Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 16:59:51 GMT -5
According to Gardner's TCTND page 32 Lindbergh's theory of the crime on March 2, 1932 was:
1) There must have been at least 2 people involved.
2) The first person climbed into the nursery, picked up the child and handed him out to the second person on the ladder.
3) Then the person who was in the nursery closed the window, left the note and then walked out of the house.
4) The crime must have taken place in the short interval between the time the child was put to bed and his(Lindbergh's)arrival at 8:25 p.m.
According to this, Lindbergh has the kidnapper leaving the nursery and going out the front door. Was Curtis claiming that the kidnappers entered from the front door? Wasn't there a key in the pantry door mentioned by Curtis that supposedly caused Lindbergh to give serious consideration to Curtis claims of contact with the kidnappers?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 1, 2015 19:54:22 GMT -5
I wonder, then, how Lindbergh reconciled all this with the orange-crate noise he heard at around 9pm. Unless he thought that noise had nothing to do with the kidnapping, how would that have fit into his timeline? When, after 3/2/32, did he start claiming he heard that noise?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 1, 2015 20:01:10 GMT -5
"Consider Lindbergh agreed with those who believed the front door was used, then along comes Curtis who says the front door was used. Next we have him defending his Staff by saying they were, in essence, above suspicion, yet Curtis implicates one of them and this doesn't push Lindbergh away, rather, it draws him in. Why, with all of those "Imposters" out there, does he accept this?
Clearly he at least suspects that Curtis is in touch with someone involved." -- Michael
Wasn't Curtis at Highfields, at dinner, when Ollie Whateley became so nervous that he couldn't even serve? Anne actually had to take care of things herself at that dinner.
And, here we are, 83 years ago to the hour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 10:41:37 GMT -5
I wonder, then, how Lindbergh reconciled all this with the orange-crate noise he heard at around 9pm. Unless he thought that noise had nothing to do with the kidnapping, how would that have fit into his timeline? When, after 3/2/32, did he start claiming he heard that noise? Good question! He is also on record the night of the kidnapping as saying he only heard wind noise and nothing else. I have wondered if he made up this 'orange crate' sound coming from the kitchen direction to purposely set the kidnap time later to help out Red Johnson and Betty Gow who were being looked at as possible insiders. Red Johnson has an alibi to fall back on to cover that 9 p.m. sound heard by Lindbergh. He was with the Junges. Betty is covered too because she was downstairs in the same general area as Elsie and Ollie at that time. Something else I have wondered about is the cracks in the ladder rails. I am sure they were noted that night after the ladder was brought into the house. Any ideas what the NJSP theory was this early in the investigation to what caused the fractures? Was it always the added weight of the child or were there other theories, like when the ladder was being removed after the child was obtained?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 2, 2015 13:04:15 GMT -5
It could've been to help out Betty and Red, yeah; to deflect attention away from anyone in the house as being a participant (Lindbergh included). And the ladder fractures: I'm not sure. It could've been due to the added weight or damage from tossing the ladder into the backyard...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2015 17:36:54 GMT -5
Enjoyed reading that letter!! Thanks for posting it. I am sure there were a number of people who felt just like this; I am thinking The Rev. Dobson-Peacock and Admiral Burrage. Curtis fooled many people with his story. Here I am not so sure. It appears the NJSP were going to arrest Peacock, but fearing arrest, he refused to return to New Jersey when he was requested to return for questioning. He seems to be basing this on authorities not being able to search the vessel used by Curtis and Lindbergh. I really don't understand this too clearly. Can you help? I will try my best to explain this but I may intermingle facts with what I also believe to be true. I know that when Stout was representing Curtis he went to visit him in the Flemington Jail Cell at least three times. On one occasion, Curtis produced this letter (which had been given to him by Admiral Burrage) believing it would help prove he was in touch with the actual kidnappers. My personal opinion on this was it was nothing more then Lindbergh using his influence to keep the Coast Guard from scaring away the Kidnappers. I know at one point Curtis claimed "Hilda" told him that Larsen was chased by the Coast Guard during one attempting meeting that was to take place, so it seemed to make sense that Lindbergh would do here what he did at the Ransom Drop with Condon at St. Raymond's. Despite my view on this letter being weak evidence (at best) both Stout and Fisher seemed to believe it meant something more then I apparently do - exactly why I certainly do not know. Next, what Stout asserts in this article was most likely done to quiet down those who were asking the obvious questions concerning how someone perpetrating a hoax could be convicted of obstruction specifically rooted in actually knowing who the Kidnappers were. Regardless, the public as well as the NJSP never believed Curtis, after his confession, and it was common knowledge his contacts were nothing more then fictional characters. Another thing that Stout says is completely absurd - that W. A. Benham had been discharged and therefore could not be called as a Witness. Fisher openly ridiculed this contention saying one thing had nothing to do with the other. Furthermore, Benham hadn't been discharged at all so where this came from is anyone's guess. Stout would only live about 2 more years dying in the summer of 1934.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2015 19:52:23 GMT -5
Is it possible that these notes Breck sent are the Rice Paper Notes? In my opinion "yes" and it's the one I like the best.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 2, 2015 20:21:49 GMT -5
Wow. So the rice paper notes were sent by Breckinridge as a kind of test: If Condon were legit, he would turn over all communications to the authorities, no questions asked. If he didn't turn over certain notes, he must have some idea which communications needed to be turned over and which didn't, which were real and which were fake--i.e., he knew who the kidnappers were. Who authorized this test? Was it Breckridge's idea? Lindbergh's? But assuming he found out at Woodlawn that CAL Jr. was dead, what, in your opinion, was Condon doing at St. Raymond's when he was spotted by Bernard Uebel? I thought the rice paper notes could've been part of this--Condon's private negotiations to have the body returned for closure for the Lindbergh family. But if the rice paper notes were a test, then what do you think was going on here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 20:30:11 GMT -5
Wow! I am really surprised that the NJSP would have wanted to arrest a Reverend. Wasn't Schwarzkopf concerned about how the public would react if this was done? I have read about Peacock refusing to come to NJ. If he felt that he might be arrested, then he was not going to make it easy for them to do. Curtis never had any real proof for anything he was claiming so it makes you wonder why Peacock would continue to believe any of it was true. No one likes to look like a fool so maybe he stood by Curtis and his story for that reason.
Your explanation was very helpful for me. It makes sense that Lindbergh would have wanted to keep authorities away from the vessel, just in case there was any truth to what Curtis was telling him. I don't see why a letter would be needed. All Lindbergh had to do is request the Coast Guard keep away and they would have done it.
I appreciate your help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 20:31:16 GMT -5
Is it possible that these notes Breck sent are the Rice Paper Notes? In my opinion "yes" and it's the one I like the best. Me too. Thank you for this, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2015 16:17:42 GMT -5
According to this, Lindbergh has the kidnapper leaving the nursery and going out the front door. Was Curtis claiming that the kidnappers entered from the front door? Wasn't there a key in the pantry door mentioned by Curtis that supposedly caused Lindbergh to give serious consideration to Curtis claims of contact with the kidnappers? He claimed he was told that "John" and "Nels" entered via the ladder, and that the woman who was with them only went part of the way up. They exited via the steps and the front door. He claimed they locked the pantry door so that if someone got "wise" they would have to go all the way around. They said the key was in the lock on the hallway side. This was one point that impressed Lindbergh that only someone in the house would know.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2015 7:43:31 GMT -5
When, after 3/2/32, did he start claiming he heard that noise? As you correctly point out, Lindbergh told more then one Investigator he heard nothing, but to answer your question it appears in his March 11th Statement about the "orange crate" sound.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2015 7:57:10 GMT -5
Wasn't Curtis at Highfields, at dinner, when Ollie Whateley became so nervous that he couldn't even serve? Anne actually had to take care of things herself at that dinner. Curtis claimed he wouldn't look at him in the eye and mis-placed the utensils causing Anne to step in. Since Curtis is the source it's something we have to weigh against his creditability accordingly. We have to remember he wasn't truthful about many things AND he might be trying to support a claim that assists in his hoax. That's not to say it didn't happen because we do know there's certain information he possessed that seemed to be coming from a legitimate source, so this recollection could also be real because I don't think it could ever be said he lied 100% of the time. But if it's real, does it mean what he's implying or could it mean something else? Regardless, is it a piece of the puzzle? These are the things that need to be asked for everything. Like I've said many times, the "black or white" analysis of this case is the biggest hole a Researcher can find themselves in and should be avoided at all costs. While yes, there are some black or white answers that can satisfy certain questions, most fall within several various shades of grey. That can and does get messy. It also is very time consuming which is why we see so many books try to "cut to the chase" by doing exactly the wrong things in order to come to their conclusions as neatly as possible. Some cases are what they'd like - but not this one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2015 8:34:21 GMT -5
I have a book called Hopewell:A Historical Geography and in the Chapter about Farms it says that there was a barn fire at the Stout Farmstead on Moore's Mill-Mt Rose Rd, the night of the kidnapping. Does anyone know anything more than this about the fire? Did it happen later that night? Could it have taken needed law enforcement away from the kidnapping investigation? I've searched as many sources as I could think of but haven't found anything on this fire. My thought is that as far as the Police were concerned they wouldn't have diverted needed attention from Lindbergh for any reason. Wow. So the rice paper notes were sent by Breckinridge as a kind of test: If Condon were legit, he would turn over all communications to the authorities, no questions asked. I wouldn't say these notes were definitely the one's Breck wrote. I've kept this one on the "back burner" hoping to find more. Of course I am sure there will be those who don't believe me when I say he did write notes to Condon. There's plenty of people out there who think that if it's not in one of Jim Fisher's "books" then it didn't happen just like if it is in there then it did. Neither of which is true. If he didn't turn over certain notes, he must have some idea which communications needed to be turned over and which didn't, which were real and which were fake--i.e., he knew who the kidnappers were. That was the idea. So I'll say yes, I do believe Breck wrote letters to "test" Condon's sincerity but I am not ready to discuss more about this yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 14:15:18 GMT -5
Michael, The use of a boat being involved in the Lindbergh Kidnapping case not only played a part in the Curtis story, it also was a part of the Condon/CJ negotiations. These were seaworthy vessels supposedly involved with motorized engines. I know that Hauptmann had a canoe he bought after the ransom was paid. This was a paddle vessel wasn't it? Did Hauptmann ever acquire a motor driven vessel? I found the following excerpt from a police report dated Sept. 20. 1934. This excerpt was posted by Joe in 2006: On September 22nd at 9:40 A.M. arrived at 1279 East 222ns Street and began a search of Hauptman's garage, accompanied by Detective Petrosino for any personal belongings of Isidor Fisch that may be located or stored in the garage. Found several garments that were strewn about the garage that may have been the property of Isidore Fisch and placed them in a travelling bag and later brought them to the Bronx Court House. After finishing the search of the garage I searched about the field on the north side of the garage and found a gallon can with the trade mark "Seacraft Motor Oil" with the side of the can cut in a similar way as that of the can found which contained 12 packages of the Lindbergh ransom bills. Brought this can into the Hauptmann garage and left same for safe keeping in case the authorities requested same (the garage was under the protection of uniformed police). On returning to the Court House advised Lieutenanat Keaten of the can found in the lot. After completing the search of the garage and ground surrounding the garage, continued the search of the garage and ground surrounding the garage, continued to the home of Hauptmann and assisted other investigators, Detectives William Wallace, Dunn, Murphy, Sergeants Kelly and Zapolsky and Detective Petrosino.This report mentions finding a gallon can with the trademark Seacraft Motor Oil on it. If Hauptmann is using a paddle canoe why would he have had a gallon can from boat motor oil in his yard? Being a carpenter, the shellac can makes sense; not so sure about the Seacraft can though. Because the side of the Seacraft can was cut out the way the shellac can was found with money in it in the garage, it was thought that maybe at one time money had been hidden in this can also. What ever happened with this motor oil can? Did they try to connect it with the crime? Did anyone remember about the Boad Nelly note and CJ saying Charlie was on a boat? I found a picture of a Seacraft Motor Oil can. I don't know the age of this can but it looks like an older style. Part of the logo is a Seagull. So. of course, my mind then remembers that Charles and Anne spend their honeymoon on a yacht named "Mouette" which is french for "Seagull" and that the Lindberghs sailed through the Martha Vineyard waters on their honeymoon. We all know thats where the Boad Nelly note says Charlie would be found. Here is that picture: www.ebay.com/itm/seacraft-oil-can-8-quart-2-gal-motor-oil-rare-seagull-boat-car-ship-vintage-tin-/161463994618?nma=true&si=Hhna4Ytw29NhjYJRjx1dXBvwkKk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 4, 2015 16:13:29 GMT -5
This report mentions finding a gallon can with the trademark Seacraft Motor Oil on it. If Hauptmann is using a paddle canoe why would he have had a gallon can from boat motor oil in his yard? Being a carpenter, the shellac can makes sense; not so sure about the Seacraft can though. Because the side of the Seacraft can was cut out the way the shellac can was found with money in it in the garage, it was thought that maybe at one time money had been hidden in this can also. What ever happened with this motor oil can? Did they try to connect it with the crime? Did anyone remember about the Boad Nelly note and CJ saying Charlie was on a boat? I found a picture of a Seacraft Motor Oil can. I don't know the age of this can but it looks like an older style. Part of the logo is a Seagull. So. of course, my mind then remembers that Charles and Anne spend their honeymoon on a yacht named "Mouette" which is french for "Seagull" and that the Lindberghs sailed through the Martha Vineyard waters on their honeymoon. We all know thats where the Boad Nelly note says Charlie would be found. Here is that picture: www.ebay.com/itm/seacraft-oil-can-8-quart-2-gal-motor-oil-rare-seagull-boat-car-ship-vintage-tin-/161463994618?nma=true&si=Hhna4Ytw29NhjYJRjx1dXBvwkKk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 From the photos at the Ebay listing it seems that Seacraft might just be a brand name of the motor oil, rather than actually having to be used for boats?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 4, 2015 17:00:23 GMT -5
Wasn't Curtis at Highfields, at dinner, when Ollie Whateley became so nervous that he couldn't even serve? Anne actually had to take care of things herself at that dinner. Curtis claimed he wouldn't look at him in the eye and mis-placed the utensils causing Anne to step in. Since Curtis is the source it's something we have to weigh against his creditability accordingly. We have to remember he wasn't truthful about many things AND he might be trying to support a claim that assists in his hoax. That's not to say it didn't happen because we do know there's certain information he possessed that seemed to be coming from a legitimate source, so this recollection could also be real because I don't think it could ever be said he lied 100% of the time. But if it's real, does it mean what he's implying or could it mean something else? Regardless, is it a piece of the puzzle? These are the things that need to be asked for everything. Like I've said many times, the "black or white" analysis of this case is the biggest hole a Researcher can find themselves in and should be avoided at all costs. While yes, there are some black or white answers that can satisfy certain questions, most fall within several various shades of grey. That can and does get messy. It also is very time consuming which is why we see so many books try to "cut to the chase" by doing exactly the wrong things in order to come to their conclusions as neatly as possible. Some cases are what they'd like - but not this one. Thank you, Michael. Now, you see, I didn't even know that this story came from Curtis. That puts an entirely different spin on it for me. The fact that I can't remember where I read about this dinner should have had me taking it with a grain of salt anyway. Was it in Lloyd's book? Curtis deserves a lot more scrutiny than I have given him. I always put him in the same cage as Gaston Means, but apparently, there's a lot more to HIS story than I ever knew. The statement made by CJ about those people "down soud" (if he really said it, considering the source of THAT) is now far more intriguing. All I have available at hand are the writings in Waller's book. I think I'd better go back and study what I have. I'll have my salt shaker with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 18:42:26 GMT -5
This report mentions finding a gallon can with the trademark Seacraft Motor Oil on it. If Hauptmann is using a paddle canoe why would he have had a gallon can from boat motor oil in his yard? Being a carpenter, the shellac can makes sense; not so sure about the Seacraft can though. Because the side of the Seacraft can was cut out the way the shellac can was found with money in it in the garage, it was thought that maybe at one time money had been hidden in this can also. What ever happened with this motor oil can? Did they try to connect it with the crime? Did anyone remember about the Boad Nelly note and CJ saying Charlie was on a boat? I found a picture of a Seacraft Motor Oil can. I don't know the age of this can but it looks like an older style. Part of the logo is a Seagull. So. of course, my mind then remembers that Charles and Anne spend their honeymoon on a yacht named "Mouette" which is french for "Seagull" and that the Lindberghs sailed through the Martha Vineyard waters on their honeymoon. We all know thats where the Boad Nelly note says Charlie would be found. Here is that picture: www.ebay.com/itm/seacraft-oil-can-8-quart-2-gal-motor-oil-rare-seagull-boat-car-ship-vintage-tin-/161463994618?nma=true&si=Hhna4Ytw29NhjYJRjx1dXBvwkKk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 From the photos at the Ebay listing it seems that Seacraft might just be a brand name of the motor oil, rather than actually having to be used for boats? I am sure it probably is the brand name for the oil. It may even have been usable in both boat and car engines. I think the use of the Seagull on the container, however, associates it more with boat engines than car engines. Just my opinion though!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2015 20:00:47 GMT -5
1934 newspaper advertisement:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 8:47:46 GMT -5
I can't make out the picture on the front. It may not even be a seagull. Looks like this was oil used in a car. Thanks for posting this!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2015 10:01:46 GMT -5
re: the level of decomp of the body in the woods. just thinking (though maybe it's been discussed before), but what were the dimensions of that hole in the floor of Hauptmann's garage? the one where they found a bucket, or something like that? wondered if it were big enough for the body to be stashed there for a while, handy enough to retrieve the sleeping suite as requested, and then deposit the body nearer the scene of the crime (knowing it would be found eventually) once the money was handed over and to draw attention away from the Bronx. I've searched for the exact measurements but so far this is the best I could come up with: On the floor of the garage were heavy wooden planks, and the two middle planks, according to Agent Sisk, were loose. These were taken up with the aid of a grappler and it was noticed that the ground in one spot had been recently spaded up. Agent Sisk dug up the fresh ground and approximately one foot underground found a large jug of a cylinder shape, about 10" high and about 8" in diameter. This jug had about an inch of water at the bottom of it and had a piece of clother fastened around the top so that it could be pulled up easily. This report mentions finding a gallon can with the trademark Seacraft Motor Oil on it. If Hauptmann is using a paddle canoe why would he have had a gallon can from boat motor oil in his yard? Being a carpenter, the shellac can makes sense; not so sure about the Seacraft can though. Because the side of the Seacraft can was cut out the way the shellac can was found with money in it in the garage, it was thought that maybe at one time money had been hidden in this can also. Attachment DeletedBy the way, I see what you are doing and I like it. One thing I wanted to share along these lines which you might be interested to know is that Curtis wanted to search by plane but was over-ruled by Lindbergh who insisted they search by boat. Seems strange doesn't it? What ever happened with this motor oil can? Did they try to connect it with the crime? Did anyone remember about the Boad Nelly note and CJ saying Charlie was on a boat? I found a picture of a Seacraft Motor Oil can. I don't know the age of this can but it looks like an older style. Part of the logo is a Seagull. So. of course, my mind then remembers that Charles and Anne spend their honeymoon on a yacht named "Mouette" which is french for "Seagull" and that the Lindberghs sailed through the Martha Vineyard waters on their honeymoon. We all know thats where the Boad Nelly note says Charlie would be found. This is a good question. Trooper Lambertsen assisted in creating an inventory of the items seized. In his report he mentions its creation then later in that same Report I noticed this: In P.M. detailed to accompany Det. Cronin of New York City to Hauptmanns home at 1279 E. 222nd. St. Bronx, N.Y. to get one gallon Tin Can that was left at the Hauptmann Garage. This can was believed to have been used to hide the Lindbergh ransom notes before it was transferred to the can in which it was found. Found can in question at Hauptmanns garage and returned same to Bronx District Attorneys office. Can to be analyzed by Chemist.Since I haven't been able to find it on any inventory I have then it could be because it was picked up after the inventory was created. Or, I have so much material that winds up in "cross-over" folders holding different subjects, that I could just be missing it - or simply don't have the inventory that does. Thank you, Michael. Now, you see, I didn't even know that this story came from Curtis. That puts an entirely different spin on it for me. The fact that I can't remember where I read about this dinner should have had me taking it with a grain of salt anyway. Was it in Lloyd's book? Curtis deserves a lot more scrutiny than I have given him. I always put him in the same cage as Gaston Means, but apparently, there's a lot more to HIS story than I ever knew. The statement made by CJ about those people "down soud" (if he really said it, considering the source of THAT) is now far more intriguing. All I have available at hand are the writings in Waller's book. I think I'd better go back and study what I have. I'll have my salt shaker with me. I didn't mean to scare you away from this info. I think my post was more designed to make you aware of variables that should be considered. I would keep this tucked away then consider it against any other information you learn as it concerns Olly Whateley. Know what I mean? Does everything else show a completely different demeanor? Or are there some to support Curtis's account? Are they reliable or questionable? Lot's to think about and lots to consider. There's both fact and fiction to be found everywhere from all sources so we have to be careful before relegating something to the trash can be it's time to do so. Look at Lindbergh for example. He is considered a good source by many, yet, he contradicts himself on many beliefs, points, and assertions. So what some do is simply pick those they like then point to him as a creditable source. So we have to be as careful as possible not to fall into that trap. Another example might be the footprint evidence. Reporters were kept out of the yard but wanted pictures of the prints. So they made their own, took pictures, then sent them to their Editors for publication. Once the Yard was released to the Press, evidence became trampled, so Reporters arriving late started making their own prints for photos just like their counter-parts had done earlier. So if I am a Researcher who doesn't want (or like) the prints to be considered, I find a report where it claims the Reporters made the prints and I ignore or don't look for the reports which prove the prints both existed and were preserved and what the Reporters did wasn't relevant to this evidence. So we must consider the footprint evidence if we really want to figure out what happened - but we could stop short if we're not careful.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 5, 2015 14:35:19 GMT -5
You didn't scare me away, Michael. In fact, I learned far more about ole Curtis than I'd been aware of. I had lumped him with others that I deemed 'hoaxers', but now I have to take a really good look at this man, who I'd also thought to be more mental than anything else.
Also, concerning the footprints. I believe there were two sets leading from the house towards Featherbed, and that these were discovered before the reporters arrived. I'm firm on that. However, I haven't come to any conclusion about which direction these footprints pointed. Were they towards and then away, indicating one walker or two sets both leading away? It would make a huge difference in the number of people out there in the dark that night, and just where they may have originated. There was that car, headlights on, headlights off seen on Featherbed. Did one person wait in the car, or maybe at the end of the Lane/edge of the Lindbergh property, while one continued to the house with the ladder, or did two people approach the house and then retreat? That would indicate double sets in my mind, but I don't think that's what was indicated. I posted a photo of the house on one of these threads showing a drawing of the footprints. Of course, I can't find it now, but I think I'll try to find it on Google again and repost it. I sure would like some comments on that photo.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 5, 2015 15:41:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2015 17:00:30 GMT -5
You didn't scare me away, Michael. In fact, I learned far more about ole Curtis than I'd been aware of. I had lumped him with others that I deemed 'hoaxers', but now I have to take a really good look at this man, who I'd also thought to be more mental than anything else. There were a couple of different theories about "why" Curtis was creating this hoax concerning contact with the Kidnappers. If anyone is interested I could look them up. Also, concerning the footprints. I believe there were two sets leading from the house towards Featherbed, and that these were discovered before the reporters arrived. I'm firm on that. However, I haven't come to any conclusion about which direction these footprints pointed. Were they towards and then away, indicating one walker or two sets both leading away? It would make a huge difference in the number of people out there in the dark that night, and just where they may have originated. There was that car, headlights on, headlights off seen on Featherbed. Did one person wait in the car, or maybe at the end of the Lane/edge of the Lindbergh property, while one continued to the house with the ladder, or did two people approach the house and then retreat? That would indicate double sets in my mind, but I don't think that's what was indicated. I posted a photo of the house on one of these threads showing a drawing of the footprints. Of course, I can't find it now, but I think I'll try to find it on Google again and repost it. I sure would like some comments on that photo. corbisimages.7eer.net/c/27795/60871/1066?subId1=i6wm8j88qg0004m6017f1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corbisimages.com%2Fimages%2FCorbis-U712147INP.jpg%3Fsize%3D67%26uid%3D2e168136-6325-4f1b-9984-eb02f32cb8a6It's hard to explain but I will give it a whirl. There's still some of us who remember when we went over this so please add in case I omit something important. There is a Featherbed Lane and this is where a car was seen turning around on the night of the Kidnapping by the Conovers. Police, Reporters, and even sometimes Locals referred to Roads by the wrong names at times. The double set of footprints actually went from the house to the ladder, then from the ladder to the access road. The Police once called it "Featherbed Road" and it appears the Press took that and ran with it by then referring to the prints as having led to "Featherbed Lane." Kevin (Kevkon) saw this too, independent of my own research because I had been keeping it under my hat and hadn't shared it with anyone. Here is the thread where his photo is located to give you a better understanding of the "access road" (scroll down to see both photos): lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/783/lindbergh-arrival-alter-kidnappingThe footprints go like this..... There were smaller prints of one person that were discovered walking parallel with the board walk, in the mud, near the kidnap window toward the back of the house. Anne testified that she made these prints while coming home from a walk. Note that it was during the daylight hours, and if true, shows how hard it would be for someone staying on these boards during the night time while also being unfamiliar with the house. Next, there was one print facing toward the house at the base of the ladder. The others were all walking from the house to the ladder. None were coming from anywhere toward the house, so whoever these people were, they seemed to be able to navigate that board walk - ladder in hand - so as not to leave any other prints.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 5, 2015 20:15:47 GMT -5
After signalling to each other on Featherbed, I think two cars, with a total of three kidnappers in them (in keeping with witness descriptions over the course of that afternoon), met at the driveway entrance, pulled in, and parked at the entrance to the no-longer-extant access road--a left hand turn about 100 ft. up from the driveway entrance. The three kidnappers piled into one car with the ladder, leaving the other car at the access road-driveway junction, and headed up the driveway. Given the crime scene established here, it looks to me like two kidnappers got out of the car with the ladder and assembled it in the courtyard or at a point just before the driveway emptied into the courtyard. They then walked it over to the house and leaned the ladder against the outer wall to the side of the nursery window, all while staying on the construction catwalk. Since getting in through the window is hard and launching yourself over a toy chest and into a pitch black room (all in a gale) without making a sound is damn near impossible, I think one kidnapper went in through the front door, straight up into the nursery. The body was handed off from the window, to the other kidnapper at the top of the ladder. This guy took the body to the car, the driver taking off with it (the tire sound Anne heard) and waiting at the driveway-access road junction. I think the kidnapper in the nursery then went out through the front door, met the other guy outside, and they took the ladder across the backyard, dumped it, and walked down the access road, to the driver and the other car. It may be hard to picture, but if you look at Kevkon's photo, it's actually a quite efficient circuit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 20:59:14 GMT -5
Yes it does seem strange. He took to the air with Condon on April 3 to search for the Boad Nelly. So I am thinking:
1)He knows Charlie isn't out there to be found.
2)A check by plane would confirm that faster and for some reason he wanted to "stay at sea" for a while.
The report you posted of the canoe purchase does not list anything that sounds like a motor so he used oars only to get around. Also when did Hauptmann become R. F. Hauptmann? Have you ever encountered Hauptmann using that middle initial before? Also, I see there was a report by Det. Monahan attached to Zapolsky's report. Was Det. Monahan able to find the salesman J. H. Rhodes in Lakeland Florida and interview him? I would like to know if Rhodes remembered making the sale to Hauptmann and if he identified Hauptmann from a picture, just to be sure Hauptmann actually made that purchase himself.
Thanks for this. Interesting that they think Hauptmann transferred the money from one can to another. Not sure why he would do that. Lambertsen says that the can was to be analyzed by a Chemist. Would you know if that was ever done?
I am one of those people who remember because I was confused about those roads and asked for help, which you very kindly gave to me. Kevin's photo with the traced roads was also very helpful. I now know where the access road is. I was always getting confused between Featherbed Road and Featherbed Lane. I did read in the FBI Summary Report that Featherbed Lane was about 100 yards from the house! They don't say if the 100 yards is running along side the house or behind the house. I just figured they meant the side of the house because of the footprints leading from the side of the house where the ladder was found. Oh boy! I realize this is not really helping and I am probably making Rebekah more confused so I will stop writing now.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 6, 2015 8:35:55 GMT -5
I've searched for the exact measurements but so far this is the best I could come up with: On the floor of the garage were heavy wooden planks, and the two middle planks, according to Agent Sisk, were loose. These were taken up with the aid of a grappler and it was noticed that the ground in one spot had been recently spaded up. Agent Sisk dug up the fresh ground and approximately one foot underground found a large jug of a cylinder shape, about 10" high and about 8" in diameter. This jug had about an inch of water at the bottom of it and had a piece of clother fastened around the top so that it could be pulled up easily. thanks Michael! unless there is a photo somewhere of that garage floor, we can't be sure of the dimensions of the "recently spaded up" area of dirt. however, i gotta think if the hole was big enough to accommodate a 10x8 can (at a depth of 12 inches) could also be generally big enough to fit the dead toddler. unless it was dug straight down with a hole digger and not by hand with shovel. am i making sense? also, i would bet Anna never went into, or needed to, that garage. so it would be pretty safe that she wouldn't discover anything.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 6, 2015 18:15:14 GMT -5
You didn't scare me away, Michael. In fact, I learned far more about ole Curtis than I'd been aware of. I had lumped him with others that I deemed 'hoaxers', but now I have to take a really good look at this man, who I'd also thought to be more mental than anything else. There were a couple of different theories about "why" Curtis was creating this hoax concerning contact with the Kidnappers. If anyone is interested I could look them up. Also, concerning the footprints. I believe there were two sets leading from the house towards Featherbed, and that these were discovered before the reporters arrived. I'm firm on that. However, I haven't come to any conclusion about which direction these footprints pointed. Were they towards and then away, indicating one walker or two sets both leading away? It would make a huge difference in the number of people out there in the dark that night, and just where they may have originated. There was that car, headlights on, headlights off seen on Featherbed. Did one person wait in the car, or maybe at the end of the Lane/edge of the Lindbergh property, while one continued to the house with the ladder, or did two people approach the house and then retreat? That would indicate double sets in my mind, but I don't think that's what was indicated. I posted a photo of the house on one of these threads showing a drawing of the footprints. Of course, I can't find it now, but I think I'll try to find it on Google again and repost it. I sure would like some comments on that photo. corbisimages.7eer.net/c/27795/60871/1066?subId1=i6wm8j88qg0004m6017f1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corbisimages.com%2Fimages%2FCorbis-U712147INP.jpg%3Fsize%3D67%26uid%3D2e168136-6325-4f1b-9984-eb02f32cb8a6It's hard to explain but I will give it a whirl. There's still some of us who remember when we went over this so please add in case I omit something important. There is a Featherbed Lane and this is where a car was seen turning around on the night of the Kidnapping by the Conovers. Police, Reporters, and even sometimes Locals referred to Roads by the wrong names at times. The double set of footprints actually went from the house to the ladder, then from the ladder to the access road. The Police once called it "Featherbed Road" and it appears the Press took that and ran with it by then referring to the prints as having led to "Featherbed Lane." Kevin (Kevkon) saw this too, independent of my own research because I had been keeping it under my hat and hadn't shared it with anyone. Here is the thread where his photo is located to give you a better understanding of the "access road" (scroll down to see both photos): lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/783/lindbergh-arrival-alter-kidnappingThe footprints go like this..... There were smaller prints of one person that were discovered walking parallel with the board walk, in the mud, near the kidnap window toward the back of the house. Anne testified that she made these prints while coming home from a walk. Note that it was during the daylight hours, and if true, shows how hard it would be for someone staying on these boards during the night time while also being unfamiliar with the house. Next, there was one print facing toward the house at the base of the ladder. The others were all walking from the house to the ladder. None were coming from anywhere toward the house, so whoever these people were, they seemed to be able to navigate that board walk - ladder in hand - so as not to leave any other prints. Okay. There is another drive, (first one east of the main driveway) that I thought was the access road. This was probably used by the construction workers, so as not to mess up the intended future lawn. According to Kevkon's photo, there is another road even farther east of the lane I'm thinking was the 'access' road. Apparently, Featherbed Lane, off the Hopewell/Hertsville Road, actually curves to the north before it then turns west onto the Lindbergh property. I thought it was a straight shot off Hopewell/Hertsville. Very confusing. Where, exactly, was the phantom car spotted? And, the footprints! So, they only led AWAY from the house. That's very interesting, considering what Anne heard. Could someone (or someONES) have actually been dropped off in the driveway with the ladder? Seems incredible.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 6, 2015 18:26:00 GMT -5
After signalling to each other on Featherbed, I think two cars, with a total of three kidnappers in them (in keeping with witness descriptions over the course of that afternoon), met at the driveway entrance, pulled in, and parked at the entrance to the no-longer-extant access road--a left hand turn about 100 ft. up from the driveway entrance. The three kidnappers piled into one car with the ladder, leaving the other car at the access road-driveway junction, and headed up the driveway. Given the crime scene established here, it looks to me like two kidnappers got out of the car with the ladder and assembled it in the courtyard or at a point just before the driveway emptied into the courtyard. They then walked it over to the house and leaned the ladder against the outer wall to the side of the nursery window, all while staying on the construction catwalk. Since getting in through the window is hard and launching yourself over a toy chest and into a pitch black room (all in a gale) without making a sound is damn near impossible, I think one kidnapper went in through the front door, straight up into the nursery. The body was handed off from the window, to the other kidnapper at the top of the ladder. This guy took the body to the car, the driver taking off with it (the tire sound Anne heard) and waiting at the driveway-access road junction. I think the kidnapper in the nursery then went out through the front door, met the other guy outside, and they took the ladder across the backyard, dumped it, and walked down the access road, to the driver and the other car. It may hard to picture, but if you look at Kevkon's photo, it's actually a quite efficient circuit. This is very interesting, LJ, but do you think Anne would have been able to hear the sounds on the gravel from that distance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 18:30:01 GMT -5
That is really an interesting theory xjd. If true, it would have made it very easy for Hauptmann to know the body was safe so that he could continue negotiating as long as necessary without fear of the child being discovered. I seriously doubt Anna ever went into that garage but I am not sure about Hauptmann's neighbor Victor Schussler. I think I read that he went in there a few times but maybe not during the crime. Here is a link to a picture of the interior of Hauptmann's garage. The wood floor is all up and the dirt has been dug up quite a bit. What I found surprising is that there are children digging in the dirt in this photo! Why weren't the police keeping people out of the garage? www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/men-and-boys-dig-in-bruno-richard-hauptmanns-garage-in-the-news-photo/97321378
|
|