|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2006 9:29:56 GMT -5
I think its a foregone conclusion the chest was beneath the window. It's my philosophy to find the first source on the subject then compare and cross reference it against later sources. I feel the earliest sources are probably, but not always, the closest situation to the truth of the matter. The cross-referencing should either compliment, adjust, amend, or eliminate certain aspects contained in either the first or later positions concerning the subject. Obviously, the first source would be Cpl. Wolf's report: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/wolf.pdfI submit this should be our "measuring stick" against what the true situation really was. Now we must understand that he was not the first on the scene, however, the report is fairly well written including many specifics that we are searching for. This report alone supports what I have been saying concerning the trial testimony and proves what was testified to is suspect at best. Now with this in mind, Dick recently pointed out Betty Gow's claim that she saw dirty prints on the blankets in the crib.... The first time I see this mentioned by Gow is in her trial preparation statement to Peacock. If I am wrong someone please correct me because I can not find it anywhere else. This directly contradicts Kelly's March 16th statement in which he claimed to have seen none and I do believe it would have been mentioned in Wolf's report above. Cpl. Wolf, NJSP should not be confused with Chief Wolf of the local Hopewell Police Department. It is to be remembered that both Chief Wolf and Asst. Chief Williamson were the first Police on the scene. Unfortunately, neither of these Officer's reports (that I have been able to discover) mention with specificity the details we are searching for as existing in and around that window. However, Vitray's book - The Great Lindbergh Hullabaloo ( p48) - writes that Williamson told her that he saw the situation and reported the chest, suitcase, and tinker toy (on top of the suitcase) was situated in beneath that window. This differs from Cpl. Wolf's report in that Wolf only saw the top of a toy "ark" on the top of the suitcase. This is important given the fact Williamson was there first, however, we must also consider that Vitray claims there was no indication of mud found on the suitcase when Cpl. Wolf's report clearly says a smudge existed there. Backing up Vitray's account of the tinker toy is the FBI Summary Report ( p44). However, as anyone knows who has read my post...: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1144709898....The Summary Report simply cannot be relied upon as a primary source. It is quite possible its reference to this tinker toy comes from Vitray's book. So my next step was to read a report which I obtained as a result of Dr. Gardner's generosity... In Hoover's report dated 3-19-32, it recounts his conversation with Major Lanphier. Lanphier was one of Lindbergh's closest friends and it was in this report which he shares with Hoover some of Lindy's personal information such as his obsession with practical jokes, etc. He also claims in this report that, in essence, that beneath the window was a chest with a "black bag" on top of it, and a "wholly dog" on top of that. He gives this as his reason for Lindy believing (2) people were involved - that one handed the child over these obstacles. It's obvious from the report that while Lanphier wasn't there that night, he is getting his information from Lindbergh. My next source of information comes from Lt. Keaton. I would say that his knowledge of the case was 2nd only to Schwarzkopf himself. Unfortunately, this information is coming from Special Agent Sisk's report and we all know the NJSP wasn't always completely honest with the FBI. Anyway here are some excerpts to consider: In front of the window where the note had been left were a long low cedar chest and a medium size suitcase. These were pushed up against the radiator and towards the right side of the window as you face it. A Child's tinker toy was lying on the floor nearby. This toy had been on top of the suitcase at one time, and it has never been definitely determined whether it was laid aside by the kidnaper or by someone of the household. (omit) After the kidnaper gained entrance into the nursery, he had the problem of getting in the child down on the ground. It is agent's opinion, from observing the size of the window and considering the circumstances that it would have been almost impossible extremely difficult for one man to have climbed out of the window with the child in his arms and Lt. Keaten stated that he has the same opinion as to the matter. he stated that the State Police feel reasonably certain that at least two persons perpetrated the kidnaping;.... FYI... This report also back's up Kevin's assertion that the chisel could not have been utilized to open the shutters if they had been locked with the slide bolt.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 15, 2006 17:10:04 GMT -5
Michael, I think what happened in regard to the toy is confusion over the correct window. Cpl. Wolf reports the toy on the chest in front ( under) the french window and only the roof of that toy is on the suitcase under the "kidnap" window. This can be confirmed by Trooper Kellys photos taken of the nursery that night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2006 18:16:37 GMT -5
I know a similar situation existed under that window as well. The Police weren't confused, I think its Researchers who become confused from time to time....
There is no doubt in my mind after reading through all of this material that a toy did rest on top of that suitcase, however, it doesn't seem likely we'll know when it was moved and who actually moved it.
One thing for sure is that it wasn't there by the time Cpl. Wolf arrived and he preceded Kelly by over an hour.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 8:05:34 GMT -5
I should have specified that the confusion was not by the police, rather the reporting. I am not sure what significance the toy has since we can not know for certain if it was on the trunk at the time of the kidnapping. What I find interesting is the trunk or suitcase under the window. Did any one test the suitcase structurally? Would it hold an adult without suffering some damage? I can't say for certain, but entry through that window with the two section ladder configuration would probably mean a head first affair. I would think that the suitcase would not only be compressed but pulled towards the woodwork under the window as well during this entry procedure. I have never seen anything recorded regarding damage to the suitcase or the wood trim under the window sill.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 8:26:43 GMT -5
This is a good observation, and I agree there's no other way but to enter head-first under those circumstances.
Yet, the "smudge" seems to indicate a foot simply grazing the suitcase. From all of the reports I have read, it seems what mud prints existed were faint and heading in the direction of the crib but none returning. The impression I get is they thought there was little mud on the shoe and it "ran out" leaving none to transfer onto the floor for the return trip to the window.
I doubt the sill had enough room for someone to spin around before stepping into the room - especially with the stein there which by all accounts was undisturbed.
It seems like the more we examine the possibilities the more impossible the situation becomes.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 8:38:53 GMT -5
That is why I tend to favor the three section ladder configuration. It provides a "cleaner" and more controlled entry. I can't see the head first affair taking place without major disturbance of that table/suitcase/ stein/ toy roof.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 8:43:50 GMT -5
The (3) section theory road-block (for me) is the marks on the walls were consistent with (2) sections being used. The marks in the mud support ladder placement at about 2 inches below those marks, and the closed shutters. I do like your idea that the ladder might have been positioned on the board-walk which would probably make up the extra 2 inches but would put the (3) sections at an even steeper angle.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 8:51:25 GMT -5
The marks pose no problem for me , the ladder was probably erected first with two sections to check the window/ shutter/room conditions. Then simply take it down and add the third section. This ladder is at it's strongest when most vertical.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 9:04:25 GMT -5
Alright. So I assume under your theory these person(s) utilize (2) sections first. They do this to open the shutter and somehow look into the nursery for intel. They descend and assemble (3) sections to utilize for entrance.
Here's my problems so far....
Why not use the (3) sections right from jump-street? Wouldn't they expect this shutter to be locked and if so, wouldn't the (3) sections make that situation easier to tackle?
Next, to return down the ladder and assemble the 3rd section should leave marks in the mud, and I would assume - it wouldn't go back into the exact same holes as the (2) sections did. Therefore it would have to be placed onto the board-walk for this scenario to be true.
Furthermore, there were no marks on the wall coinciding with the (3) sections being used.
Finally, we have the ladder found with the lower (2) sections in-tact but with the 3rd section removed. To me, this exemplifies the last situation the ladder was in before being left behind. This seems to also support (2) sections were used.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 9:23:38 GMT -5
"Why not use the (3) sections right from jump-street? Wouldn't they expect this shutter to be locked and if so, wouldn't the (3) sections make that situation easier to tackle?"
If this was a typical extension ladder I would expect re-adjustment to occur as you don't know until your up there how good your positioning is. In this case the ladder only has 3 positions available, adjustment comes from addition and subtraction of sections.
"Next, to return down the ladder and assemble the 3rd section should leave marks in the mud, and I would assume - it wouldn't go back into the exact same holes as the (2) sections did. Therefore it would have to be placed onto the board-walk for this scenario to be true."
And additional holes were present, also your finding of the ladder marks on the wall being off could be explained by the two section ladder placed on the plank. when the third section was added it was moved back slightly.
"Furthermore, there were no marks on the wall coinciding with the (3) sections being used."
I am not sure how closely they looked as most photos show the three section ladder against the shutter thus hiding any marks. More importantly, though, with 3 sections and a steeper angle there is less horizontal loading and therefore less transfer.
"Finally, we have the ladder found with the lower (2) sections in-tact but with the 3rd section removed. To me, this exemplifies the last situation the ladder was in before being left behind. This seems to also support (2) sections were used."
I don't think this is so, reports of the ladder find definitely state that they were separate
|
|
|
Post by steve for kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 17:52:36 GMT -5
i also dont think the third section was used, even though i climbed a replica and the ladder is more sturdy then i thought. to position three sections on a windy night would have been noisy i believe and less controlable
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 19:29:00 GMT -5
Steve I understand what you are saying but I have used the third section in a mild wind without a problem. I think the connection with the double mortise joint at the third section provides more rigidity which mitigates some of the problem. I would in any case also prefer the two section model, but there is a potential problem with this. Did you step off the top rung?
|
|
|
Post by steve for kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 21:21:36 GMT -5
no i didnt go to the top rung, but im looking t the crime scene and the marks on the house the police thought only 2 rungs were used
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 17, 2006 7:41:40 GMT -5
Steve if you like a thrill you should try stepping off that top rung if you get another chance! I don't dispute the fact that two sections were used, I just believe three were also employed. I guess I am so used to using ladders that the idea of the kidnap ladder being re-configured seems like no big deal to me. In the same way I see no reason why multiple climbs could not be employed. I really don't see why people get stuck on trying to make the kidnapper do everything in one shot. This ladder is light and easy to erect if you have a little experience with it , a second hand makes it more so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2006 19:11:10 GMT -5
***Wouldn't this imply that (3) sections were used first? Then we have the original problem don't we?.....the shutters opening onto the ladder and blocking the Kidnappers. So this seems to imply the whole thing was "guess-work" from the start does it not? Did these people think they had an unlimited amount of time to test the situation on site? It seems to be a reasonable explanation concerning the marks, the board-walk, and the (2) holes mentioned in the reports...Where are the "additional" holes located? I have no reference to them in the reports. I am assuming here of course but with all of the investigations concerning the re-enactments etc., I would be very hard-pressed to say they didn't look closely. However, you do make a good point concerning the horizontal loading. It could also be that additional weight existed on that ladder when the (2) sections were employed and less when the (3) were - as an extra variable to consider. But then we have that other mark on the wall we must also take into consideration and explain. I have found (so far) these sources to support the position that (2) sections were found joined: 1. FBI Summary ....but that the upper section was not attached and probably had not been used; the two lower sections were still together and what appeared to be the middle section had split,....(p101) 2. Captain Snook's Ladder Report A three section, hand-made ladder with two dowel pins was found outside the Lindbergh home on March 1st, after the baby was taken. Two sections of the ladder were pinned together with a dowel pin. The other section and another dowel pin were found nearby.(p.15) 3. Board of Strategy Conference , May 18, 1932: [Walsh]: ....The Police found the ladder unassembled, two sections assembled and the third laid parallel on the ground. (p.7) 4. Keaton to Sisk (Report of 10-34): The ladder consisted of three sections. Two of the sections of the ladder were joined together and the third section was found a few yards away. 5. Bornmann's Trial Testimony ( p365): [Q]: Now, the two sections that were lying together, were they connected or disconnected? : They were connected to a certain extent.
[Q]: Tell us the extent. : One section had split. The two upright pieces had split, allowing the sections to separate. They had been connected with a dowel pin. It's important to note the order in which the Police arrived and who saw the ladder. Hopewell Police Williamson and Wolf along with Lindbergh seem to be the first on record to see the ladders. Their reports aren't specific concerning this point. Next, Cpl. Wolf sees the ladders. His reports are general concerning this point. Next is Bornmann, his report too is general. Then we have DeGateano whose report seems to be specific and I think the one to which you refer. According to Trooper DeGaetano: One of the ladders was about ten (10) or fifteen (15) feet away from the other two sections but all three (3) were separate and laying parallel from the ground. Trooper DeGaetano's Trial Testimony ( p440): [Q]: Did you look at the bottom rung? : No, sir.
[Q]: Why didn't you? : I didn't want to get near the vicinity of the ladder. I examined the ladder from a distance. Now, most every account has the dowel pin still in the lower section and the ladder immediately next to it with both broken uprights. Maybe it was still connected...then again...maybe it wasn't - but I ask what the logical conclusion is? I would like to work through these problems with your theory because it's a little more believable if (3) sections were used but I am having a hard time reconciling these issues when looked at in their totality. I am more of a "counter-puncher" and tend to find arguements against a position.... Let's not give up on this - your demonstration concerning what happens when weight is put on that top rung when only (2) sections are employed convinces me that couldn't have happened without someone killing themself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 19, 2006 7:15:59 GMT -5
Michael. while it is true that the shutter presents a partial obstacle to the three section ladder, I still feel it would be possible to get around it. It may seem dangerous but in reality it would be safer than the two section ladder and a top step kick-off. I don't see any problem with trying and using both configurations and even more so if help was at hand. As far as guess work on the length I would remind you that the two section ladder works out perfectly at the french window and I still think that was the preferred target. I did not say there were more ladder "holes" but there are additional visible marks present in Kelley's photo. As for the condition the ladder was found in, DeGaetano's report is the only eyewitness account I know of that specifies the ladder's repose as found that night. Here we are venturing into the discussion we had with Lupica's car sighting, that is how would or why would DeGaetano describe three sections of ladder if the first two were connected and presumably folded. Beyond that, I don't know if the question of whether it was found connected or not really matters. I still find it interesting that the thought of erecting this ladder more than once seems so bizarre, especially in light of some of the other "theories" that I read. Another thing that puzzles me is the reluctance to believe in multiple attempts at the crime. Hauptmann, if nothing else, is dogged in his quests as witnessed by his multiple crime spree in Germany and attempts to stow away across the Atlantic. Why would he not show the same determination in what would be his biggest quest of all? This could certainly explain more than a few questions involving the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2006 17:23:28 GMT -5
I do think it would be dangerous. I assume they would have to grab onto the shutter and put weight on it in order to get around it. How do they open the window? I assume they would be too far away from the wall to work from a lower position. How wide do you think the shutters were? My best guess in 18".
Do you think the Kidnapper(s) were aware of the "kick-off" potential?
I think there was inside information. Even with the thought of having (2) hours to pull off the job, there are people inside who may not be "in on it" and I don't see it advantagous to take your time experimenting with the ladder. For those who don't think there was any insider assistance then I find this proposition unthinkable.
So why did they bring (3) sections?
The Police believed the window used was indeed the intended target. They pointed to the fact they went directly to this window. However, they did ignore those "smaller" footprints perhaps believing they were Anne's. If you are right this may have been a serious mistake. After all, that's where these prints lead to. These prints may have belonged to someone checking out the area below the French Window and warning against that venue for some unknown reason.
Why do you think they positioned the ladder to the right of the "kidnap" window? They had plenty of room on the left side, and if they struck at 8PM, as I believe they did, Lindbergh wasn't home yet and no one was in the Library. Don't most people prefer to work with their dominate hand?
I don't see this testimony upsetting any of the State's theories, therefore, I trust what he says here and its not very convincing.
My position was the bottom (2) sections were found connected which supports the fact that when the ladder was removed from the side of the house only those (2) were employed at that moment. By all accounts the dowel was still in the lower section. The third was away from the lower sections and its dowel free.
I don't know of anyone committing a crime where there is potential for discovery to take their time. What "theories" do you refer to here?
I think this is apples and oranges. He was wanted in Germany and there were many people doing this. With his record he didn't have a legitimate chance so this was his only option. Also, being caught as a stowaway is a much different situation then being caught in Lindy's nursery trying to steal his kid. If being persistent at coming to the US illegally is a prerequisite to this crime maybe it was a Mexican who did it?
In all seriousness though...I think you are attempting to simplify this but the crime is much too complex for that approach in my opinion.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2006 7:42:49 GMT -5
I
Your damn right it is dangerous. Whether two sections, three sections or using the front door this was a dangerous operation from the get go. A person undertaking such a action in a house full of people is someone with steely nerves and determination. In that context I see the three section ladder as being consistent with the mo of the perp. I calculate the shutters to be 16" w which is still an obstacle, on the other hand they have a very robust mounting so grabbing on it an option,
If they weren't they would surely find out quickly enough
I won't make an issue about this as I feel one can interpret the ladder condition in many ways and it certainly doesn't contradict my ideas. I just find it interesting that DeGaetano sees 3 parallel sections that night. Also, you can try this at the museum, carry the two lower sections with the dowel ( unfettered) in place and let me know what happens.
Michael, I think you may be overestimating the time required to stage the ladder several times. I can stage, remove, and re-stage with 3 sections in under 4 minutes by myself. Now of course,I realize that 4 minutes would be a long time in the commission of a crime and it would probably take a little longer because of the local conditions. On the other hand if another person was helping it would be easier.
I am not trying to get into Hauptmann's criminal past here, my point is that he is stronger on determination than intellect. I don't think it unreasonable to think of Hauptmann having the guts and the resolve to make multiple attempts.
Yes, I think that is where you and I come at this from opposite corners. I just am a firm believer in Occam's Razor and especially regarding crime. What we have here, in essence, is a brutal crime involving the abduction of a child from a rural house at night and the subsequent demand for money. I just don't see the need to over think this.
|
|
|
Post by steve for kevkon on Apr 21, 2006 18:36:15 GMT -5
thrill at the top rung? i might fall and break my ass
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2006 20:33:55 GMT -5
I don't think it contradicts your theory but I do think it supports that (2) sections were the last to be employed at the time of removal.
I don't know if I'd be allowed to do what you suggest at the Archives. Why don't you tell me what you expect would happen?
I am simply looking at it from my tactical experience perspective. I also believe this crime was planned for, therefore, any amount of time extended past what is planned for leaves one exposed to detection. (4) minutes is too much time, under the circumstances, to be playing around with the ladder in my opinion.
I think we equally agree on just as many issues as we disagree. I am a fan of Ockham's Razor too but concerning this specific topic it doesn't seem to apply because we have no choice but to assume the events. A variation would be the old "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" but there just isn't one to draw - not here.
Anyway, as I've stated many times over the years.... When those debating here seem to disagree over and over when they finally do agree on something its probably correct.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2006 11:46:11 GMT -5
Where's Mark's sense of adventure? Actually I don't know if I expect this to happen but every time I try to move my ladders still connected the dowel always falls out. I would be surprised if the kidnap ladder suffering from two splits which have effectively opened up the dowel holes, wouldn't do the same.
Absolutely, that is why I feel contradictory positions can be so rewarding. I would say I am 90% to your position on wiping down the window.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 5, 2006 9:14:29 GMT -5
DeGaetano's report is not the only eyewitness account of the placement of the ladder parts. In his March 9, 1932 statement, Charles Williamson also described it:
"I only observed one dowel lying on the ground, near one section of the ladder which was about eight or ten feet away from the other two sections."
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2006 21:14:49 GMT -5
It's ashame all of the others who saw it did not give the details within their reports.... Even those that did still weren't specific enough in my opinion.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 6:51:11 GMT -5
I still have a hard time believing that such a crucial piece of evidence was not recorded in situ. There is no telling what might have been learned by close observation of the exact positioning of the ladder components. We could learn the much about the sequence of the crime and more regarding the ladder breakage. What I would give just to have a single good photo.
I still think that an important clue as to the ladder configuration used that night is provided by Ben Lupica.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 7, 2006 14:22:27 GMT -5
As I understand it, Kevin believes the French window was the target, and that perhaps there had been other trips to Hopewell with the materials necessary to carry out the crime? Isn't it remarkable, then, that even after Whited was dug out of the rough, nobody else came forward to say that Hauptmann had been seen -- and that Whited was pressed to come up with not one, but two sightings? Why was the note written so crudely, then? I suppose one could say that if a person is stopped with a ladder sticking out noticeably, that was no crime, but a note would be? But then do we have to add the time to the four minutes in order for the note to be written?
I was intrigued, as well, by Kevin's statement that Hauptmann had more nerves than intelligence. I wonder if this is again a case of smart Hauptmann, dumb Hauptmann.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2006 14:37:43 GMT -5
Now I know how Custer felt I don't see my propositions as being mutually dependent. Do you find multiple attempts as being out of the question? What about recon? . I don't think I ever said Hauptmann was dumb. My point was that he was perhaps more endowed with bravery and determination. Do you feel otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 8, 2006 7:24:29 GMT -5
I guess the point of my posting was to suggest that sometimes we see the trees and can't find the forest. It is possible to take each episode of the kidnapping and run it in stop action, examining every facet of the individual act [and concluding the "best" way would be to put the ladder against the wall several times], without allowing for all the other things going on simultaneously (or nearly so) that might impinge on the "best" way. When one stands back and the action speeds up into normal pace, things happen very quickly. It is for that reason that when considering how the ladder is used, one also thinks a bit about the ransom note and the crudity of its writing (as Osborn opined once, as if it were written in a car perhaps in the near-dark).
As for recon. Yes, one would think so -- or a shortcut -- such as guidance by another party into precise locations. That would make things a lot easier.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2006 9:05:36 GMT -5
Yes I agree. For example, we can not know what conditions existed that night. Movements of the occupants at Highfields, internal light sources,and noises, all of these things could have a great impact on the actions of the kidnapper(s) and the consequential sequence of events. It is a shame that the police re-enactments were not attempted in darkness with a close approximation of the state that existed in the house that night.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 10, 2006 8:03:09 GMT -5
Does anyone think it is remarkable that for all the Whateleys (and others) said about the number of people who "visited" the house uninvited, even down to the green car that was seen that afternoon as the chauffeur left the house having delivered Betty, that there were not more car sightings? Seems odd.
Well, how many of those cars were on recon visits? A man as celebrated as CAL would draw "tourists" some of whom, at least, would have binoculars. Indeed, even as the house was going up, neighbors and others would presumably come to stand around and gawk. It's not as if the area is dotted with expensive houses, is it?
BRH (and who else?) could have been one of the sightseers. Or someone who later talked to him and gave him instructions could have been there. We can never forget that kidnapping was quite common in this era. Did someone innocently talk about the house, never expecting what happened would happen.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 10, 2006 8:12:24 GMT -5
Yes, and going back to Joe's point regarding Anna's memory, who would remember such innocuous sightings without it being tied to a specific recent event.
|
|