Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 19, 2023 4:52:35 GMT -5
Well, Michael, with you so busy at work in the parallel universes of your choice on any given day, I can understand how you’re able to imagine so many interesting and fanciful alternatives within the physical Newtonian world. Good luck in your future endeavours!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 19, 2023 9:00:40 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. There is nothing ridiculous about my claim, and it’s right there in black and white for you and anyone else to see. The ground in the immediate vicinity of the east wall of the house was sheltered from the previous rains, in comparison to the much wetter open field conditions which accordingly, showed a significant number of distinct footprint impressions. What is beyond ridiculous, is your claim that the kidnappers managed to not only approach the base of the nursery window with their supplies in hand along that walkway, but also raised and lowered the kidnap ladder while remaining perched on ONE narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, not once stepping off, except to plant a fabric covered foot to the left of the ladder’s left rail and facing the house! What competent and common sense investigator would ever have even considered such a bizarre suggestion? Ellis Parker would have whacked you over the head with his pipe! 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. I’m just being objective here, Michael. I’m questioning, and not simply supporting a theory that so conveniently aligns with the notion that Charlie was essentially “delivered” to the kidnappers about 8:00 pm, which of course, you favour. In the absence of bias, there is stronger circumstantial evidence to support the abduction having taken place closer to 9:00 pm. 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. I believe Parker was beyond his prime as a competent investigator when Charlie was kidnapped. Despite any contacts and inside information within the NJSP, he had to initiate much of his own investigations from scratch, so he would often have been working at a disadvantage. I’d have to re-read all the Parker-related information and his early investigations into the case, but didn’t he conclude a number of things that were roundly disproven, one of them being that the Mt. Rose corpse was not that of the Lindbergh child? I don’t recall this “master of common-sense law enforcement,” as you put it, having had a very good record in this case. And did he not clearly demonstrate how determined he was to prove his own misguided theory about who he believed committed the crime, through his biased 'rewrite' of the Ben Lupica interview and ultimately, the kidnapping and torturing of Paul Wendel to obtain the kind of confession that no competent law enforcement or prosecution individual would have ever believed?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2023 15:38:09 GMT -5
There is nothing ridiculous about my claim, and it’s right there in black and white for you and anyone else to see. The ground in the immediate vicinity of the east wall of the house was sheltered from the previous rains, in comparison to the much wetter open field conditions which accordingly, showed a significant number of distinct footprint impressions. What is beyond ridiculous, is your claim that the kidnappers managed to not only approach the base of the nursery window with their supplies in hand along that walkway, but also raised and lowered the kidnap ladder while remaining perched on ONE narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, not once stepping off, except to plant a fabric covered foot to the left of the ladder’s left rail and facing the house! What competent and common sense investigator would ever have even considered such a bizarre suggestion? Ellis Parker would have whacked you over the head with his pipe! It is absolutely absurd. There is no evidence this ground, that had prints in it, wouldn't yield prints. That is what is in black & white and you are literally arguing against something that has already been proven to have occurred. Should I say that again? It happened and yet you claim it could not have. Then comes the magic boot excuse. It's silly. There's so much evidence to prove you are wrong. What's "wetter" or what "oozed" has nothing to do with the situation. Fact is that if a man, or men, carrying a ladder stepped where a petite woman was supposed to have stepped, and left prints, they would have left prints too. If I have to say this again and again I will because your only tactic seems to be that you can outlast me by restating this rubbish over and over hoping one day I'll give up and this nonsense will stick. The evidence speaks for itself. You don't "like" what's it shows so you are inventing things that cannot even accidentally be true. I’m just being objective here, Michael. I’m questioning, and not simply supporting a theory that so conveniently aligns with the notion that Charlie was essentially “delivered” to the kidnappers about 8:00 pm, which of course, you favour. In the absence of bias, there is stronger circumstantial evidence to support the abduction having taken place closer to 9:00 pm. Stop pissing on my leg and telling me its raining. There's nothing objective about inventing reasons to get around the truth of the matter. And not a very good one at that. I've asked you for sources that say that ground was firm and wouldn't yield prints. You have none. And yet, I have the sources that say it would - and DID. I've offered a "control" to that argument by demonstrating where that condition actually DID exist. Your rebuttal only seems to ignore then double down by attempting to gaslight me. Next, there is no proof this event occurred closer to 9PM except the "orange crate" sound that Lindbergh claimed came from the direction of the kitchen. You know, the sound no one else heard - to include Wahgoosh. And by the way, this sound didn't even convince Lindbergh of the timing since he thought the crime was carried out before he got home. I believe Parker was beyond his prime as a competent investigator when Charlie was kidnapped. Despite any contacts and inside information within the NJSP, he had to initiate much of his own investigations from scratch, so he would often have been working at a disadvantage. I’d have to re-read all the Parker-related information and his early investigations into the case, but didn’t he conclude a number of things that were roundly disproven, one of them being that the Mt. Rose corpse was not that of the Lindbergh child? I don’t recall this “master of common-sense law enforcement,” as you put it, having had a very good record in this case. And did he not clearly demonstrate how determined he was to prove his own misguided theory about who he believed committed the crime, through his biased 'rewrite' of the Ben Lupica interview and ultimately, the kidnapping and torturing of Paul Wendel to obtain the kind of confession that no competent law enforcement or prosecution individual would have ever believed? Parker had an almost perfect record until the end of this case. Right in the beginning, we see this common sense approach of tracking the timing and distances of the eyewitness accounts concerning the strange cars. And its here that you attempt to mock his abilities? And why is that? Because you don't like what it proves. That's on YOU Joe. Next, this idea to compare the one mistake (Wendel) against everything else, as if it disqualifies what that investigation shows, is childish. Apply that standard to everyone else and what do you have? You see, that tactic cannot be applied evenly, because if it was, it backfires in your face. Parker made these interviews in 1932. Look at who he interviewed, why, and what it showed. There's nothing incompetent about it at all - quite the contrary. Next, Schwarzkopf did not share his information with him BECAUSE he thought Parker might solve the case and steal all the glory away from him. That's why he employed a spy to leak information about his investigations back to him. That clearly demonstrates what Schwarzkopf felt about Parker's abilities. Parker saw the corpse and questioned its identity because, in his words, the skeleton he saw was "subnormal." So he made the statement that unless the Lindbergh child was "subnormal," then it wasn't him. Seems reasonable to me. Finally, Parker never kidnapped or tortured anyone. Schlossman admitted to striking Wendel because he bragged about emasculating the child with acid. He had a child and was disgusted by the comment. Parker wasn't there. Everything else relies on Wendel's lies and the agreement to lie by the others as part of deal so they wouldn't go to prison for the rest of their lives. The authorities leaned on them in order to bring down Hoffman. I have absolute evidence of a deal that the Prosecutors later lied about after getting to Hoffman fell through. It was all political in nature and so complex it would require me to write another book just on this subject alone. A lot of it is in the Pardon, which includes a ton of my research. I've recommended to Andy that he should simply publish the pardon itself because it reads like a book and explains 85% of everything. After Wendel asked to be brought to Parker, he volunteered to go to Four Mile Colony. There he offered to write another confession which turned into more than one. Even John Reisinger once told me, those confessions prove they weren't forced because there's issues in them involving Wendel's personal grievances. He also wrote several in Anna Bading's presence. What, did she beat him with a rubber hose? On top of that, he recanted in writing, and when Parker turned him over, he also turned that document over as well. Why would someone forcing a confession do such a thing? Be careful trying to argue this Joe. I have information no one else on the planet has about this angle. But then again, why should that matter? All you have to do is exactly what you've done above. Regardless, this is all just an attempt at distraction. The strange car investigation Parker made was solid. Anne heard a car on the gravel of the driveway before Lindbergh was supposed to have come home. Remember? Even Lindbergh told Lanphier that he believed the child was taken before he got home, and he testified at the Curtis trial that his child was abducted " at between about 7:30 and 10 o'clock." And so, for anyone keeping track, that's Parker, Lindbergh, and the NJSP all believing the crime had been committed before Lindbergh supposedly got home.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 22, 2023 10:46:11 GMT -5
There is nothing ridiculous about my claim, and it’s right there in black and white for you and anyone else to see. The ground in the immediate vicinity of the east wall of the house was sheltered from the previous rains, in comparison to the much wetter open field conditions which accordingly, showed a significant number of distinct footprint impressions. What is beyond ridiculous, is your claim that the kidnappers managed to not only approach the base of the nursery window with their supplies in hand along that walkway, but also raised and lowered the kidnap ladder while remaining perched on ONE narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, not once stepping off, except to plant a fabric covered foot to the left of the ladder’s left rail and facing the house! What competent and common sense investigator would ever have even considered such a bizarre suggestion? Ellis Parker would have whacked you over the head with his pipe! It is absolutely absurd. There is no evidence this ground, that had prints in it, wouldn't yield prints. That is what is in black & white and you are literally arguing against something that has already been proven to have occurred. Should I say that again? It happened and yet you claim it could not have. Then comes the magic boot excuse. It's silly. There's so much evidence to prove you are wrong. What's "wetter" or what "oozed" has nothing to do with the situation. Fact is that if a man, or men, carrying a ladder stepped where a petite woman was supposed to have stepped, and left prints, they would have left prints too. If I have to say this again and again I will because your only tactic seems to be that you can outlast me by restating this rubbish over and over hoping one day I'll give up and this nonsense will stick. The evidence speaks for itself. You don't "like" what's it shows so you are inventing things that cannot even accidentally be true. It’s astounding how you’ve been able to dance around this subject even more so than your imaginary circus acrobat kidnappers. And you say I’ve invented magic boots! There is nothing magical here, Michael. It’s all straightforward physics, for which you appear to have little understanding, and you’re way out of your element here. That’s why I recommended for you, short courses in the properties of natural and man-made materials as well as the physical sciences. As far as I’m aware, you are the only person who had ever uttered anything as outlandish as what you claim took place on that narrow boardwalk, in that one kidnapper stepped off the boardwalk only once during the positioning/removal of the ladder and its ascent/descent. No case investigators, no Lindbergh, no Parker, no one else to support you here.. There was time I had faith in your claims that you were out to set the record straight, no matter who it upset or how it might assault your own limited understanding and beliefs in any given area. Your proliferation of this degree of ignorance and/or denial though, does nothing to advance the case’s solution. But congratulations, as here you’ve essentially joined the ranks of those previous authors like Vitray, Spencer, Scaduto, Kennedy and A&M, who’ve essentially done face plants in select fields of evidence and chosen to remain stuck in the same low ground.
I’m just being objective here, Michael. I’m questioning, and not simply supporting a theory that so conveniently aligns with the notion that Charlie was essentially “delivered” to the kidnappers about 8:00 pm, which of course, you favour. In the absence of bias, there is stronger circumstantial evidence to support the abduction having taken place closer to 9:00 pm. Stop pissing on my leg and telling me its raining. There's nothing objective about inventing reasons to get around the truth of the matter. And not a very good one at that. I've asked you for sources that say that ground was firm and wouldn't yield prints. You have none. And yet, I have the sources that say it would - and DID. I've offered a "control" to that argument by demonstrating where that condition actually DID exist. Your rebuttal only seems to ignore then double down by attempting to gaslight me. Next, there is no proof this event occurred closer to 9PM except the "orange crate" sound that Lindbergh claimed came from the direction of the kitchen. You know, the sound no one else heard - to include Wahgoosh. And by the way, this sound didn't even convince Lindbergh of the timing since he thought the crime was carried out before he got home. The notion that the kidnappers were waiting for the nursery light to go out and then spring into action at 8:00 pm on the cusp of the nursemaid just having settled Charlie, from an operations sense, would have been both unnecessary, and overly risky for the kidnappers. Why would they have struck immediately when in all likelihood the child could well have been not soundly asleep yet? Why not wait until the room remained dark for a reasonable amount of time? Lindbergh wasn’t home at 8:00 pm so how would he have known for sure, and why here do you accept what he posited here, when you believe it was he who orchestrated the kidnapping in the first place? Lindbergh offered many snapshot opinions along the course of the investigation based on his own understanding of the evidence at any given time, which indicate to me he was only trying to comprehend the details and process them into a conclusion that satisfied his desire to know, both as a parent and amateur detective. Lindbergh mentioned the cracking sound, heard about 9:00 pm only to Anne and Charlie Williamson during that same evening, so we can gather from this that his overall recollection of the event was not one which remained stuck, but rather fleeting in his mind from the time of it first being heard. Yes, he believed it came from the direction of the kitchen, but this may also have been because of what he believed the object was, an orange crate, something he consciously associated with the kitchen. Also, look at the floorplan of the first story of the house and see how easy it would have been to interpret that sound having essentially come through the open living room door from either east or west direction. Despite your previous objections, the barking dogs, as well as the paw prints intermingled with human footprints in the area that the kidnappers’ retreating footprints were followed to, is highly suggestive evidence the kidnapping took place closer to 9:00 pm. And all of the above is evidence from the scene that night or very shortly afterwards, and does not rely on an observation (Moores) taken and reported over a month after-the-fact, at a location a “good two miles away” from the Lindbergh house. I believe Parker was beyond his prime as a competent investigator when Charlie was kidnapped. Despite any contacts and inside information within the NJSP, he had to initiate much of his own investigations from scratch, so he would often have been working at a disadvantage. I’d have to re-read all the Parker-related information and his early investigations into the case, but didn’t he conclude a number of things that were roundly disproven, one of them being that the Mt. Rose corpse was not that of the Lindbergh child? I don’t recall this “master of common-sense law enforcement,” as you put it, having had a very good record in this case. And did he not clearly demonstrate how determined he was to prove his own misguided theory about who he believed committed the crime, through his biased 'rewrite' of the Ben Lupica interview and ultimately, the kidnapping and torturing of Paul Wendel to obtain the kind of confession that no competent law enforcement or prosecution individual would have ever believed? Parker had an almost perfect record until the end of this case. Right in the beginning, we see this common sense approach of tracking the timing and distances of the eyewitness accounts concerning the strange cars. And its here that you attempt to mock his abilities? And why is that? Because you don't like what it proves. That's on YOU Joe. Next, this idea to compare the one mistake (Wendel) against everything else, as if it disqualifies what that investigation shows, is childish. Apply that standard to everyone else and what do you have? You see, that tactic cannot be applied evenly, because if it was, it backfires in your face. Parker made these interviews in 1932. Look at who he interviewed, why, and what it showed. There's nothing incompetent about it at all - quite the contrary. Next, Schwarzkopf did not share his information with him BECAUSE he thought Parker might solve the case and steal all the glory away from him. That's why he employed a spy to leak information about his investigations back to him. That clearly demonstrates what Schwarzkopf felt about Parker's abilities. Parker saw the corpse and questioned its identity because, in his words, the skeleton he saw was "subnormal." So he made the statement that unless the Lindbergh child was "subnormal," then it wasn't him. Seems reasonable to me. Finally, Parker never kidnapped or tortured anyone. Schlossman admitted to striking Wendel because he bragged about emasculating the child with acid. He had a child and was disgusted by the comment. Parker wasn't there. Everything else relies on Wendel's lies and the agreement to lie by the others as part of deal so they wouldn't go to prison for the rest of their lives. The authorities leaned on them in order to bring down Hoffman. I have absolute evidence of a deal that the Prosecutors later lied about after getting to Hoffman fell through. It was all political in nature and so complex it would require me to write another book just on this subject alone. A lot of it is in the Pardon, which includes a ton of my research. I've recommended to Andy that he should simply publish the pardon itself because it reads like a book and explains 85% of everything. After Wendel asked to be brought to Parker, he volunteered to go to Four Mile Colony. There he offered to write another confession which turned into more than one. Even John Reisinger once told me, those confessions prove they weren't forced because there's issues in them involving Wendel's personal grievances. He also wrote several in Anna Bading's presence. What, did she beat him with a rubber hose? On top of that, he recanted in writing, and when Parker turned him over, he also turned that document over as well. Why would someone forcing a confession do such a thing? Be careful trying to argue this Joe. I have information no one else on the planet has about this angle. But then again, why should that matter? All you have to do is exactly what you've done above. Regardless, this is all just an attempt at distraction. The strange car investigation Parker made was solid. Anne heard a car on the gravel of the driveway before Lindbergh was supposed to have come home. Remember? Even Lindbergh told Lanphier that he believed the child was taken before he got home, and he testified at the Curtis trial that his child was abducted " at between about 7:30 and 10 o'clock." And so, for anyone keeping track, that's Parker, Lindbergh, and the NJSP all believing the crime had been committed before Lindbergh supposedly got home. Yes, Parker demonstrated that he was a great detective in the years leading up to the LKC. His main problem in the LKC though was that he had no jurisdiction. Certainly Schwarzkopf could have embraced any and all offers of assistance from the NJ County Detectives Association, which included Parker from Burlington County. Given how outspoken the association was in its condemnation of the NJSP’s overall handling of the case, Schwarzkopf appeared to have been in no mood to entertain any direct overtures from Parker, who took shots at Schwarzkopf in the press.
In your take on Parker’s investigation into the identity of the body, you don’t mention the fact that he announced publicly that the body had been dead for longer than 72 days, based on how he believed its decomposition would have been affected by the March, April and May weather, and therefore that it was not Charlie. Further, he postulated that local bootleggers had planted the body as a means of allowing police to re-open the roads they normally used for their illegal activities. The physical body was positively identified as the Lindbergh baby on many counts, so it’s little wonder Parker’s incomplete and flawed assessment was both wrong, and not taken seriously.
Your interpretation of Parker’s plan to kidnap and extract a confession out of Paul Wendel, because he firmly believed him to have been the Lindbergh kidnapper, is a pretty blank whitewash. And it’s really little more than a lame attempt to preserve what remained of Parker’s dignity and reputation at the expense of someone, who despite his overall questionable character, did not deserve the actual mistreatment he received. Wendel’s elaborate confession was in large part, the product of a keen sense of self-preservation, a fertile imagination and innate ability to adapt for survival under very difficult circumstances. If anything was really learned from this debacle and I’m thinking of Ellis Parker here, ultimately it doesn’t pay to flout the laws, mores and conventions that are designed to protect the average person, or you might just find yourself taken by the one you targeted in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 22, 2023 13:12:26 GMT -5
I do believe Hauptmann had a partner in this crime. If you look at his past criminal history, he worked with at least one other person. I do think he would have done so with this kidnapping. Therefore, the financial gain received by him and this partner for this kidnapping would belong to both of them. It would be why they formed a partnership to begin with. They each wanted money. You bring up Isidor Fisch in your response. If he had partnered with Hauptmann to commit this crime and extort the $50,000 dollars from Lindbergh, then perhaps their common goal would have been to fund a joint business venture in stocks and furs. Why else would Hauptmann have credited Fisch with over $17,000 dollars if Fisch were not his partner in this crime? That makes no sense to me. I agree that Fisch could have been laundering money as part of what he brought to the table in this partnership. Hauptmann would be the "bank" for the money. If Fisch is the partner, then it is jointly used to fund their business plans. Could someone else, other than Fisch, have partnered with Hauptmann? I do think that is possible. I just do not believe Hauptmann did this crime alone.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 22, 2023 13:59:03 GMT -5
I do believe Hauptmann had a partner in this crime. If you look at his past criminal history, he worked with at least one other person. I do think he would have done so with this kidnapping. Therefore, the financial gain received by him and this partner for this kidnapping would belong to both of them. It would be why they formed a partnership to begin with. They each wanted money. You bring up Isidor Fisch in your response. If he had partnered with Hauptmann to commit this crime and extort the $50,000 dollars from Lindbergh, then perhaps their common goal would have been to fund a joint business venture in stocks and furs. Why else would Hauptmann have credited Fisch with over $17,000 dollars if Fisch were not his partner in this crime? That makes no sense to me. I agree that Fisch could have been laundering money as part of what he brought to the table in this partnership. Hauptmann would be the "bank" for the money. If Fisch is the partner, then it is jointly used to fund their business plans. Could someone else, other than Fisch, have partnered with Hauptmann? I do think that is possible. I just do not believe Hauptmann did this crime alone. Hauptmann and Fisch were perfect partners for the purpose of both cooperating with and conning each other in business. They would have done this from the start (as they did until the end) after apparently meeting in early August 1932, each overstating their legitimate financial/material resources, abilities and potential for attracting wealth. Other than Fisch's probable involvement in the laundering exercise, I don't see anyone else within the framework of the kidnapping plan itself. Robbing even the Mayor of Bernbruch with an equally motivated partner in crime for current living expenses, pales in comparison with what would have seemed to any sane individual, the most surrealistic of schemes imaginable, kidnapping the Lindbergh child in the absence of any visible plan to care for it. I see convincing evidence of this having been Hauptmann's "baby" from the beginning, within the context of the ransom note itself. Would he have even trusted anyone enough to consider taking them on as a partner in the commission of such an unprecedented crime, or would he have considered this strictly a solo job, with the possible exception of commissioning temporary help at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond's cemeteries? I do believe the credit of approximately $15,500, as suggested by Agent Frank, could well have represented the value of the gold certificates found in Hauptmann's garage, which Fisch had been tasked to laundering but unable to before his return to Germany in December 1933. I strongly suspect this entry in Hauptmann's memo book was simply designed to appear as a legitimate business ledger item.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2023 15:35:58 GMT -5
It is absolutely absurd. There is no evidence this ground, that had prints in it, wouldn't yield prints. That is what is in black & white and you are literally arguing against something that has already been proven to have occurred. Should I say that again? It happened and yet you claim it could not have. Then comes the magic boot excuse. It's silly. There's so much evidence to prove you are wrong. What's "wetter" or what "oozed" has nothing to do with the situation. Fact is that if a man, or men, carrying a ladder stepped where a petite woman was supposed to have stepped, and left prints, they would have left prints too. If I have to say this again and again I will because your only tactic seems to be that you can outlast me by restating this rubbish over and over hoping one day I'll give up and this nonsense will stick. The evidence speaks for itself. You don't "like" what's it shows so you are inventing things that cannot even accidentally be true. It’s astounding how you’ve been able to dance around this subject even more so than your imaginary circus acrobat kidnappers. And you say I’ve invented magic boots! There is nothing magical here, Michael. It’s all straightforward physics, for which you appear to have little understanding, and you’re way out of your element here. That’s why I recommended for you, short courses in the properties of natural and man-made materials as well as the physical sciences. As far as I’m aware, you are the only person who had ever uttered anything as outlandish as what you claim took place on that narrow boardwalk, in that one kidnapper stepped off the boardwalk only once during the positioning/removal of the ladder and its ascent/descent. No case investigators, no Lindbergh, no Parker, no one else to support you here.. There was time I had faith in your claims that you were out to set the record straight, no matter who it upset or how it might assault your own limited understanding and beliefs in any given area. Your proliferation of this degree of ignorance and/or denial though, does nothing to advance the case’s solution. But congratulations, as here you’ve essentially joined the ranks of those previous authors like Vitray, Spencer, Scaduto, Kennedy and A&M, who’ve essentially done face plants in select fields of evidence and chosen to remain stuck in the same low ground.Dancing around the subject? Joe, we have the facts. We have the situation as it existed. You don't "like" it so you've invented certain outlandish things to explain away what you do not like. That's the bottom line. I will continue to repeat myself for as long as it takes. There are small prints, an indication that a female left them there, that are in the very place you assert was "firm" enough to prevent one or more MEN who was carrying a ladder. Claiming I don't understand physics is supposed to be a rebuttal? Or a pair of boots, that when Anne puts them on makes her leave prints but not the men? Seriously, get to work on some better options because you are embarrassing yourself. Fact is, again, Anne claimed she made those prints and that it was muddy enough for prints to be made. She lived there, was there, walked there, and claimed to have been the source. But here you are claiming all these years later that its not possible UNLESS she's wearing a specific type of boot. You don't even know what type she was wearing, but you pick whatever kind you believe supports your insane position. It's nutty. You look at the facts, do not like them, then invent things to get around them. I am looking at the facts and trying to understand how it happened with all the information we actually KNOW exists. You can't get where you want by doing so. And I do not avoid certain things either, as you clearly have. Like the fact the men wouldn't have thrown down the boards to begin with if the ground was in the condition you claim it was. There would be no point to it at all. None. Zero. They'd just walk on the firm part, you know, where Anne claimed to have walked - AND LEFT PRINTS. The notion that the kidnappers were waiting for the nursery light to go out and then spring into action at 8:00 pm on the cusp of the nursemaid just having settled Charlie, from an operations sense, would have been both unnecessary, and overly risky for the kidnappers. Why would they have struck immediately when in all likelihood the child could well have been not soundly asleep yet? Why not wait until the room remained dark for a reasonable amount of time? Lindbergh wasn’t home at 8:00 pm so how would he have known for sure, and why here do you accept what he posited here, when you believe it was he who orchestrated the kidnapping in the first place? Lindbergh offered many snapshot opinions along the course of the investigation based on his own understanding of the evidence at any given time, which indicate to me he was only trying to comprehend the details and process them into a conclusion that satisfied his desire to know, both as a parent and amateur detective. Lindbergh mentioned the cracking sound, heard about 9:00 pm only to Anne and Charlie Williamson during that same evening, so we can gather from this that his overall recollection of the event was not one which remained stuck, but rather fleeting in his mind from the time of it first being heard. Yes, he believed it came from the direction of the kitchen, but this may also have been because of what he believed the object was, an orange crate, something he consciously associated with the kitchen. Also, look at the floorplan of the first story of the house and see how easy it would have been to interpret that sound having essentially come through the open living room door from either east or west direction. Despite your previous objections, the barking dogs, as well as the paw prints intermingled with human footprints in the area that the kidnappers’ retreating footprints were followed to, is highly suggestive evidence the kidnapping took place closer to 9:00 pm. And all of the above is evidence from the scene that night or very shortly afterwards, and does not rely on an observation (Moores) taken and reported over a month after-the-fact, at a location a “good two miles away” from the Lindbergh house. Again, the facts are the facts. If you don't like them, then you evade, ignore, or make things up. Not a good strategy. As far as "how" Lindbergh would "know" there's any number of explanations. One being he agreed with the Police because of what was seen, known, and discussed. What I DO know is that it was his belief. Getting upset at me about it doesn't help or change the situation as it existed. Ask yourself, if it is so elementary, why Lindbergh and the Cops came to this conclusion. Did they not consider what you did? Were they idiots? Did they not understand physics? Now you offer that Lindbergh didn't really believe it when he told Lanphier he did. You are acting like you were there and he gave you a wink or some other sign. It's delusional. And here you give another silly explanation that's cut from the same cloth... That Lindbergh somehow had some sort of "fleeting" memory of the sound he supposedly heard. Of course he remembered saying he heard it. The question is "why" he chose not to give it the weight we'd expect when agreeing that the crime occurred prior to supposedly hearing it. Not to INVENT some ridiculous and counterproductive reason to explain it away. Dogs prints and dogs running toward Lindbergh's home should be considered. But do prints that are co-mingled absolutely prove they were made at the same time? Regardless, the totality of the evidence clearly shows a crime that occurred near or at 8PM. Paw prints do not disprove all of what this other evidence shows. To you maybe, of course, because that's what you'd prefer. Y es, Parker demonstrated that he was a great detective in the years leading up to the LKC. His main problem in the LKC though was that he had no jurisdiction. Certainly Schwarzkopf could have embraced any and all offers of assistance from the NJ County Detectives Association, which included Parker from Burlington County. Given how outspoken the association was in its condemnation of the NJSP’s overall handling of the case, Schwarzkopf appeared to have been in no mood to entertain any direct overtures from Parker, who took shots at Schwarzkopf in the press.
In your take on Parker’s investigation into the identity of the body, you don’t mention the fact that he announced publicly that the body had been dead for longer than 72 days, based on how he believed its decomposition would have been affected by the March, April and May weather, and therefore that it was not Charlie. Further, he postulated that local bootleggers had planted the body as a means of allowing police to re-open the roads they normally used for their illegal activities. The physical body was positively identified as the Lindbergh baby on many counts, so it’s little wonder Parker’s incomplete and flawed assessment was both wrong, and not taken seriously.
Your interpretation of Parker’s plan to kidnap and extract a confession out of Paul Wendel, because he firmly believed him to have been the Lindbergh kidnapper, is a pretty blank whitewash. And it’s really little more than a lame attempt to preserve what remained of Parker’s dignity and reputation at the expense of someone, who despite his overall questionable character, did not deserve the actual mistreatment he received. Wendel’s elaborate confession was in large part, the product of a keen sense of self-preservation, a fertile imagination and innate ability to adapt for survival under very difficult circumstances. If anything was really learned from this debacle and I’m thinking of Ellis Parker here, ultimately it doesn’t pay to flout the laws, mores and conventions that are designed to protect the average person, or you might just find yourself taken by the one you targeted in the first place.You are way out of your league here Joe. Again, Parker did not believe it was the corpse because he didn't think the Lindbergh child was "subnormal" and that's what he saw when he viewed the corpse on May 12. From that position, he began finding other evidence in that direction. The weather and forensics about a decaying corpse. It's good police work under the circumstances. In fact, for me, its additional information that points to the child being elsewhere originally. And again, you don't know what you are talking about. Schwarzkopf feared Parker would solve the case on his own, which was why he had someone spying on and reporting back so he could learn about what he was doing. It's also why he refused to share information with him as well. Since this spanned from 1932 to 1936, Parker's health comes into play. So he's not the same guy in 1936 he was in 1932. Next, and listen up because this is important, Wendel was telling Parker he was in touch with the people who did this all the while suggesting it was him. He WANTED Parker to believe he was involved Joe. He was a CRIMINAL so stop trying to make him look like a nice guy who didn't know what was what. Next, Bleefeld tried to sell Wendel's confession before turning it over to Parker. Listen, I'm not going to waste my time any further on this because everything I teach you falls on deaf ears anyway.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 22, 2023 16:17:03 GMT -5
I do believe Hauptmann had a partner in this crime. If you look at his past criminal history, he worked with at least one other person. I do think he would have done so with this kidnapping. Therefore, the financial gain received by him and this partner for this kidnapping would belong to both of them. It would be why they formed a partnership to begin with. They each wanted money. You bring up Isidor Fisch in your response. If he had partnered with Hauptmann to commit this crime and extort the $50,000 dollars from Lindbergh, then perhaps their common goal would have been to fund a joint business venture in stocks and furs. Why else would Hauptmann have credited Fisch with over $17,000 dollars if Fisch were not his partner in this crime? That makes no sense to me. I agree that Fisch could have been laundering money as part of what he brought to the table in this partnership. Hauptmann would be the "bank" for the money. If Fisch is the partner, then it is jointly used to fund their business plans. Could someone else, other than Fisch, have partnered with Hauptmann? I do think that is possible. I just do not believe Hauptmann did this crime alone. Hauptmann and Fisch were perfect partners for the purpose of both cooperating with and conning each other in business. They would have done this from the start (as they did until the end) after apparently meeting in early August 1932, each overstating their legitimate financial/material resources, abilities and potential for attracting wealth. Other than Fisch's probable involvement in the laundering exercise, I don't see anyone else within the framework of the kidnapping plan itself. Robbing even the Mayor of Bernbruch with an equally motivated partner in crime for current living expenses, pales in comparison with what would have seemed to any sane individual, the most surrealistic of schemes imaginable, kidnapping the Lindbergh child in the absence of any visible plan to care for it. I see convincing evidence of this having been Hauptmann's "baby" from the beginning, within the context of the ransom note itself. Would he have even trusted anyone enough to consider taking them on as a partner in the commission of such an unprecedented crime, or would he have considered this strictly a solo job, with the possible exception of commissioning temporary help at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond's cemeteries? I do believe the credit of approximately $15,500, as suggested by Agent Frank, could well have represented the value of the gold certificates found in Hauptmann's garage, which Fisch had been tasked to laundering but unable to before his return to Germany in December 1933. I strongly suspect this entry in Hauptmann's memo book was simply designed to appear as a legitimate business ledger item. Thanks Joe, for your response and sharing your thoughts on Hauptmann. However, the fact is the footprint evidence at the crime scene the night of March 1, 1932 says two people were involved with the kidnapping of the child. I can't deny that fact.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 22, 2023 16:32:09 GMT -5
Hauptmann and Fisch were perfect partners for the purpose of both cooperating with and conning each other in business. They would have done this from the start (as they did until the end) after apparently meeting in early August 1932, each overstating their legitimate financial/material resources, abilities and potential for attracting wealth. Other than Fisch's probable involvement in the laundering exercise, I don't see anyone else within the framework of the kidnapping plan itself. Robbing even the Mayor of Bernbruch with an equally motivated partner in crime for current living expenses, pales in comparison with what would have seemed to any sane individual, the most surrealistic of schemes imaginable, kidnapping the Lindbergh child in the absence of any visible plan to care for it. I see convincing evidence of this having been Hauptmann's "baby" from the beginning, within the context of the ransom note itself. Would he have even trusted anyone enough to consider taking them on as a partner in the commission of such an unprecedented crime, or would he have considered this strictly a solo job, with the possible exception of commissioning temporary help at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond's cemeteries? I do believe the credit of approximately $15,500, as suggested by Agent Frank, could well have represented the value of the gold certificates found in Hauptmann's garage, which Fisch had been tasked to laundering but unable to before his return to Germany in December 1933. I strongly suspect this entry in Hauptmann's memo book was simply designed to appear as a legitimate business ledger item. Thanks Joe, for your response and sharing your thoughts on Hauptmann. However, the fact is the footprint evidence at the crime scene the night of March 1, 1932 says two people were involved with the kidnapping of the child. I can't deny that fact.Your position is understandable from the standpoint of generally-accepted logistics and what would have been reasonable for one man to accomplish under the conditions of that night. I don't really know that it's a fact there were two kidnappers, but that's my current point of view which does not necessarily agree with Wolf's Major Initial Report, in which he used the phrase "apparently two sets of fresh footprints." I've always found that an interesting and very inconclusive term. In fact, he uses the same word at least two other times in his report when identifying what he believed were the number of kidnappers presented. I'm still re-processing his report for the umpteenth time and what Michael has presented in DC1, but believe there may be a very logical explanation behind his reported claim. In the meantime, is there anyone you might have in mind who might have helped Hauptmann at the scene, if in fact, you believe he was actually there that night? A lookout at Woodlawn and/or St. Raymond's? And I'm curious if Anna has ever been on your radar?
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 25, 2023 20:21:13 GMT -5
Your position is understandable from the standpoint of generally-accepted logistics and what would have been reasonable for one man to accomplish under the conditions of that night. I don't really know that it's a fact there were two kidnappers, but that's my current point of view which does not necessarily agree with Wolf's Major Initial Report, in which he used the phrase "apparently two sets of fresh footprints." I've always found that an interesting and very inconclusive term. In fact, he uses the same word at least two other times in his report when identifying what he believed were the number of kidnappers presented. I'm still re-processing his report for the umpteenth time and what Michael has presented in DC1, but believe there may be a very logical explanation behind his reported claim. In the meantime, is there anyone you might have in mind who might have helped Hauptmann at the scene, if in fact, you believe he was actually there that night? A lookout at Woodlawn and/or St. Raymond's? And I'm curious if Anna has ever been on your radar? Just to be clear, Wolf's use of "apparently" does not mean "maybe or maybe not". He writes it this way based on the sources who investigated the scene and reported seeing more than one set of prints. My understanding is that there is no physical evidence such as footprints, fingerprints or visual sightings that put Hauptmann at the scene of the crime in Hopewell, nor before or after it. This is something that I have to consider when looking at Hauptmann. Hans Mueller has always and continues to be a person of interest for me. I do not believe for one second that Anna Hauptmann had anything to do with the kidnapping or extortion. I do not believe that Hauptmann ever confessed anything to Anna, which would make her an accomplice after the fact, or did he confess to anybody else. Anna Hauptmann was a loyal and devoted wife who believed in her husband's innocence and believed everything that happened to her husband was Isidor Fisch's fault.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 26, 2023 8:51:35 GMT -5
Your position is understandable from the standpoint of generally-accepted logistics and what would have been reasonable for one man to accomplish under the conditions of that night. I don't really know that it's a fact there were two kidnappers, but that's my current point of view which does not necessarily agree with Wolf's Major Initial Report, in which he used the phrase "apparently two sets of fresh footprints." I've always found that an interesting and very inconclusive term. In fact, he uses the same word at least two other times in his report when identifying what he believed were the number of kidnappers presented. I'm still re-processing his report for the umpteenth time and what Michael has presented in DC1, but believe there may be a very logical explanation behind his reported claim. In the meantime, is there anyone you might have in mind who might have helped Hauptmann at the scene, if in fact, you believe he was actually there that night? A lookout at Woodlawn and/or St. Raymond's? And I'm curious if Anna has ever been on your radar? Just to be clear, Wolf's use of "apparently" does not mean "maybe or maybe not". He writes it this way based on the sources who investigated the scene and reported seeing more than one set of prints. My understanding is that there is no physical evidence such as footprints, fingerprints or visual sightings that put Hauptmann at the scene of the crime in Hopewell, nor before or after it. This is something that I have to consider when looking at Hauptmann. Hans Mueller has always and continues to be a person of interest for me. I do not believe for one second that Anna Hauptmann had anything to do with the kidnapping or extortion. I do not believe that Hauptmann ever confessed anything to Anna, which would make her an accomplice after the fact, or did he confess to anybody else. Anna Hauptmann was a loyal and devoted wife who believed in her husband's innocence and believed everything that happened to her husband was Isidor Fisch's fault. Thanks for your personal clarification of the term “apparently” used by Trooper Wolf, which is the same word Major Schoeffel used in his statement to news reporters. I continue to explore this subject in general through DC1 and individual investigator reports but for now, here’s why I continue to have questions with Wolf’s reporting of the retreating footprint evidence. Police Chief Wolfe, Charlie Williamson and Lindbergh were the first to observe footprints leading away from the area around the base of the nursery to a ladder, which they could see with flashlights from their vantage point alongside the house. They do not appear to indicate at this time, how many sets of footprints were seen leading away from the house. They were also careful not to add any prints to this trail, by circling around and arriving at the location where the ladder sections were laid. Next, Trooper Wolf, with Lindbergh, observed the one muffled footprint to the left of the ladder’s left rail and a footprint which was later identified to have been made my Anne Lindbergh. At this time, he did not appear to have seen any footprints leading away from the scene, only that he subsequently reported “apparently two sets” in his Major Initial Report. Later, Trooper DeGaetano went to the base of the nursery window where he observed the two ladder impressions, the footprint later identified as Anne’s and the two muffled impressions believed to be the kidnapper’s footprints. He also discerned “footprints that appeared to be made by stockinged feet,” but did not indicate how many sets. He then followed these impressions for about 75 to 100 feet, where he came across the three disconnected sections of ladder. Still later, DeGaetano returned to the base of the nursery window with Lindbergh, Lieutenant Keaten and Corporal Leon where again the footprint trail was followed to the ladder sections. The four men then followed further impressions which appeared to have been made by rubber boots or overshoes to Hopewell-Wertsville Road. Again here, no mention was made in DeGaetano's report as to how many sets of footprints they followed. To date, I have not seen a report which identifies that its writer specifically observed two sets of footprints which were positively determined to have been made by two retreating kidnappers leading away from the base of the nursery window. I may be missing something more conclusive here, but until I see such a report, I'll continue to question whether the footprint trail leading to the ladder sections was actually two sets of kidnapper footprints, or one set of kidnapper footprints alongside one set footprints made by someone else, possibly Trooper DeGaetano. l'll add some further thoughts on Mueller and Anna later.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Apr 26, 2023 12:03:00 GMT -5
Joe,
What is your take on De Long's interview with Schwartzkopf (and Major Schoeffell) on 6/6/32 as he (De Long) relates what the NJSP knew at the time regarding suspects' footprints at Highfields (pages 90 and 91 of the interview)? I believe that De Long had assured Schwartzkopf that this was a confidential interview that would not be made public while the investigation was in progress. For me, the crime scene footprint evidence seems to be at best murky in its documentation, but De Long is clearly stating that on 6/6/32 the NJSP believed that "three men worked this job".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2023 12:45:37 GMT -5
Next, Trooper Wolf, with Lindbergh, observed the one muffled footprint to the left of the ladder’s left rail and a footprint which was later identified to have been made my Anne Lindbergh. At this time, he did not appear to have seen any footprints leading away from the scene, only that he subsequently reported “apparently two sets” in his Major Initial Report. I disagree. He included what he saw in his report. Schoeffel later echoes this days later to reporters making it, at that time, the official version of the NJSP. For me, it doesn't make sense to conclude there were two sets of men's prints if everyone, as you suggest, only saw one set. It just doesn't. What it does suggest is that's what the consensus of everyone who was on scene actually saw. Keaten being one of them. Does anyone believe he thought there was only one set but didn't say anything to Schoeffel? Me neither. Schwarzkopf told DeLong the same thing, and the "John Doe" indictments made in September 1932 prove they believed three people were involved, two men and one woman. This just doesn't happen if all they saw was only one set of prints made from one person. Of course we have another source that claims Lt. Lange also said there were two sets of prints leading away from the house, and other eyewitness sources claiming two different prints near the ladder. To date, I have not seen a report which identifies that its writer specifically observed two sets of footprints which were positively determined to have been made by two retreating kidnappers leading away from the base of the nursery window. I may be missing something more conclusive here, but until I see such a report, I'll continue to question whether the footprint trail leading to the ladder sections was actually two sets of kidnapper footprints, or one set of kidnapper footprints alongside one set footprints made by someone else, possibly Trooper DeGaetano. Wolfe, Wolf, Williamson, Cain, and Sullivan preceded DeGaetano. Cain was posted by the yard to ensure the evidence was not destroyed. DeGaetano himself said in his March 9 statement that when following the prints he made sure not to "spoil" any of the evidence. Suggesting he walked along side of them thru the mud in the middle of the yard seems to contradict this. Even if this had occurred, and it seems ridiculously unlikely, Wolf saw the prints before DeGaetano did. In order to attribute a second set to someone, you'd have to assign blame to only one of four people: Lindbergh, Whateley, Wolfe, or Williamson. Both Wolfe and Williamson were careful to circle around - unless you believe they were lying - which I do not. This would also require others to lie by omission to allow it to stand. Williamson, it should be remembered, told a reporter that he saw two different prints near the ladder one he believed was a female print. This also lines up with what Kutcha claimed to have seen the next morning. And so, for me anyway, the evidence is overwhelming that there were two different sets of prints in the yard and/or near that ladder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2023 9:05:29 GMT -5
Next, Trooper Wolf, with Lindbergh, observed the one muffled footprint to the left of the ladder’s left rail and a footprint which was later identified to have been made my Anne Lindbergh. At this time, he did not appear to have seen any footprints leading away from the scene, only that he subsequently reported “apparently two sets” in his Major Initial Report. I disagree. He included what he saw in his report. Schoeffel later echoes this days later to reporters making it, at that time, the official version of the NJSP. For me, it doesn't make sense to conclude there were two sets of men's prints if everyone, as you suggest, only saw one set. It just doesn't. What it does suggest is that's what the consensus of everyone who was on scene actually saw. Keaten being one of them. Does anyone believe he thought there was only one set but didn't say anything to Schoeffel? Me neither. Schwarzkopf told DeLong the same thing, and the "John Doe" indictments made in September 1932 prove they believed three people were involved, two men and one woman. This just doesn't happen if all they saw was only one set of prints made from one person. Of course we have another source that claims Lt. Lange also said there were two sets of prints leading away from the house, and other eyewitness sources claiming two different prints near the ladder. I'm certainly not stating unequivocally that there was only one set of footprints, ie. a Lone Wolf, leading away from the house, because I wasn't there. Of course, neither were you. I am surprised by the fact that not one of the initial searchers stated that he personally observed two clear sets of footprints leading away from the house. And if the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house was actually the soft and impressionable mud you claim it was, multiple and clear prints representative of the ones in a trail further away from the house, would have been readily visible mixed amongst the two muffled impressions. This was not the case though, and essentially proves my point that the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house did not support the production of footprints as deep and discernible as those that were subsequently detected further away from the house that led in a trail to the ladder sections. To date, I have not seen a report which identifies that its writer specifically observed two sets of footprints which were positively determined to have been made by two retreating kidnappers leading away from the base of the nursery window. I may be missing something more conclusive here, but until I see such a report, I'll continue to question whether the footprint trail leading to the ladder sections was actually two sets of kidnapper footprints, or one set of kidnapper footprints alongside one set footprints made by someone else, possibly Trooper DeGaetano. Wolfe, Wolf, Williamson, Cain, and Sullivan preceded DeGaetano. Cain was posted by the yard to ensure the evidence was not destroyed. DeGaetano himself said in his March 9 statement that when following the prints he made sure not to "spoil" any of the evidence. Suggesting he walked along side of them thru the mud in the middle of the yard seems to contradict this. Even if this had occurred, and it seems ridiculously unlikely, Wolf saw the prints before DeGaetano did. In order to attribute a second set to someone, you'd have to assign blame to only one of four people: Lindbergh, Whateley, Wolfe, or Williamson. Both Wolfe and Williamson were careful to circle around - unless you believe they were lying - which I do not. This would also require others to lie by omission to allow it to stand. Williamson, it should be remembered, told a reporter that he saw two different prints near the ladder one he believed was a female print. This also lines up with what Kutcha claimed to have seen the next morning. And so, for me anyway, the evidence is overwhelming that there were two different sets of prints in the yard and/or near that ladder. You're interpreting DeGaetano's words as you see fit. Of course he would not have wanted to spoil any footprints, but this means he was careful not to obliterate them. How do you specifically interpret from his description, that he did not walk directly alongside them, when he says he "followed them?" He could very well have been doing so and had absolutely no negative impact on their value as evidence. Yes, Wolf saw the footprints trail before DeGaetano did, but I'm not convinced he and Lindbergh determined at that specific time that there were two sets of footprints.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2023 9:47:46 GMT -5
Dancing around the subject? Joe, we have the facts. We have the situation as it existed. You don't "like" it so you've invented certain outlandish things to explain away what you do not like. That's the bottom line. I will continue to repeat myself for as long as it takes. There are small prints, an indication that a female left them there, that are in the very place you assert was "firm" enough to prevent one or more MEN who was carrying a ladder. Claiming I don't understand physics is supposed to be a rebuttal? Or a pair of boots, that when Anne puts them on makes her leave prints but not the men? Seriously, get to work on some better options because you are embarrassing yourself. Fact is, again, Anne claimed she made those prints and that it was muddy enough for prints to be made. She lived there, was there, walked there, and claimed to have been the source. But here you are claiming all these years later that its not possible UNLESS she's wearing a specific type of boot. You don't even know what type she was wearing, but you pick whatever kind you believe supports your insane position. It's nutty. You look at the facts, do not like them, then invent things to get around them. I am looking at the facts and trying to understand how it happened with all the information we actually KNOW exists. You can't get where you want by doing so. And I do not avoid certain things either, as you clearly have. Like the fact the men wouldn't have thrown down the boards to begin with if the ground was in the condition you claim it was. There would be no point to it at all. None. Zero. They'd just walk on the firm part, you know, where Anne claimed to have walked - AND LEFT PRINTS. Every time you respond to one of my posts on this subject, you spiral off in another direction and start claiming I’m saying things I’m not, which only moves the debate farther away from its focal point. It’s also become quite evident you’re attempting to minimize attention towards the weakness and implausibility within your overall argument.
Please take a deep breath, observe the three photos for reference, and note what they reasonably indicate. Then dream about this, or go for a run and try to form a logical conclusion. Do whatever you have to do and take your time, but please also resist the urge to just snap back, counter punching first and thinking later with ridiculous rhetoric, because this debate tactic of yours is not only shortsighted, but is beyond getting old.
Over the past five or so years at my present work position, I’ve personally spoken to about a dozen professional tradesmen who are familiar with the use of straight, extension and folding ladders. Every one of them to a man, referencing the three photos, has put forth the same thoughts. Given the finnicky nature of the custom-built three-section folding kidnap ladder, it is inconceivable that the kidnapper, or kidnappers, would have been able to remain perched on that narrow boardwalk, while raising, positioning, disengaging, and lowering that ladder. Nor would they, and this is key would they have had any logical reason to do something as unreasonably challenging and difficult as this in the first place.
For the purpose of drilling deeper into this specific aspect of the abduction process, and as supported by the circumstantial physical evidence at the scene, I submit this is what took place:
The kidnapper(s) and equipment, approached the base of the nursery window from the driveway area on foot by following the path of the boardwalk, which due to its comparative lightness of colour against the ground, would have served as a general visual guide in the dark.
The boardwalk appeared to have been made from single and double width lengths of surplus interior tongue-and-groove flooring as well as some rough construction planking. Where the ladder rail indentations were found, a single piece of this flooring approximately 6” in width, with a clean top surface, lay between the wall of the house and the same ladder indentations.
Due to the soft textile foot coverings worn by the kidnapper(s), their footprints were generally not capable of producing readily discernible impression in the damp, but firmly packed clay-based soil. Boots which had been worn earlier during the approach up the driveway, were removed at the north-east corner of the house (and carried), in favour of the abovementioned coverings (heavy thermal sock type) worn underneath them. These soft coverings not only helped to minimize footprints being left behind in the ground, but also help to silence the sound of feet on the floor of the nursery.
The soft coverings remained on the feet of the kidnapper(s) during the retreat to the location where the ladder sections were found, at which point rubber boots or overshoes were donned for further retreat to Hopewell-Wertsville Road.
As always, I remain open to rational debate with anyone on this and any other subject and I encourage others to chime in here with their thoughts and insights.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2023 10:15:37 GMT -5
I'm certainly not stating unequivocally that there was only one set of footprints, ie. a Lone Wolf, leading away from the house, because I wasn't there. Of course, neither were you. I am surprised by the fact that not one of the initial searchers stated that he personally observed two clear sets of footprints leading away from the house. And if the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house was actually the soft and impressionable mud you claim it was, multiple and clear prints representative of the ones in a trail further away from the house, would have been readily visible mixed amongst the two muffled impressions. This was not the case though, and essentially proves my point that the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house did not support the production of footprints as deep and clear as those that were subsequently detected further away from the house that led in a trail to the ladder sections. I get what you are saying, and in a perfect world I wish he wrote something like that myself, however, I'm not surprised. I've never believed the prints in the yard were clear. I also believe the print that was actually casted was the one facing the house because it was either the best or nearest one. To me, he absolutely saw two sets, but by writing "apparently" it allows for the possibility that it was one man making both sets. So much of my research was used to find other reports previous authors missed. I think I've demonstrated how many officers wrote more than one report on the exact same event. Find one, stop, and the narrative can be forever incorrectly recorded. If there are no more to be found, however, we cannot assume there are so we are stuck with what we've got. For example, I've always been baffled that an Oscar Bush statement or interview doesn't exist. It may have at one time, but even so, I can't sit here and say the interviewing officers would have asked the questions we would have expected. And so, we are at the mercy of the newspaper articles and various books that make sometimes different versions about his account. Right? Like the one that claims he said there were two different shoe sizes but he believed came from the same man. But in the end, with everything we've got, its seems conclusive the NJSP believed there were two sets by two different people leading away from that house. At the very least, Schoeffel's announcement to the press on March 7, proves this. By the 7th, all men who had been on scene would have consulted at least verbally about what they saw to Keaten, Lamb, Schwarzkopf, and Schoeffel. Considering that Keaten himself saw the scene, its impossible Schoeffel didn't know the actual situation. As far as your point about the ground being firm nearer the house, you seem to be changing up your position. It used to be that it was too firm and would not leave prints, but that's been disproven. The consistency may have been "better" than in that yard, but it was muddy enough to leave prints. I claim this because ANNE claimed it, and no officer, reporters, or civilian made this observation. Furthermore, I know this because there were prints there. We also know that there were two sets leading away from the house. If you want to get in bed with the explanation I gave about the "apparently" and say they were made by the same person then there's the other accounts to consider in conjunction. You seem to be grasping at straws, but if that was the case it meant the person walked thru the yard, then circled back to the house, changed their shoes or removed a covering, navigated the boards, then walked thru the yard again. You're interpreting DeGaetano's words as you see fit. Of course he would not have wanted to spoil any footprints, but this means he was careful not to obliterate them. How do you specifically interpret from his description, that he did not walk directly alongside them, when he says he "followed them?" He could very well have been doing so and had absolutely no negative impact on their value as evidence. Yes, Wolf saw the footprints trail before DeGaetano did, but I'm not convinced he and Lindbergh determined at that specific time that there were two sets of footprints. As I see fit? It's plain English Joe. And you are very wrong in your belief. No one in their right mind, especially a cop, would have walked in the middle of the yard and not expected to spoil the evidence. What you suggest doesn't make sense. Why stay on the board walk if that's the case? No one stepped off for that very reason, to include they didn't want to get mud on their boots. The only way that happens if it was an accident or a blunder. That would include Cain being negligent because he was guarding the yard. He would have witnessed someone doing exactly what he was ordered to prevent. Anyway, I want you to consider your position if Wolf had written "apparently one man." I don't think you'd be arguing for the possibility about there being two. In fact, just the opposite would be true.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2023 10:36:33 GMT -5
Over the past five or so years at my present work position, I’ve personally spoken to about a dozen professional tradesmen who are familiar with the use of straight, extension and folding ladders. Every one of them to a man, referencing the three photos, has put forth the same thoughts. Given the finnicky nature of the custom-built three-section folding kidnap ladder, it is inconceivable that the kidnapper, or kidnappers, would have been able to remain perched on that narrow boardwalk, while raising, positioning, disengaging, and lowering that ladder. Nor would they, and this is key would they have had any logical reason to do something as unreasonably challenging and difficult as this in the first place.
For the purpose of drilling deeper into this specific aspect of the abduction process, and as supported by the circumstantial physical evidence at the scene, I submit this is what took place:
The kidnapper(s) and equipment, approached the base of the nursery window from the driveway area on foot by following the path of the boardwalk, which due to its comparative lightness of colour against the ground, would have served as a general visual guide in the dark.
The boardwalk appeared to have been made from single and double width lengths of surplus interior tongue-and-groove flooring as well as some rough construction planking. Where the ladder rail indentations were found, a single piece of this flooring approximately 6” in width, with a clean top surface, lay between the wall of the house and the same ladder indentations.
Due to the soft textile foot coverings worn by the kidnapper(s), their footprints were generally not capable of producing readily discernible impression in the damp, but firmly packed clay-based soil. Boots which had been worn earlier during the approach up the driveway, were removed at the north-east corner of the house (and carried), in favour of the abovementioned coverings (heavy thermal sock type) worn underneath them. These soft coverings not only helped to minimize footprints being left behind in the ground, but also help to silence the sound of feet on the floor of the nursery.
The soft coverings remained on the feet of the kidnapper(s) during the retreat to the location where the ladder sections were found, at which point rubber boots or overshoes were donned for further retreat to Hopewell-Wertsville Road.
As always, I remain open to rational debate with anyone on this and any other subject and I encourage others to chime in here with their thoughts and insights.
Your issue is really that you don't like the ramifications. You ask yourself, "how did they do this?" Right, everyone looks at the scene and asks the same question. But that mud is a problem because it suggests something you will not accept. And so, you need quick dry mud for your desired narrative to have occurred. Fact is, that wasn't the case. And your pictures do not prove it was. Not at all. Next, that men carrying a ladder would not leave prints because they were "soft shoeing" on "packed" mud does NOT work either. To get around the prints that DO exist in this very area, you invent the "magic boots" story. Let's just stop with the Romper Room explanations and just accept the basic facts: There are small prints, an indication that a female left them there, that are in the very place you assert was "firm" enough to prevent one or more MEN who were carrying a ladder. No matter the shoes, or boots, or coverings over them, they step in the mud and they leave a prints that would be noticeable by LE. Fact is, again, Anne claimed she made those prints and that it was muddy enough for prints to be made. She lived there, was there, walked there, and claimed to have been the source. The workmen who laid down this boardwalk did so because it was muddy there. No police officer, investigator, reporter, or civilian ever made the observation that you have about this area because it was muddy and someone walking there would have left prints. Clearly, those who arrived to erect that ladder did not step in the mud except in the one place where a footprint existed facing that house. Had they done so, they would have left a print, like Anne supposedly did. Whether those prints would have been perfect or not is irrelevant. There would absolutely have been evidence they stepped on that ground.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2023 11:22:45 GMT -5
Over the past five or so years at my present work position, I’ve personally spoken to about a dozen professional tradesmen who are familiar with the use of straight, extension and folding ladders. Every one of them to a man, referencing the three photos, has put forth the same thoughts. Given the finnicky nature of the custom-built three-section folding kidnap ladder, it is inconceivable that the kidnapper, or kidnappers, would have been able to remain perched on that narrow boardwalk, while raising, positioning, disengaging, and lowering that ladder. Nor would they, and this is key would they have had any logical reason to do something as unreasonably challenging and difficult as this in the first place.
For the purpose of drilling deeper into this specific aspect of the abduction process, and as supported by the circumstantial physical evidence at the scene, I submit this is what took place:
The kidnapper(s) and equipment, approached the base of the nursery window from the driveway area on foot by following the path of the boardwalk, which due to its comparative lightness of colour against the ground, would have served as a general visual guide in the dark.
The boardwalk appeared to have been made from single and double width lengths of surplus interior tongue-and-groove flooring as well as some rough construction planking. Where the ladder rail indentations were found, a single piece of this flooring approximately 6” in width, with a clean top surface, lay between the wall of the house and the same ladder indentations.
Due to the soft textile foot coverings worn by the kidnapper(s), their footprints were generally not capable of producing readily discernible impression in the damp, but firmly packed clay-based soil. Boots which had been worn earlier during the approach up the driveway, were removed at the north-east corner of the house (and carried), in favour of the abovementioned coverings (heavy thermal sock type) worn underneath them. These soft coverings not only helped to minimize footprints being left behind in the ground, but also help to silence the sound of feet on the floor of the nursery.
The soft coverings remained on the feet of the kidnapper(s) during the retreat to the location where the ladder sections were found, at which point rubber boots or overshoes were donned for further retreat to Hopewell-Wertsville Road.
As always, I remain open to rational debate with anyone on this and any other subject and I encourage others to chime in here with their thoughts and insights.
Your issue is really that you don't like the ramifications. You ask yourself, "how did they do this?" Right, everyone looks at the scene and asks the same question. But that mud is a problem because it suggests something you will not accept. And so, you need quick dry mud for your desired narrative to have occurred. Fact is, that wasn't the case. And your pictures do not prove it was. Not at all. Next, that men carrying a ladder would not leave prints because they were "soft shoeing" on "packed" mud does NOT work either. To get around the prints that DO exist in this very area, you invent the "magic boots" story. Let's just stop with the Romper Room explanations and just accept the basic facts: There are small prints, an indication that a female left them there, that are in the very place you assert was "firm" enough to prevent one or more MEN who were carrying a ladder. No matter the shoes, or boots, or coverings over them, they step in the mud and they leave a prints that would be noticeable by LE. Fact is, again, Anne claimed she made those prints and that it was muddy enough for prints to be made. She lived there, was there, walked there, and claimed to have been the source. The workmen who laid down this boardwalk did so because it was muddy there. No police officer, investigator, reporter, or civilian ever made the observation that you have about this area because it was muddy and someone walking there would have left prints. Clearly, those who arrived to erect that ladder did not step in the mud except in the one place where a footprint existed facing that house. Had they done so, they would have left a print, like Anne supposedly did. Whether those prints would have been perfect or not is irrelevant. There would absolutely have been evidence they stepped on that ground. And there is a very simple and reasonable explanation as to why a man or men who weighed probably 50% more than Anne, did not leave more telltale footprints. Because of what he or they were wearing on their feet that prevented them from doing so. You know (or should know) as well as I do that their soft foot coverings would have displaced over a much larger surface area, the downward force they were exerting in basically the same ground that Anne was walking on. You are blissfully ignoring basic physics here and as a result, inventing this wildly surrealistic scenario that really would have required magic boots, to compensate for this lack of understanding. No investigator expressed a belief in what you're attempting to blow by here, nor would they have even considered it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2023 11:37:15 GMT -5
I'm certainly not stating unequivocally that there was only one set of footprints, ie. a Lone Wolf, leading away from the house, because I wasn't there. Of course, neither were you. I am surprised by the fact that not one of the initial searchers stated that he personally observed two clear sets of footprints leading away from the house. And if the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house was actually the soft and impressionable mud you claim it was, multiple and clear prints representative of the ones in a trail further away from the house, would have been readily visible mixed amongst the two muffled impressions. This was not the case though, and essentially proves my point that the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house did not support the production of footprints as deep and clear as those that were subsequently detected further away from the house that led in a trail to the ladder sections. I get what you are saying, and in a perfect world I wish he wrote something like that myself, however, I'm not surprised. I've never believed the prints in the yard were clear. I also believe the print that was actually casted was the one facing the house because it was either the best or nearest one. To me, he absolutely saw two sets, but by writing "apparently" it allows for the possibility that it was one man making both sets. So much of my research was used to find other reports previous authors missed. I think I've demonstrated how many officers wrote more than one report on the exact same event. Find one, stop, and the narrative can be forever incorrectly recorded. If there are no more to be found, however, we cannot assume there are so we are stuck with what we've got. For example, I've always been baffled that an Oscar Bush statement or interview doesn't exist. It may have at one time, but even so, I can't sit here and say the interviewing officers would have asked the questions we would have expected. And so, we are at the mercy of the newspaper articles and various books that make sometimes different versions about his account. Right? Like the one that claims he said there were two different shoe sizes but he believed came from the same man. But in the end, with everything we've got, its seems conclusive the NJSP believed there were two sets by two different people leading away from that house. At the very least, Schoeffel's announcement to the press on March 7, proves this. By the 7th, all men who had been on scene would have consulted at least verbally about what they saw to Keaten, Lamb, Schwarzkopf, and Schoeffel. Considering that Keaten himself saw the scene, its impossible Schoeffel didn't know the actual situation. As far as your point about the ground being firm nearer the house, you seem to be changing up your position. It used to be that it was too firm and would not leave prints, but that's been disproven. The consistency may have been "better" than in that yard, but it was muddy enough to leave prints. I claim this because ANNE claimed it, and no officer, reporters, or civilian made this observation. Furthermore, I know this because there were prints there. We also know that there were two sets leading away from the house. If you want to get in bed with the explanation I gave about the "apparently" and say they were made by the same person then there's the other accounts to consider in conjunction. You seem to be grasping at straws, but if that was the case it meant the person walked thru the yard, then circled back to the house, changed their shoes or removed a covering, navigated the boards, then walked thru the yard again. My position is, and has always been that the ground in the immediate vicinity of the east wall of the house would have been more protected from rains from the north-west, than the open field areas further east of the house. And it also would have been graded and higher in elevation, thereby affording better drainage away from the house. These conditions would have made the ground alongside the house, less likely to be footprint marked than ground further away from the house. You're interpreting DeGaetano's words as you see fit. Of course he would not have wanted to spoil any footprints, but this means he was careful not to obliterate them. How do you specifically interpret from his description, that he did not walk directly alongside them, when he says he "followed them?" He could very well have been doing so and had absolutely no negative impact on their value as evidence. Yes, Wolf saw the footprints trail before DeGaetano did, but I'm not convinced he and Lindbergh determined at that specific time that there were two sets of footprints. As I see fit? It's plain English Joe. And you are very wrong in your belief. No one in their right mind, especially a cop, would have walked in the middle of the yard and not expected to spoil the evidence. What you suggest doesn't make sense. Why stay on the board walk if that's the case? No one stepped off for that very reason, to include they didn't want to get mud on their boots. The only way that happens if it was an accident or a blunder. That would include Cain being negligent because he was guarding the yard. He would have witnessed someone doing exactly what he was ordered to prevent. Anyway, I want you to consider your position if Wolf had written "apparently one man." I don't think you'd be arguing for the possibility about there being two. In fact, just the opposite would be true. No, I would be questioning why the use of the word "apparently" as I am now. Again, no one reported having seen two sets of footprints which inarguably were concluded to have been made by two retreating kidnappers. At the same time, if the description was "apparently one set.." it seems reasonable that at least it would appear to negate the possibility that one set of footprints had been compromised after the fact.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2023 13:07:43 GMT -5
The notion that the kidnappers were waiting for the nursery light to go out and then spring into action at 8:00 pm on the cusp of the nursemaid just having settled Charlie, from an operations sense, would have been both unnecessary, and overly risky for the kidnappers. Why would they have struck immediately when in all likelihood the child could well have been not soundly asleep yet? Why not wait until the room remained dark for a reasonable amount of time? Lindbergh wasn’t home at 8:00 pm so how would he have known for sure, and why here do you accept what he posited here, when you believe it was he who orchestrated the kidnapping in the first place? Lindbergh offered many snapshot opinions along the course of the investigation based on his own understanding of the evidence at any given time, which indicate to me he was only trying to comprehend the details and process them into a conclusion that satisfied his desire to know, both as a parent and amateur detective. Lindbergh mentioned the cracking sound, heard about 9:00 pm only to Anne and Charlie Williamson during that same evening, so we can gather from this that his overall recollection of the event was not one which remained stuck, but rather fleeting in his mind from the time of it first being heard. Yes, he believed it came from the direction of the kitchen, but this may also have been because of what he believed the object was, an orange crate, something he consciously associated with the kitchen. Also, look at the floorplan of the first story of the house and see how easy it would have been to interpret that sound having essentially come through the open living room door from either east or west direction. Despite your previous objections, the barking dogs, as well as the paw prints intermingled with human footprints in the area that the kidnappers’ retreating footprints were followed to, is highly suggestive evidence the kidnapping took place closer to 9:00 pm. And all of the above is evidence from the scene that night or very shortly afterwards, and does not rely on an observation (Moores) taken and reported over a month after-the-fact, at a location a “good two miles away” from the Lindbergh house. Again, the facts are the facts. If you don't like them, then you evade, ignore, or make things up. Not a good strategy. As far as "how" Lindbergh would "know" there's any number of explanations. One being he agreed with the Police because of what was seen, known, and discussed. What I DO know is that it was his belief. Getting upset at me about it doesn't help or change the situation as it existed. Ask yourself, if it is so elementary, why Lindbergh and the Cops came to this conclusion. Did they not consider what you did? Were they idiots? Did they not understand physics? Now you offer that Lindbergh didn't really believe it when he told Lanphier he did. You are acting like you were there and he gave you a wink or some other sign. It's delusional. And here you give another silly explanation that's cut from the same cloth... That Lindbergh somehow had some sort of "fleeting" memory of the sound he supposedly heard. Of course he remembered saying he heard it. The question is "why" he chose not to give it the weight we'd expect when agreeing that the crime occurred prior to supposedly hearing it. Not to INVENT some ridiculous and counterproductive reason to explain it away. Dogs prints and dogs running toward Lindbergh's home should be considered. But do prints that are co-mingled absolutely prove they were made at the same time? Regardless, the totality of the evidence clearly shows a crime that occurred near or at 8PM. Paw prints do not disprove all of what this other evidence shows. To you maybe, of course, because that's what you'd prefer. Michael, I’m trying to understand more fully your position here, specifically how the kidnapper(s) could have struck so quickly following the 8:00 pm last call on Charlie, made by Betty Gow. If Parker was correct that the car observed by Moore at 8:23 pm, was that of the kidnapper exiting the area with Charlie, in what way do you believe others may have been involved in support? I’m thinking here of the “apparently two sets of fresh footprints” leading away from the house. Also, the relevance if any, of Anne reporting she heard what sounded like car tires outside the house about 8:10 pm.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2023 15:07:14 GMT -5
No, I would be questioning why the use of the word "apparently" as I am now. Again, no one reported having seen two sets of footprints which inarguably were concluded to have been made by two retreating kidnappers. At the same time, if the description was "apparently one set.." it seems reasonable that at least it would appear to negate the possibility that one set of footprints had been compromised after the fact. Anything is arguable. But what's "arguable" isn't always reasonable. Wolf is enough for me. Then there's Schoeffel who announced the NJSP official position that's identical with Wolf. No one but the NJSP had a copy of his report. Was Wolf telling Schoeffel what to say? Would Keaten allow him to believe something that was not true? All of these things you completely ignore. Next, Prosecutor Hauck filed three John Doe indictments - in SEPTEMBER! Schwarzkopf told Delong about three sets of prints. Why? Because they only saw one set? Use your noggin. i've got yet another source that says a different reporter was told something similar. Nothing changed until Hauptmann came into the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 27, 2023 15:18:51 GMT -5
Assuming for the moment that the kidnappers were classic hostile external operators why would they need to disguise footprints by covering shoes with socks, burlap-weave fabric et al? If your shoe size is in the normal range you wear shoes without any identifiable pattern of indentations on heel or sole and ditch them immediately afterwards. After all, this was a $50,,000 operation.
Also, I take issue with Joe’s remark that the “downward force would be displaced over a much larger surface area” if shoe covering had been used. A shoe covering, like a sock, increases the surface area of the footprint by a negligible amount.
It seems logical that the lee (ladder) side of the house was drier than the windward side and the ground less likely to retain footprints. But Anne Lindbergh’s footprints were found there and identified as such by her. So, “drier” and “less likely” it may be, but that ground did retain footprints made that very afternoon. This is a fact and as long as we don’t have detailed data on wind direction, rainfall, and the consquent viscosity, rheology and impressionability of that mud further speculation is just that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2023 15:26:39 GMT -5
And there is a very simple and reasonable explanation as to why a man or men who weighed probably 50% more than Anne, did not leave more telltale footprints. Because of what he or they were wearing on their feet that prevented them from doing so. You know (or should know) as well as I do that their soft foot coverings would have displaced over a much larger surface area, the downward force they were exerting in basically the same ground that Anne was walking on. You are blissfully ignoring basic physics here and as a result, inventing this wildly surrealistic scenario that really would have required magic boots, to compensate for this lack of understanding. No investigator expressed a belief in what you're attempting to blow by here, nor would they have even considered it. That's neither simple nor reasonable. I don't care if they were wearing snowshoes, if they threaded on that same mud that the person who left behind those small prints did, they leave evidence and LE sees it. Hell, you can have them tying pillows to the bottom of their feet if you like, and they still leave marks in that mud. And, by the way, this idea they traversed the board walk already wearing coverings makes little sense too. The coverings would be to deaden their footsteps in the nursery - not along the boardwalk or for walking in mud. But of course, breaking through the shutters or glass to get in would have done that so it shows planning and inside knowledge that both the shutters and window were not locked. So what was the chisel for? Perhaps they used that to keep from leaving footprints in the mud too? Again, its got absolutely nothing to do with "physics." It's more about common sense. And investigators accepted the prints they saw in the mud as having originated from someone walking in this area. There was no question about that - only from you. None surmised Anne was wearing special footwear enabling her feet to be detectable and that Kidnappers, men, carrying heavy items wore something that allowed them to make absolutely no marks in the mud. Like I said before, its nutty
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 28, 2023 7:20:38 GMT -5
Assuming for the moment that the kidnappers were classic hostile external operators why would they need to disguise footprints by covering shoes with socks, burlap-weave fabric et al? If your shoe size is in the normal range you wear shoes without any identifiable pattern of indentations on heel or sole and ditch them immediately afterwards. After all, this was a $50,000 operation. I believe that disguise of footprints would have been dialed into the plan by virtue of the original plan to retreat back down the gravel driveway and not by way of the wet open field. Boots which had been worn until this time were removed in favour of soft foot coverings, which would not only eliminate the possibility of boot sole print markings from later being identified but also ensure quieter footsteps in the nursery.Also, I take issue with Joe’s remark that the “downward force would be displaced over a much larger surface area” if shoe covering had been used. A shoe covering, like a sock, increases the surface area of the footprint by a negligible amount. I agree with what you've implied above, but that's not what I said. I did say "foot coverings", meaning some kind of soft heavy textile covering, worn directly over the feet. Think heavy thermal wool winter socks of a slipper type design here. What object do you believe left the impression to the left of the ladder's left rail, other than the type of configuration I mentioned above? It seems logical that the lee (ladder) side of the house was drier than the windward side and the ground less likely to retain footprints. But Anne Lindbergh’s footprints were found there and identified as such by her. So, “drier” and “less likely” it may be, but that ground did retain footprints made that very afternoon. This is a fact and as long as we don’t have detailed data on wind direction, rainfall, and the consequent viscosity, rheology and impressionability of that mud further speculation is just that. Thank you for acknowledging the leeward effect associated with the east wall of the house, a very important factor. For some reason, this effect has otherwise escaped scrutiny and even consideration here by some in any determination of what happened alongside the house. It's almost as though natural sciences can be conveniently sidelined on cue. You are absolutely correct that we cannot now determine exactly what specific areas of ground alongside the house would have afforded footprints, based on the factors you mention. What we do know is that Anne was wearing footwear and the kidnapper(s) soft textile foot coverings that left only one discernible footprint in the immediate vicinity of the house, likely due to it being caused by some downward force.
A question for you: Do you believe the kidnapper(s) would have left more distinct impressions in the ground alongside the house if they had stepped off that narrow width of tongue-and-groove flooring while raising and lowering the ladder at the base of the nursery window?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 28, 2023 7:48:31 GMT -5
No, I would be questioning why the use of the word "apparently" as I am now. Again, no one reported having seen two sets of footprints which inarguably were concluded to have been made by two retreating kidnappers. At the same time, if the description was "apparently one set.." it seems reasonable that at least it would appear to negate the possibility that one set of footprints had been compromised after the fact. Anything is arguable. But what's "arguable" isn't always reasonable. Wolf is enough for me. Then there's Schoeffel who announced the NJSP official position that's identical with Wolf. No one but the NJSP had a copy of his report. Was Wolf telling Schoeffel what to say? Would Keaten allow him to believe something that was not true? All of these things you completely ignore. Next, Prosecutor Hauck filed three John Doe indictments - in SEPTEMBER! Schwarzkopf told Delong about three sets of prints. Why? Because they only saw one set? Use your noggin. i've got yet another source that says a different reporter was told something similar. Nothing changed until Hauptmann came into the picture. Wolf in his initial report, isn't enough for me, and Shoeffel could simply be repeating what Wolf said. I would like to know why no investigator at the scene specifically describe two sets of footprints, ie. "I see two sets of retreating kidnapper footprints." Are you implying here that it's reasonable that not one of the earliest searchers on the scene, ie. Lindbergh, Wolfe, Williamson, Wolf and DeGaetano ever thought to mention the number of footprints they saw? No offense here within your conclusions, but I can't rely on something just because it gets repeated. The Bible repeats itself all over the place, but does that mean out of necessity, we should give any one particular passage additional credence as a result of this repetition? The John and Jane Doe indictments would have been filed to account for up to three kidnappers, but that would only have been as good as the information used to take out those indictments..
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 28, 2023 8:28:49 GMT -5
And there is a very simple and reasonable explanation as to why a man or men who weighed probably 50% more than Anne, did not leave more telltale footprints. Because of what he or they were wearing on their feet that prevented them from doing so. You know (or should know) as well as I do that their soft foot coverings would have displaced over a much larger surface area, the downward force they were exerting in basically the same ground that Anne was walking on. You are blissfully ignoring basic physics here and as a result, inventing this wildly surrealistic scenario that really would have required magic boots, to compensate for this lack of understanding. No investigator expressed a belief in what you're attempting to blow by here, nor would they have even considered it. That's neither simple nor reasonable. I don't care if they were wearing snowshoes, if they threaded on that same mud that the person who left behind those small prints did, they leave evidence and LE sees it. Hell, you can have them tying pillows to the bottom of their feet if you like, and they still leave marks in that mud. I know you're not serious here, but snowshoes would have left a specific design and pattern that would have told an investigator he was wearing snowshoes. Your second and third sentences are almost unbelievably shortsighted and tell me you are not the one to continue discussing this aspect of the footprint evidence with.
And, by the way, this idea they traversed the board walk already wearing coverings makes little sense too. The coverings would be to deaden their footsteps in the nursery - not along the boardwalk or for walking in mud. But of course, breaking through the shutters or glass to get in would have done that so it shows planning and inside knowledge that both the shutters and window were not locked. So what was the chisel for? Perhaps they used that to keep from leaving footprints in the mud too? It makes more sense for the kidnapper(s) to remove boots at the northeast corner of the house, before the final approach in soft foot coverings to the base of the nursery window. This would eliminate the chance of a design peculiarity or defect being transferred from the sole or heel of a boot in the ground alongside the house. Previous surveillance could well have indicated that both shutters were not flush to the wall and therefore, they were not locked. It would not have been known if the second floor window was locked or unlocked, but we know if was common practice for the Lindberghs to leave them unlocked, as many people did then, and still do today. Surely this would also have been considered by the kidnapper. The chisel would have been for prying the lower window upwards out of the jamb if force applied by hand did not accomplish this. Unlocking a sliding sash lock window is not easy, but it can be done using an very thin hacksaw blade slid between the upper and lower sashes and manually rotating the lock open, if there is enough play between both sashes. I'm not sure what other contingencies would have been considered, but let's face it, if things became insurmountable, the kidnapper(s) would simply have retreated and possibly planned a different approach the next time if he felt any signs of his recent unsuccessful efforts might have been detected after-the-fact. Again, its got absolutely nothing to do with "physics." It's more about common sense. And investigators accepted the prints they saw in the mud as having originated from someone walking in this area. There was no question about that - only from you. None surmised Anne was wearing special footwear enabling her feet to be detectable and that Kidnappers, men, carrying heavy items wore something that allowed them to make absolutely no marks in the mud. Like I said before, its nutty And as I said above, there's no point in carrying on here with you with this aspect of the footprint evidence. I only hope that it can be furthered in general by the efforts of those who do understand it and therefore, can positively contribute towards.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2023 12:10:29 GMT -5
I read Sherlock's post with interest. It was finally nice to see you (Joe) acknowledge what he wrote (and what I've also been saying). I guess it took a different person to bring this admission out of you. However, despite this, you continue on as if it makes no difference to you when, in fact, it ruins your entire position. So to Sherlock I say, you are wasting your time. It's not that he doesn't see it ... he just doesn't care. It's like saying the dark spot in the sun is not hot. Or, in this case, mud that would not leave footprints because of the possibility that it wasn't as muddy. This despite footprints already being made there by someone, in Joe's words, was about 50% lighter. It's irrational. Wolf in his initial report, isn't enough for me, and Shoeffel could simply be repeating what Wolf said. I would like to know why no investigator at the scene specifically describe two sets of footprints, ie. "I see two sets of retreating kidnapper footprints." Are you implying here that it's reasonable that not one of the earliest searchers on the scene, ie. Lindbergh, Wolfe, Williamson, Wolf and DeGaetano ever thought to mention the number of footprints they saw? No offense here within your conclusions, but I can't rely on something just because it gets repeated. The Bible repeats itself all over the place, but does that mean out of necessity, we should give any one particular passage additional credence as a result of this repetition? The John and Jane Doe indictments would have been filed to account for up to three kidnappers, but that would only have been as good as the information used to take out those indictments. Of course it isn't enough for you, I get that. But there's much more to consider which you refuse to. Take Schoeffel's response to the press on March 7. You merely shrug it off as parroting Wolf. This ignores everything else I mentioned, such as Keaten having seen the footprints, or whether or not he would have let Schoeffel believe something that wasn't true. Or all of the others who saw those footprints because you are now taking the position they never told the higher ups what they saw. If pressed, I'm sure you'd say that Keaten or even Lamb would allow this mistake - then proceed to invent some sort of fictional scenario to explain it. It's why these discussions with you are a lost cause. They defy all reason. You take this explanation that lacks common sense then use it to support other unrealistic positions. So by cementing the position he "simply repeated" Wolf, something unrealistic, this new "fact" can now be used to neutralize other issues you do not like. Next, it doesn't matter "why" some reports do not contain what we'd like to have seen. There are reports like that all over the place about everything, and, like I said previously about Bush, some don't even exist. So unless you find a report that says there was just one set, we have the other sources. This includes Schoeffel announcing the official position of the NJSP. We also have the John Doe indictments which prove that they believed, by that time, three people were involved. Does that have to do with police seeing only ONE set of footprints at the scene? Of course not. In fact, thanks to Sue's discovery, it seems more like what Schwarzkopf said to Delong about there being three sets. So it is additional information to support the fact that Wolf saw two.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 29, 2023 12:23:52 GMT -5
I read Sherlock's post with interest. It was finally nice to see you (Joe) acknowledge what he wrote (and what I've also been saying). I guess it took a different person to bring this admission out of you. However, despite this, you continue on as if it makes no difference to you when, in fact, it ruins your entire position. So to Sherlock I say, you are wasting your time. It's not that he doesn't see it ... he just doesn't care. It's like saying the dark spot in the sun is not hot. Or, in this case, mud that would not leave footprints because of the possibility that it wasn't as muddy. This despite footprints already being made there by someone, in Joe's words, was about 50% lighter. It's irrational. You're either reading what I wrote inaccurately or just further out in left field on this aspect of the physical evidence than originally believed. Perhaps both. What I acknowledged within my response to Sherlock is that there is no way now to accurately determine the exact ground conditions in the immediate vicinity of the house as afforded by the leeward effect of the house's east wall. We only know that there would have been one based on the direction of the recent rains that fell on Highfields and that this ground would not have demonstrated the same general degree of impressionability to footprints as the open wet field conditions further east of the house clearly did. My point remains the same and overall position unchanged. Due to the soft foot coverings the kidnapper(s) wore, they would be less likely to leave footprints within the ground they walked upon than Anne, who was wearing standard footwear.
Just remember, it's you that's claiming the kidnapper(s) became the equivalent of Shen Yun performers alongside the house, only once stepping off that single width of tongue-and-groove flooring while raising and lowering the ladder, and when they did it was a forward facing step towards the house! This notion is not only shortsighted in recognition of the relative scope of ground conditions, and entirely unfeasible and unnecessary from an ergonomics standpoint on the part of the kidnapper(s), but is self-destructible in its own right.
Wolf in his initial report, isn't enough for me, and Shoeffel could simply be repeating what Wolf said. I would like to know why no investigator at the scene specifically describe two sets of footprints, ie. "I see two sets of retreating kidnapper footprints." Are you implying here that it's reasonable that not one of the earliest searchers on the scene, ie. Lindbergh, Wolfe, Williamson, Wolf and DeGaetano ever thought to mention the number of footprints they saw? No offense here within your conclusions, but I can't rely on something just because it gets repeated. The Bible repeats itself all over the place, but does that mean out of necessity, we should give any one particular passage additional credence as a result of this repetition? The John and Jane Doe indictments would have been filed to account for up to three kidnappers, but that would only have been as good as the information used to take out those indictments. Of course it isn't enough for you, I get that. But there's much more to consider which you refuse to. Take Schoeffel's response to the press on March 7. You merely shrug it off as parroting Wolf. This ignores everything else I mentioned, such as Keaten having seen the footprints, or whether or not he would have let Schoeffel believe something that wasn't true. Or all of the others who saw those footprints because you are now taking the position they never told the higher ups what they saw. If pressed, I'm sure you'd say that Keaten or even Lamb would allow this mistake - then proceed to invent some sort of fictional scenario to explain it. It's why these discussions with you are a lost cause. They defy all reason. You take this explanation that lacks common sense then use it to support other unrealistic positions. So by cementing the position he "simply repeated" Wolf, something unrealistic, this new "fact" can now be used to neutralize other issues you do not like. Next, it doesn't matter "why" some reports do not contain what we'd like to have seen. There are reports like that all over the place about everything, and, like I said previously about Bush, some don't even exist. So unless you find a report that says there was just one set, we have the other sources. This includes Schoeffel announcing the official position of the NJSP. We also have the John Doe indictments which prove that they believed, by that time, three people were involved. Does that have to do with police seeing only ONE set of footprints at the scene? Of course not. In fact, thanks to Sue's discovery, it seems more like what Schwarzkopf said to Delong about there being three sets. So it is additional information to support the fact that Wolf saw two. Don't get too wound up on this subject, Michael, because pretty soon you're going to be spinning off in some direction that claims I'm insisting it could only have been a Lone Wolf at the scene. That's not what I'm saying at all. And I believe you're also getting a bit too concerned about what I'm saying, you think I'm saying, or words you'd like to put in my mouth. What I am doing is questioning the integrity of the elementary crime scene reporting, and will continue to do so. Believe me, all of your above points are duly considered.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 29, 2023 16:36:47 GMT -5
It is important to distinguish between what we know and what we believe. Knowledge is factual, objective, and supported by specific evidence that a certain event really happened. Belief is subjective: the supporting evidence is explained in different ways by different people to fit with their pre-conceived view of the case.. Sorry to be pedantic but this has to be made clear.
Joe: “What we do know is that Anne was wearing footwear and the kidnapper(s) soft textile foot coverings that left only one discernible footprint ….” Whereas we do know that Anne’s shoes made those footprints, we do not know that the kidnapper(s) wore these soft foot coverings. Maybe he/they did but this remains a belief, a theory, to explain the single indistinct footprint that was found. Another thing we don’t know is whether the kidnapper(s) were ever walking on the narrow walkway. No muddy footprints were found on it to support this belief. It is strange that on this soft ground which has been proved to yield footprints there is only one single indistinct footprint near the ladder feet impressions.
Off the top of my head: The outside job option: The kidnapper(s) arrive with all three elements of the ladder. One element is placed on the ground to act as a temporary walkway towards the ladder erection site. The xylophone design of the ladder is suitable for this purpose. The kidnapper places his burlap sack to the left of the ladder and unintentionally steps on it leaving the single indistinct footprint. He then ascends the ladder with the sack….
The inside job option: Again using the third element on the ground to avoid footprints, the ladder was placed in position to leave suggestive marks on the ground and the wall. But it was not used by anyone to climb into the nursery. Likewise an indistinct “footprint” was deliberately left behind to confuse investigators. Just as the ladder was.
Of course we cannot know whether using a ladder element in this way would have left behind “ladder prints” on the soft ground. It is also possible that the “breadcrumb trail” evidence was put in place some days earlier and that on the evening March 1st 1932 there was nobody carrying a ladder to the area below the nursery and therefore no footprints. This is my preferred option because I can’t see why the avoidance of footprints would be of such concern to anyone with a “normal” shoe size. Ditch the shoes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 29, 2023 18:02:08 GMT -5
It is important to distinguish between what we know and what we believe. Knowledge is factual, objective, and supported by specific evidence that a certain event really happened. Belief is subjective: the supporting evidence is explained in different ways by different people to fit with their pre-conceived view of the case.. Sorry to be pedantic but this has to be made clear. We also have to be careful how we interpret what we see as evidence, as that interpretation may or may not accurately represent how the evidence itself, was created.Joe: “What we do know is that Anne was wearing footwear and the kidnapper(s) soft textile foot coverings that left only one discernible footprint ….” Whereas we do know that Anne’s shoes made those footprints, we do not know that the kidnapper(s) wore these soft foot coverings. Maybe he/they did but this remains a belief, a theory, to explain the single indistinct footprint that was found. Is there anything else within reason, but for a "muffled foot" to have created a "muffled footprint" as the type photographed?Another thing we don’t know is whether the kidnapper(s) were ever walking on the narrow walkway. No muddy footprints were found on it to support this belief. It is strange that on this soft ground which has been proved to yield footprints there is only one single indistinct footprint near the ladder feet impressions. Yes, that narrow single width of tongue and groove flooring looks pretty clean to me as well. I wouldn't doubt that the kidnapper(s) stepped on and off it a number of times, because I do not believe the ground in the immediate area of the house's east wall supported the production of any significant level of mud production on the soles of the feet of the kidnapper(s) other than the trace amounts that were transferred onto the nursery rug and edge of the suitcase. Off the top of my head: The outside job option: The kidnapper(s) arrive with all three elements of the ladder. One element is placed on the ground to act as a temporary walkway towards the ladder erection site. The xylophone design of the ladder is suitable for this purpose. The kidnapper places his burlap sack to the left of the ladder and unintentionally steps on it leaving the single indistinct footprint. He then ascends the ladder with the sack…. Acknowledged. Or another option: In this scenario, all three sections are brought to the base of the nursery window. Two sections are used to pull back the south-east corner shutters, as indicated by the scuff marks on the house's east wall. Three sections are then used to accomplish the abduction. All three sections are then removed to the area 75 feet south-east of the house. The fact that the third section of the ladder was found with a dowel alongside it, indicates to me the possibility that this section was used. In fact, I question why the third section would have brought the third section to the house in the first place, if the kidnapper(s) did not plan on using it. Why add approximately 30% extra weight to the equation unless it's necessary?
The inside job option: Again using the third element on the ground to avoid footprints, the ladder was placed in position to leave suggestive marks on the ground and the wall. But it was not used by anyone to climb into the nursery. Likewise an indistinct “footprint” was deliberately left behind to confuse investigators. Just as the ladder was. Acknowledged. But if the ladder was actually not climbed by anyone in the kidnapping, why would its lower left rail have split from an apparent downward weight or force? Was this also rationalized in advance by inside job faux kidnappers to make it appear as though the ladder had actually been climbed? I have some trouble extending such forward projection within a fake kidnapping plan to this degree.
Of course we cannot know whether using a ladder element in this way would have left behind “ladder prints” on the soft ground. It is also possible that the “breadcrumb trail” evidence was put in place some days earlier and that on the evening March 1st 1932 there was nobody carrying a ladder to the area below the nursery and therefore no footprints. This is my preferred option because I can’t see why the avoidance of footprints would be of such concern to anyone with a “normal” shoe size. Ditch the shoes. The edges of regular footwear and especially clean cut ladder rails are much more prone to impressing ground of equal impressionability than what the kidnapper(s) appear to have been wearing on their feet that evening. Shear force and distortion energy applies here almost solely. (no pun) And this is what the observed physical evidence picture demonstrates.
If a "breadcrumb trail" had been planned and executed some days previously, would the heavy rains during the day of March 1, not have rendered the trail of footprints almost unrecognizable as opposed to the discernible footprints which were followed later that night by searchers, and which indicated they have been made just hours previously? Thanks Sherlock for continuing this discussion, as I appreciate your quality comments and insights!
|
|