kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 6, 2006 18:31:10 GMT -5
I was giving some thought about the fate of the ladder and whether or not it was meant to be left behind. Personally I don't see any reason to have taken it providing the kidnappers felt it contained no incriminating evidence. Now many disagree and feel it was meant to be taken. But for sake of discussion assume it was meant to be left behind. Now I have heard it suggested that the nursery note was written in haste and possibly in a car. I know this is another bit of speculation. But adding these possibilities together along with the need to design a ladder that would fit inside of a car, or out of obvious view, makes me think that the transportation element of this crime weighed heavily on the kidnappers. Thinking about this has caused me to wonder just how long a distance they would have chanced driving with the baby, either dead or alive, in the car. My guess is not far at all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2006 5:28:04 GMT -5
For me we have several options concerning the ladder being found where it was: 1. They were frightened and in flight left it behind.
2. They found it to be too hard to carry or not worth the effort - it was carried where it was found at least in two section possibly three - so maybe there was an issue of "re-nesting" or some other obstacle we haven't considered.
3. It was left behind on purpose.
A. It was a "throw-away." B. It was a "prop" of some sort so was left behind by design. Again, the original consensus of the Police: - The ladder was a prop.
- There was an inside connection.
- Several people were involved.
- Someone local was involved.
I agree the ladder seems to have been built with dimensions that would allow it to fit inside of the car. This was unusual since most sightings of cars & ladders were with the ladder being strapped to the outside. Now, considering the above, why would the ladder be a "throw-away?" I mean for what purpose is the ladder to be placed inside the car if not for concealment? And if this were the case these people were afraid of it being seen so why would they leave it behind on purpose? Lupica was certain it was NJ/Mercer county tags. Investigation revealed no connection with his eyewitness account with stolen tags and/or cars. So if the plate (or car) was stolen - then it was returned before the owner found out about it. And since this isn't an episode of Hogan's Heroes then I find this suggestion very unlikely.... Then again, maybe it was a scripted episode of sorts. It's a good observation especially when combined with the fact the child was "returned" to where he was found (and other circumstances) indicates a place nearer to Hopewell then to the Bronx.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 7, 2006 21:35:43 GMT -5
Perhaps the opposite question should be asked. Why take this ladder away after it has fulfilled its' purpose? It is not a ladder built for continual usage, it is broken, and it is a red flag if stopped by the police. One would only have to get rid of it anyway, so why bother taking it along?
I have come to the position that the kidnappers were extremely wary of the travelling situation, so it seems to me that there must have been some place near to keep the child. Now the question is, was it intended for a live child or a dead one?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2006 23:10:21 GMT -5
For several reasons.... I think this implies Charles Jr. was a "throw-away" as well. In fact, both the child and the ladder would be red-flags wouldn't they? Of course this assumes the child would have been transported in the same car which I don't think is provable but very possible. Regardless the point remains that if Charles Jr. wasn't supposed to die (and this too I am not so sure of) then they intended to transport him and if they were pulled over it must be remembered the Police would have been looking for a child but I am not positive about a ladder if it had been removed from the scene - not that soon anyway. Now, if by design it was meant to be concealed within the car, then its occupant knew it had been spotted at damn near the scene of the crime beforehand. If there was ever a reason to take it with you - this is it - because now this ladder IS associated with both this car and this person at a very specific time (at least 2 hours before the crime is committed). Think about it... if the ladder isn't left behind Lupica's account would never have been deemed important, heck, the NJSP were trying to downplay it originally anyway. This ladder is the nexus to his eyewitness account. If we are to believe the Kidnappers "dumped" the baby then why wouldn't they "dump" the ladder as well? If they had a hide-out nearby then what's the ladder's presence going to do that Charles Jr's won't. Leaving it behind provides a valuable clue, that is, is gives investigators a sense of entry, direction, and escape. It connects the dots so to speak. Did they know when it would be discovered? We would assume not under normal circumstances so that's yet another risk. Did they also planned to leave the chisel behind? If not, this could be the 'control' to the theory the ladder was. If so - why? If its a plan "throw-away" why bother to even move it? The more I study Leon Ho-age's observations the more I see what he is saying. Why didn't they leave the note in the crib? They chose to leave the note on their exit...can anyone explain to me why? Especially if they are so calculated as to design this ladder in the way in which it was? Are they "shooting from the hip" or are they planners? They approach the house without stepping in the muddy yard. Why didn't they leave that way? What caused them to leave by way of the muddy yard? Like Ho-age said, it was like a big red exit sign with arrows pointing: [glow=red,2,300]THIS WAY OUT[/glow] And not just the Nursery but the yard too: Yo! Follow these footprints over here! Check out this ladder & chisel. Now follow the footprints to the tire tracks of (2) cars. Wow you guys are good. Where is all the evidence indicating approach? Someone was on that ladder. They placed their foot on the top of the bottom shutter. This "centered" them under the Nursery window. This doesn't aid entrance and may aid exit but definitely not with anything in your hands. There's simply too much evidence but when totaled up it doesn't work. I vote for a dead one.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 8, 2006 7:18:32 GMT -5
Isn't that what you voted for anyway? I think you are concentrating on only one of the reasons to leave the ladder behind. Bottom line, why bother taking it if you believe it contains no clue of ownership?
I doubt it. Is it not conceivable that all that occurred in this crime, as in all crimes, was not planned? A mistake or oversight does not mean the total absence of planning.
I guess we will never know. An explanation that works very nicely for me, but seems to be anathema for everyone else, is simply the kidnapper did not have the note upon entry for the baby ( he may not even have been 100% sure the baby was there). Once the child was removed , the final act would be to place the note and close the window. No need here to risk a second entry.
They did, 75 ft from Highfields.
Well, if you believe it was a prop and the police initially believed it was a prop then you have proved my contention that it was meant to be left behind. As for the valuable clues it provided, what exactly did the police learn that resulted in an arrest?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2006 9:17:54 GMT -5
Hopefully we're not just spinning our wheels in the mud and something will come out of this, even if one minor point - that we can both agree on. Either way I think this is developing into a good debate - hopefully others will jump in with their "two cent" as well..... Its not what I 'voted' for. I voted for a "dead" CJr. but not a "throw-away" in that sense. Moreover, I tried to demonstrate above why no prior action and/or preparation seems to be indicative this ladder was to be a "throw-away" so even if it were somehow we see the obvious necessity to change those plans. I think its location and the proximity to the ladder is important in telling the tale. I am not opposed to multiple trips up and down the ladder when considering the impossible scenario of entry and exit with just (2) sections, however, I am opposed to the thought they "forgot" about the note or that it required a 2nd trip up to drop it off. The note is very important to the crime. Its location is very suspicious considering the weather. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1151802009Think about it. Upon entry you have two very important goals: 1. Get Charles Jr. 2. Leave Note We have a gang designing a ladder to fit inside of a car but they didn't plan ahead for the note drop and/or planned for a 2nd climb in order to do so? It could be that I have blinders on but I can't buy it. Ok. Why "dump" it 75 ft.? Why not further? Why not leave it where it was as we saw in the Coughlin Kidnapping? What purpose does moving it, in (2) possibly (3) sections 75ft. from the house? When the child was supposedly discovered missing Lindbergh saw it right away. What is the point of this action if the intent was to leave it behind in the first place? I don't think I said which position I hold yet. That's why I find discussions like these so valuable because it helps get by and iron out certain obstacle points.... I am certainly leaning or favor certain things but I am by no means 100% committed yet. For me though, the proof it was used, or that someone was actually on it is the mud left behind on the top of that shutter that no one seems to want to address. Now if a group is hired and/or working with someone on the "inside" it certainly could be the ladder & chisel were staged there in order to draw attention to an "outside" source and away from the inside one. Ho-age's claim to fame was insurance fraud investigation and saw this type of thing all the time. So if you were to believe this then you are looking at a combination of possibilities as your explanation. Lupica's eyewitness account connects this ladder. Are you denying it left the Police with clues as I have outlined? The Police were too busy fighting and hiding information from each other in order to solve the case by working together. If the BOI were in charge from start to finish this case would have been solved in 6 months.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jul 11, 2006 10:39:52 GMT -5
I see two possible scenarios as far as the ladder is concerned.
1) the kidnappers never intended to take it with them. It was taken far enough away from the house that a glance out a window (like the library window) would not reveal it and left there.
2) They intended to take it but decided it was too cumbersome either to carry or to re-collapse to fit in a car, and simply dropped it and left.
As for Charlie being a "throw away", it depends on whether it was their intention all along to kill him. I, for one, really have no idea. (A more complete autopsy report would have come in real handy here.) If it was their intention to kill him, or even if the killing was an accident, they did not, in fact, take him very far at all, did they?
I do not know that they needed a place close by to take him (dead or alive). Depending on how you think this crime took place (and when) they could have expected to have hours before he was discovered missing.
As for Michael's observation regarding the lack of a trail to the house but such an obvious one away...I suggest the idea that they used far more stealth in their approach - after all, they certainly did not want to be seen. I would think that after they had Charlie, the main thought would be to get away from there as quickly as possible, whatever the direction.
<<<the kidnapper did not have the note upon entry for the baby ( he may not even have been 100% sure the baby was there). Once the child was removed , the final act would be to place the note and close the window. >>> Kev
The kidnapper went into the room and forgot to bring the note?
The kidnapper went back to the house to close the window?
Yeah.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2006 18:31:27 GMT -5
Actually they took it far enough away where it could be seen out of the window. If they had laid it on its side under the window a person wouldn't have seen it unless they were outside of the house.
This could be true in many varying angles which could branch off of this theory. Panic for example.... But what I see is if the stealth approach worked why wouldn't they use it to exit the scene? Did they then forget to worry about detection? Their approach brought them to the window both without discovery and without walking through mud, yet in flight they seem to disregard both. On top of that - they leave the ladder (and chisel) and take the coverings off of their feet but take those with them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 17, 2006 20:47:12 GMT -5
I don't ever remember saying at any time that the kidnapper forgot the note. That is kinda of a cheap shot at invalidating the idea of a second climb. I am perfectly willing to be the only person who believes such an incredible feat was undertaken that night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2006 5:30:04 GMT -5
Kevin,
As I have said before, I am certainly willing to entertain the possibility of a 2nd climb. Whether by accident or by design, I personally can't see the reason having anything to do with the note though.
As Rick pointed out by referencing Dr. Gardner's book, CJ told Condon this note was left in the crib. Condon later says Lindbergh Confirmed this (Oursler) and I have something that indicates Condon was saying this before-hand but not giving the name of his source.
The note being left on the sill is somewhat of a problem for me and if Condon is telling the truth then we have a serious pit-fall don't we?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2006 7:19:30 GMT -5
For me that is more difficult to believe than climbing the ladder twice. I really don't see the letter placement as a factor in the number of ladder climbs. The issue for me is that the separate tasks or steps involved in the kidnapping dictate the entry/egress process. If the kidnapper felt comfortable in completing all the tasks in a single climb, so be it. I personally don't see that happening with either ladder configuration, although the two section one climb scenario seems impossible to me.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jul 18, 2006 8:07:30 GMT -5
<<<<I don't ever remember saying at any time that the kidnapper forgot the note. That is kinda of a cheap shot at invalidating the idea of a second climb. I am perfectly willing to be the only person who believes such an incredible feat was undertaken that night.>>>>Kevkon Sorry if I offended you Kev. That really was not my intent. You did say, however, that one of the reasons for the second trip was to place the note - raising the question of why not place it the first time. <<<Actually they took it far enough away where it could be seen out of the window. If they had laid it on its side under the window a person wouldn't have seen it unless they were outside of the house.>>>Michael It could be seen by looking out the ground floor windows? From 75 feet in the pitch black? <<<But what I see is if the stealth approach worked why wouldn't they use it to exit the scene? Did they then forget to worry about detection?>>> NO, they did not forget about detection. I am only suggesting that as they left the house, they would be most concerned with getting as far away from the house as possible as quickly as possible. Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2006 14:14:00 GMT -5
No problem, no offense
Yes, conventional theory has the kidnapper climbing the ladder, entering, removing the child, exiting the window, leaving the note, and closing the window in one single operation. Perhaps its true. As a mechanic I don't see why it should be. I would find nothing odd about a division of tasks here, even given the need to expedite the process. Sometimes trying to do everything in one single swoop is actually much more difficult and time consuming and I feel this is a perfect example of just such a situation.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Jul 18, 2006 18:39:07 GMT -5
Kevin/ no offense, but I now realize why you need to have 2, II, duo climbs instead of one...because no Perp in the Business has enough arms to hang onto Charlie, do a halfgainer somersault to a rickety ladder AND reach back close the window on the ransom note just placed on the ledge!
Conventional prosecution says there was a real kidnap too....but actually noone but Spider Man could climb up the ladder (2 or 3 extensions) and get thru the window and over the trunk with the toys, beer stein and sunlamp in the ways. It pretty much amounts to JonBenet Ramsey...no evidence for break and enter--just break and exit the stairs?
Without two immaculate accents, there is no kidnap as conventional CAL tells us?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 19, 2006 15:30:53 GMT -5
Why be offended at another point of view? You have stated in a more dramatic manner than I the pitfalls of a single climb event. Too bad for Hauptmann that his defense team didn't attack more vigorously the police testimony regarding the so-called re-enactments performed.
Absolutely can't agree with you there. The ladder is climbable, the window is possible to enter, and the obstacles could be overcome. The only issue is what exact movements of the climber and the ladder were used. To me the movements from a ladder 30" plus below the sill and to the right of the opening is as you referred to it a circus trick. And to adhere to this "circus" scenario because of two supposed vertical marks on the wall is pretty wishful IMHO. I would expect to see two horizontal marks on the wall if someone clamored off that two section ladder as the thrust would move the ladder to the right. Even a rigid modern aluminum ladder would do that, let alone a laterally weak two piece wooden one. With all three sections, well that is another story altogether.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Jul 20, 2006 10:03:03 GMT -5
Hi Kevin....I agree with you!
I was thinking of how the transportability of the ladder inhibited the climbing. It was like goldy locks and the 3 bears...either too long or too short? And added, the smaller number of rungs to preserve weight.
You are right in saying that if in fact you are going to climb into and out of a window with an exention ladder, we would jam the top rails under the window ledge...BUT, with the fixed design of the LL this isnt possible. So much for a year of planning right down the drain.
Did anyone actually try the real climb presented "blindfolded or in the dark" both in and out without calling 9-1-1 (in the wind and rain)? I dont think so/
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Jul 21, 2006 14:12:16 GMT -5
kevin...just a thought?
A ladder can break in more than one way and in more than one place.
eg....if the ladder were perfectly verticle....all the force might be down on the rungs/nails and a rung might break loose?
if the ladder was at 45 degrees, well, then the force would be more in the lateral horizontal and the rails might split (as was seen)
What angle best predicts the way the rails split? And what would that tell us about how many sections were up at the time? 2 or 3?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 21, 2006 16:28:59 GMT -5
That is right Rick, the kidnap ladder performs best as it approaches the vertical position. At that point the load is determined by the shear strength which is capable of a fairly significant load. I think Hauptmann knew this when he referred to it as " more of a rack". The weak point is the joint at sections 1 & 2 where the outward horizontal force is resisted by the withdrawal strength of (4) 8 penny nails. The more pressure exerted there as a result of the live load, the angle of inclination, and the distance from the joint the load is applied ( moment), the more likely a complete failure will occur. So optimally the climber would want to set the ladder for a steep ascent. Of course the penalty there is instability, which can be counteracted to some degree by another person "footing" the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2006 6:58:42 GMT -5
As always this is very good stuff Kevin.... What I enjoy most about your observations concerning the ladder is that they are professional, and aren't designed to fit some preconceived notion. This board is very lucky you came onto the scene and shared your insight. I remember you saying you had to try to get your replica to break and when it did pieces and parts basically went flying. Can you give us your theory, as it stands now, of exactly how and what caused the break as it exists in that ladder. As many who have read the trial transcripts know.... A man by the name of Hugh Orr testified for the Defense. I remember thinking this guy was crazy. Having some of his original material and comparing it to Kevin's observations show me (again) that Reilly dropped the ball when questioning him. Immediately after the splitting, the total load is thrown upon this rest of the elements in the construction which still retain some capacity to resist further demolition. Perhaps enough, maybe too little.
For, if the applied load exceeds the ultimate breaking strength of any of the materials used, there is next an instantaneous, secondary and complete collapse of the remainder. A short-off break, very likely--somewhere. And it is beyond question that the break must occur where the material's cross-sectional area is smallest, that is, weakest, under the existing conditions. Looks to me as if he knew what your experiment would yield Kevin without ever conducting one. Orr asserts the "breaks" in these rails aren't consistent with the alleged method in which they were created.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 22, 2006 7:59:32 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, it is truly enjoyable to participate in an open forum.
I agree 100% that the defense really dropped the ball regarding the entire ladder issue. Much of what was presented as fact by the prosecution should have been vigorously contested.
As for the " ladder failure" theory, I would say with reasonable certainty it is fiction. Although it can't be said with absolute certainty, since there are too many unknowns and variables at work, I think it can be said with reasonable certainty that the ladder did not suffer a complete failure during its' use. Why? For a number of reasons. First, there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. There are no indications of a failure evident, no wood debris , no impressions in the earth, no marks on the wall or library shutters where the ladder would have hit, and no distortion of the holes in the ground. If this ladder had failed in operation as a result of the joint failure at sections 1 & 2 the results would be quite violent. It would be near impossible for the two rails to split and failsimultaneously. What would most likely occur would be a sequential failure as one side failed and then the other. This would result in a rotational movement of the ladder with the climber being thrust off the ladder to one side or the other. There would be no time to react and the resultant damage to the climber, the ladder, and the house would be severe. In fact we see the holes below the window from the rails are relatively undistorted, no damage is evidenced on the house, and the ladder was still intact when discovered.
My interest in the so-called "ladder failure" led me to try and re-create it by making several replicas. One of these was a shortened version of sections 1 & 2 ( about 8 ft long) which I used to purposely cause a breakage at the joint. Not being able to cause such a break by climbing it , I then started the splits with a chisel and applied my weight ( 185 lbs) the rung at the rail. This did lead to the splitting somewhat similar to that found on the kidnap ladder, but the nature of the joint kept the ladder from failing completely by wedging the top part of the rail at the splits together. Going further, I then violently jumped on the top rung of section 1 which caused the top rung to separate from the rail. At this point what occurred happened so quickly that I can't say exactly what occurred other than the fact that I went flying backward ( I provided for this with some cushion) and pieces of the ladder went flying. In fact the dowel was found about 20 ft away. Now if this had occurred on a full size ladder I might not be writing this right now. The nature of the ladders' condition as found and the absolute lack of any evidence of a complete failure coupled with the symmetrical quality of the rail splits gives me cause to believe that they where in fact caused by the sudden scissoring or folding together of the two sections upon being taken down. When this occurs the joint is forced to go over center binding the rail ends which results in the splits found on the original ladder.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 17, 2007 7:00:10 GMT -5
Well, if we believe the single kidnapper theory (and I'm not saying that I do), it's easy to imagine the ladder being left behind. On one hand, it's hard to believe Hauptmann got it 75 feet from the house while doing whatever needed to be done to transport Charlie. On the other, if he got the ladder that far, why not go all the way with it? Unless CAL's car or some other noise scared him off.
|
|
|
Post by NBforrest on Sept 13, 2008 16:40:52 GMT -5
I think the ladder gives us a big clue as to who did not commit the crime.
Why even "make" a ladder like that?
The ladder was specially made so that it could be concealed inside of a car,why not just make a nice sturdy regular ladder and transport it in a truck,perhaps a pick up truck and conceal it with a tarp? The obvious answer is that the person who made and brought the ladder to that location did not own or have access to a truck. The ladder wasnt made overnight, so when the person started to design and make that ladder they knew that they would not have access to a truck or larger vehicle to transport it in, hence the narrow width of the ladder and the 3 sections.
Based on that I think we can safetly eliminate any gang involvement. A gang would have or could obtain easy access to a truck and a "normal" ladder
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2008 17:06:49 GMT -5
I have report after report of suspicious vehicles and not one...not one mentions a truck. I believe more then one car was used and probably stolen. Since on one saw a truck then I tend to believe one wasn't used by any of the Confederates involved in the crime. I think the idea that a truck wasn't used means to me one wasn't included for a specific reason.
If a car could be stolen so could a truck. It seems to me the idea was to leave the ladder behind so the escape in a truck would have been slower and would have stood out drawing much more attention in any direction as coming from Highfields.
Just my opinion though.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 14, 2008 12:19:27 GMT -5
Is that Nathan Bedford Forrest speaking? Great, now we have one Fuhrer and one Grand Imperial Wizard on this site. What's next? Kidding aside, you do bring up a very interesting point, the choice ( if there was one) of vehicle(s). I don't think I have ever heard anyone discuss that point before. Personally, I would think a delivery sedan would be the best option as pickup trucks of the day were quite limited.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 14, 2008 23:48:29 GMT -5
Guys c'mon. Truck on Lindbergh or featherbed Lane?
Question along the line of vehicles. Is there a probable guess that a vehicle drove up near the house dropped off the ladder and a kidnapper. Then circled around to featherbed lane waiting for the getaway kidnapper to arrive on foot with the child ? Or would one guess there were two exits from the scene after the snatch (front entrance and featherbed lane). If so what would be the purpose of two exits? Would an approaching vehicle coming up the drive be to drop off or pick up? Keeping in mind three things:
1)Exit footprints to featherbed were only found. 2) Anne L. recalled hearing a vehicle prior to Charles arriving. #3 Thumb guard found near front entrance.
If you trace all the possibilities and the probabilities at least two possibly three people are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2008 7:55:57 GMT -5
Good point about the roads and the truck Gary. I went through 500+ reports last night from the 2nd to the 5th, all suspicious vehicle reports, trying to at least come up with one truck... I just didn't find any and its something worth noting.
It's very possible they dropped off items and/or people then let to a designated pick-up site. All footprints do appear to start at the front of the house and lead away, or to the back of the property. I still believe the ladder was left behind on purpose but moved away from the house to make it appear a little more believable. There are no prints from the ladder to the house. So I suppose if one person is involved he carried quite a lot in his hands to the ladder & chisels resting place.
It appears to me that if the items were dropped off, they must have been right in the front of the home. They were also heard by Anne, who didn't have very good hearing to begin with.
Very risky behavior for such a calculated plan. The ladder proves there was one as does the numerous car sightings which were seen circling Highfields all afternoon.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2008 7:58:07 GMT -5
Gary, the scenario which has the kidnapper driving up the private laneway and dropping off the ladder and other supplies shortly after 8 pm works for me at this point. I still see the possibility of a one man operation here, given the apparent confusion around the number of prints which can accurately be attributed to the exiting kidnapping party. Don't know if you saw my earlier post on this under General Discussion - Kidnapping Timeline and I've included it below:
Kidnapping Timeline Thread Started on Aug 19, 2007, 11:45am
Here's my own current read on the timeline for the kidnapping of CALjr. I've recognized the existence of only one kidnapper here, although I believe it more likely an accomplice was present. The times I've suggested are approximate. I hope this is able to provide some food for thought and as always, look forward to any comments and questions that might help to determine what really took place..
5:30 pm (Corrected by Michael, actually about 4:30 pm) Kidnapper's car is seen by Mrs. Henry Wendling as it proceeds from Zion towards Hopewell. Essential description matches that of Ben Lupica's.
5:50 pm Ben Lupica observes the kidnapper in a dark coloured Dodge sedan containing ladder, driving south on Hopewell-Amwell Road (then called Hopewell-Wertsville Road) a few hundred yards north of Lindbergh estate driveway.
6:10 pm The kidnapper, having driven past the east entrance of Featherbed Lane, proceeds south on Hopewell-Amwell Road and into Hopewell, west along East Broad Street, north on Hopewell-Wertsville Road (as it is called today) and enters the west entrance of Featherbed Lane.
6:30 pm The Conover family, having just come home, notice the lights of a vehicle coming along Featherbed Lane, just west of their property. The driver turns out his lights upon seeing a lamp lighted within the Conover house. Henry Conover, sharpening a pencil by the window after dinner, sees the lights of the vehicle again as it appears to be struggling along the lane.
8:10 pm The kidnapper, having waited for the past hour and a half near the east entrance of Featherbed Lane, drives north on Hopewell-Amwell Road and enters the Lindbergh's private cinder drive. He slowly drives the 6/10 mile distance to the house with lights out and parks just off the drive. He then unloads the kidnap ladder and other equipment required for the kidnapping, placing them at a point east of the house. Anne Lindbergh actually hears the the sound of his tires' approach on the cinder drive, but dismisses the noise as insignificant.
8:15 pm Kidnapper exits the Lindberghs' private drive and heads south on Hopewell-Amwell Road.
8:25 pm Lindbergh arrives home from NYC. Sheer luck has allowed the kidnapper to exit the property before he otherwise would have been boxed in and confronted in the private drive by Lindbergh. At the same time, the kidnapper has no idea Lindbergh has just arrived home.
8:40 pm The kidnapper, driving along his previous route through Hopewell and north along Hopewell-Wertsville Road, again enters the west entrance of Featherbed Lane. He drives along until he is familiar with his positioning, turns out his lights and parks his vehicle south of the Lindbergh house. (The observation by Oscar Bush that two cars were present in the lane may be supportive to this theory, in that it was actually the kidnapper's car being there twice)
9:00 pm The kidnapper has walked the 6/10 of a mile distance between Featherbed Lane and his staging point for the abduction and is ready to strike. He observes the upper level of the house for any sign of light or activity, especially the location of the corner nursery for at least 5 minutes.
9:05 pm Satisfied that it is safe to proceed, the kidnapper begins his assault from the staging area, the point at which he had previously placed the ladder and equipment.
9:15 pm The kidnapper has entered the nursery and exited with the child, who is now dead, leaving behind the nursery ransom note. He has removed the ladder to a point approximately 75 feet south-east of the corner nursery, where he abandons it. At the same time, he inadvertantly drops the chisel at the same location.
9:20 pm The kidnapper, with the dead child in tow, has completed part of his journey back to Featherbed Lane, when he is interrupted by two dogs who have picked up his scent. They run towards the source and there is a brief confrontation of man and beast. The kidnapper stands his ground and the dogs retreat.
9:40 pm The kidnapper has now arrived back at his vehicle. He exits Featherbed Lane with a minimum of engine noise and with lights out. The Conovers have gone to bed and do not hear the vehicle driving out of the lane.
10:20 pm The child has now been buried a few miles south of Franklin Park, NJ, at a point just north of Interstate 1.
11:30 pm Kidnapper arrives at his home in the Bronx, quickly changes clothes and washes up.
12:00 pm Kidnapper arrives at Frederickson's Bakery to pick up his wife from work.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 15, 2008 8:46:28 GMT -5
Thank you Joe. For the most part I agree with the time line. I think you did a good job. The one thing I wonder is amount of time it may of took to drop off the child wherever he dropped it off to. Was the spot pre-planned or did he have to scramble to find a spot? How much time would be spent?
The thumb guard found near the front entrance does not fit with a kidnapper exiting to featherbed lane. This has always been my contention. I do not believe a reporter or the like picked up such an artifact and decided to dispose of it. The fact, it is what it is, makes me believe a second hand in the kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2008 10:37:50 GMT -5
Hi Gary, I guess the whole issue of disposal of the body is one that I'm still a bit stuck on. I've always maintained that the child was meant to be returned quickly and discreetly for the ransom payment. Initially I thought the kidnapper intended him to live; that's only a faint hope now. With that in mind, I don't believe it would have taken him more than half an hour to forty-five minutes to reach a pre-planned point just prior to entering Interstate #1 in the vicinity of Franklin Park, New Jersey and bury the child. The need to demonstrate he had the child would then have necessitated exhuming the body for the sleepingsuit, following his meeting with Condon at Woodlawn Cemetery.
The thumbguard has always been problematic towards a one man operation having the perpetrator exiting via Featherbed Lane. I cannot believe it was there the whole time, rather it was dropped there on the private laneway just prior to the ransom payment. I don't discount the interplay of an insider, perhaps Ellerson who would have had occasion to drive there, but I also don't discount the possibility of another variable. It was observed by Betty Morrow during the protracted ransom negotiations that a large crow had flown in through the open window of the nursery and perched on the child's crib. I've often wondered if that same crow or another bird was attracted to the shiny object on the grounds and in a seemingly-random act of nature, dropped it on the laneway. I know it may sound far-fetched but if you search, there are some remarkable stories that detail how animals come into play in our lives at times providing messages of importance, if the person is spiritually open to the possibility. I have a good idea of the message that crow on the crib rail meant to convey to Betty Morrow, a person who at that specific time, represented the eldermost member of the family.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 15, 2008 12:51:18 GMT -5
Someone would have to offer up something tangible in the way indicating that there is any intention here of taking and holding a live hostage. There's absolutely nothing that I can see that even comes close. A risky ladder climb at an occupied house coupled with the complete absence of any means to hold a hostage and a tepid ransom note adds up to only one thing, there was no intention to remove that child alive and return him the same way. Any other conclusion is based purely on belief and not evidence. You just don't go about snatching children in such a manner and without some means to care for them 24/7. If the child was meant to be returned alive you can bet that the means of abduction would have taken a completely different path. And that really wouldn't have been hard to do.
|
|