want to check over your shoulder and realize you're only a couple of inches off the ground now! Might just be best time to step off and regroup here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2023 19:45:17 GMT -5
This is certainly not the first time you've shown this almost insane rigidity and intractability towards case scenarios, many of which we still have the opportunity today to correct and see beyond the limitations imposed by shortsighted and incompetent investigators in 1932. What? Meanwhile, as you keep backing up further and further on the thin limb you've chosen to inhabit for the past two decades, you may want to check over your shoulder and realize you're only a couple of inches off the ground now! Might just be best time to step off and regroup here. Huh? Well, here's what I'm going to do.... I am filing this "Firm Ground" theory right next to the disproven "Skean" theory. That and the "Wahgoosh hypothesis." You know the one. It's that Wahgoosh didn't bark due to the fact that the moon was covered by a rather large but uncommon cumulus nimbus cloud. This coupled with the fact that Whateley found that it was Wahgoosh who had stolen and chewed up the tinker toy from the child's room. Of course we all know Whateley would have scolded the poor dog which would have caused him to retreat to his basket and ignore the "orange crate" sound. In fact, there's another theory that claims it was Wahgoosh who was responsible for that sound and that's also filed away right next to these others.
|
|