|
Post by mjrichmond on Aug 10, 2006 6:57:24 GMT -5
<<<The only things that these shutters provide in the closed and bolted position is protection from sunlight , some degree of privacy, and added security from external entry. They did not insulate the room from the cold and wind and were only marginally effective against the rain.>>>
In her March 3, 1932 questioning by the NJSP, Betty stated that "We didn't lock the shutters as a precautionary measure, only to keep them closed. One of them was flapping in the wind, that's the only reason we close the shutter."
Why only the nursery? Probably so the shutters banging around in the wind would not disturb Charlie's sleep.
<<<I have always assumed that almost everything done at Highfields was at CAL's direction and that while there were exceptions usually this proved to be the case.>>>
While Charles was a controlling personality, he really did not exert the control many people think - even in matters of significance. For example - it seems clear from Anne's statement that it was she, not Charles, who decided to stay over March 1. It is clear that it was also she, not Charles, who called Betty Gow to come to Highfields. As another example - people talk about Charles' "iron-clad" rule that Charlie be left alone from 8 to 10 p.m. but, again, Anne's statement suggests that the rule was not so controlling. She speaks of making frequent trips to the nursery Saturday night and sleeping with the doors between the nursery and master bedroom open on Monday. If Charles gave such "orders", it appears they were not quite followed to a "T".
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2006 5:07:35 GMT -5
This is another great suggestion Kevin. Its certainly the first time I have ever seen it. How much weight or under what circumstances would or do you think might cause this to happen? Could it have been intensional or do you think it happened during a "failed" attempt?
I seem to remember the rules were different over the weekends.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2006 7:00:09 GMT -5
It is difficult to say for sure since wrought hinges can have a great vatiation in strength. But it is important to note that they are not designed to withstand the loading applied by leaning a loaded ladder on them. That would mean that as one leaned or applied pressure on that shutter one side of it would be resting against the wall while the other would be held off by those two hinge arms. That is a considerable force for two long strap-like hinge arms to withstand without bending. And it would not take much of a bend to make the shutters difficult to close and lock.
I would put my money on the failed attempt, or at least prior attempt. Not to say that an intentional action wasn't takrn here, I just don't think the kidnapper gave much thought to a louvered shutter being closed at Highfields in the winter.
Negative, the shutters have dogs.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Aug 11, 2006 10:20:07 GMT -5
<<<Negative, the shutters have dogs.>>> Kevkon You lost me here. Please explain. Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2006 15:47:39 GMT -5
I have spent many years studying this case. Like Michael, I am not inclined to simply give away years of work. Accordingly, while I am happy to tell you my conclusion, I prefer not to discuss the evidence supporting it. Sorry. ;D
Ok, so I am a sap and give it away. Shutter dogs are attached to the wall by the edge of an open shutter. Their purpose to keep the shutters securely against the wall so the wind doesn't bang them around. They come in many variations, though the most common is the " S" shaped style.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Aug 12, 2006 7:15:05 GMT -5
<<<Shutter dogs are attached to the wall by the edge of an open shutter. Their purpose to keep the shutters securely against the wall so the wind doesn't bang them around. They come in many variations, though the most common is the " S" shaped style.>>>
Ok, so you disagree with my "probably"' that they latched the shutters so as not to disturb Charlie. What do you make of Betty Gow's statement that: "We didn't lock the shutters as a precautionary measure, only to keep them closed. One of them was flapping in the wind, that's the only reason we close the shutter." ? Obviously, at least one of them was making some noise.
Mjr
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2006 10:03:22 GMT -5
Kevin, do you know if these types of shutters when installed, normally end up being fully flush with the wall when in an opened position? If so, I don't understand how this would overly stress the hinges and / or their assemblies. I could be mistaken here, but form at least one photo, it appears the shutters may not have been installed to open absolutely flush against the wall. The position of the shutter dogs, a few inches out from the wall, would be a good way of arresting any natural "spring back" action of the shutters if they were offset this way by design. So if the shutters were not flush, I can see how the forward force of the ladder might exert a levering effect on the hinges. Having said that, I would also think the shutter slats would probably have broken before the metal hinges would have deformed. I guess all of this is hard to say not really being in a position to accurately recreate the possibility you raise. We may need to call in the Mythbusters at some point in this case. Thanks for this, Mjr. I hadn't realized at least one of the shutters was prone to moving around this freely. As an investigator, I would have asked why the shutter dogs weren't used to arrest the problem shutter(s) on the night of March 1. Why leave them in a closed yet unbolted position, knowing they might start swinging around later on? I also wonder if Betty might have been referring here to any free movement of the shutters in their position between the dogs and the wall on windy nights.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 12, 2006 14:50:48 GMT -5
Here's a "Mom reason" for closing the shutters. To keep the light out, so the baby doesn't wake up ready and rarin' to go at the crack of dawn! Don't you fellows know nuthin'?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2006 15:10:15 GMT -5
Joe, the shutters are never flush with a wall they always stand proud . This is especially true with a stone wall and its' irregular surface. So in effect what you have at Highfields is that the outer back edge of the shutter makes contact with the wall at some point where the stone projects the most and the hinge side is clear of the wall completely. Now when a load, such as a ladder, is placed against it you , in effect, have three load points, the part of the shutter making contact with the wall and at the two hinges. In reality I suspect that such a load would cause the shutter to deflect until a fourth contact point is created at the wall. Once again, try and bear in mind that these louvered shutters and the strap pintle hinges are not designed to resist this type of loading, The wrought hinges are only designed to carry the load of the shutter. Since they are the long type, I believe it is more than possible for the to have been tweaked a little under the stress of such a horizontal load. It would not require much to effectively cause a mis-alignment to occur when the shutters are in the closed position. The Myth- Busters would be more than welcome, especially if they bring that dummy of theirs.
Mairi, I agree that is the only reason I can see for closing those shutters. But why didn't they just say so? I have always heard the wind explanation, and as Joe said, it makes no sense if you can't latch those shutters. I don't know exactly how windy it was that night, but even a moderate wind is going to rattle those two unlatched shutters.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 12, 2006 21:39:18 GMT -5
[Why didn't they just say so?] Maybe because Moms and Nannies are expected to be all June Cleaver-ish and not say "So the baby doesn't wake up so by darned EARLY".
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2006 22:16:09 GMT -5
Perhaps, but I am wondering if there isn't something else going on, something that might explain a few mysteries.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2006 11:25:51 GMT -5
I agree. Why wasn't the shutter secured by the "dog?" Do we have a "warped" shutter and a broken "dog" too? And if this is the case, why shut all the shutters instead of just the problematic one?
Something else I have a problem with is Betty saying the dog, Whagoosh, with "with her."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2006 12:36:56 GMT -5
Well, the shutter dog is not broken as I can clearly see in the photo of the man at the ladder. In the photo it ( the dog) is in the locked position, so obviously it was fully functional. Now another oddity, I had thought that the shutters at Highfields were outfitted with the slide type shutter latch, or bolt, but I was wrong. They are in fact equipped with the rotating catch type latches. These type of latches pivot around a mounting screw and fall into two "u" shaped receivers on the opposite shutter, The reason I find this odd is that previously , when I believed the slide latch was on the shutters it was understandable that shutter was not able to be latched as those latches require a more precise fit. However, the pivot type latch has much more leeway and can even latch the shutter without being fully engaged ( it just has to catch the edge of the opposite shutter).
What I am wondering about this whole shutter closing episode is if it does not indicate some prior knowledge or , perhaps, tangible fear of a kidnap. I will readily admit that I am not a fan of big conspiracy theories. I know some, Rick for example, seem to be comfortable with large participant conspiracies. I am not. I just can't believe that such a large human chain isn't going to have a weak link somewhere. It's just too complicated and carries too many entanglements. But what if some of the actions at Highfields which appear to be suspicious and unexplainable are , in fact, the result of covering up a serious mistake in judgment? What if there was a previous attempt or the observation of some type of suspicious behavior and the decision was made not to contact the police or notify someone? It is just a preliminary thought and I admit I have no evidence, but it might explain a lot of the actions taken that night along with the shielding of the staff members.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2006 16:50:49 GMT -5
Are you sure? Lt. Keaton told Agent Sisk they had "heavy slide bolts" which would support your previous position.
I like the angle of thinking outside of the March 1st kidnapping to explain, or attempt to explain, suspicious behavior....
Gow did say, in essence, the thought of a kidnapping had crossed her mind for the first time when she was in Maine. Like you said earlier - why not simply say this was the motivator?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2006 17:08:24 GMT -5
Under magnification the right shutter has the "u" shaped receivers that are typically used with a swing latch. Unfortunately the left shutter is too blurry to make out clearly. I would expect to see the slide bolt on these type shutters and that is what I always assumed. I wonder if those shutters aren't sitting up in the attic or down in the basement of Highfields right now.
Either way, the essential point is why close louvered shutters in the winter, especially if you can't secure them. Regarding Mairi's point about the sun, I think that is valid, but I do remember a dressing screen in the nursery. Also, and this is a guess, I would think that the child would be sleeping during the day and would be checked on in the early AM anyway due to his condition. I just get the feeling that the effort of closing these shutters had some other untold purpose.
BTW if you look at the photo I posted on the Ladder Building thread you may see that closing these shutters is not an easy task, especially on a cold and rainy night. Look at the latch location, it is slightly above the meeting rails of the double hung window. So to close these shutters at those two locations one would have to lift up the bottom sash, lean out the window ( not so easy with the sill and obstructions) undo the shutter dog, swing it closed, and then either squeeze you hand between the sash rail and the shutter or close the bottom sash and open the upper sash in order to get at the latch. So, although it is not a triathlon, there is some degree of work involved. I would say there must have been an equal degree of need.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2006 18:35:28 GMT -5
If I can get my silly scanner to work, I'll try to post a clearer version of that same picture Kevin. If I'm not mistaken, that is a slide bolt assembly. You're right about the degree of play though; it looks like it would be pretty minimal if there was any warpage or deformation in the hinge assembly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 14, 2006 7:22:35 GMT -5
Thanks Joe. You know I think I might be able to prove that the shutter was not warped, or at least that warpage would not keep the latch from working. In fact I think only one thing could keep the latch from engaging the receiver, and that would be a mis-alignment of the two shutters ( or at the latch and its' mate). Think about it, if one of the shutters is warped, it is essentially no longer flat. But with swinging shutters that should not keep them from latching. In fact that is why somewhat loose fitting hardware is used on shutters in the first place. All one does to latch a warped shutter is align both of the sutters at the latch ( mid-shutter) and slide ( or swing) the bolt into its' mate. It doesn't matter if the tops or bottoms don't align or meet together perfectly, only that the latch location does.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 14, 2006 7:47:51 GMT -5
Kevin, I'm starting to think this whole issue about the warped shutter might have simply arisen because it was not known for certain why the bolt couldn't be engaged. Perhaps this was just the best guess on the part of someone from the house.
Theorizing a bit more about the possibility the hinge was deformed, is it possible this could also have been done by someone in the house forcibly trying to close them and align the bolt closure assembly? Or if the shutter dogs had not been engaged during the week while the Lindberghs were in Englewood and the shutters were banging around enough to cause them to become misaligned?
I might be mistaken here but I believe this problem was noted soon after the Lindberghs began living there on weekends.
BTW Michael, I tried to insert the image of the shutters but it looks like my capability format has changed from the last time I inserted an image. Can you assist?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 14, 2006 8:10:50 GMT -5
That would be fine Joe, except those shutters were extensively examined by the police. In fact they were removed sometime after the kidnapping. I doubt there would be any deep mystery as to why such a simple mechanism failed to work. Perhaps Michael or the ever helpful Mark Falzini know what became of them.
I wouldn't rule out anything, but this seems unlikely to me. If there was a need to exert such force on the shutters, then the problem already existed.
This is the first I have heard of this. That would imply that closing the shutters was a routine. It is hard for me to believe that with such an extremely important client, the builder wouldn't have responded immediately. I know I would have ( in fact I would have jumped).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2006 20:38:49 GMT -5
Simply use the "browse" button to upload your photo then copy the link you want to add to the post. Sometimes if the photo is "large" (over 100kbs) it won't work. If this is the case try using your paint program and sketch/skew to resize. Also, there is always our original host, and I see Kevin has been using it lately so I know that should work as well: www.imagecabin.com/A little tip in our Members section here: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=members&action=display&thread=1141438460Let me know if you still have any trouble Joe.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 2, 2006 11:50:30 GMT -5
I keep going over and over the "warped" shutter situation and I just can't get it to work. The only way I can get those shutters to be unlatchable is to bend one of the hinges and cause a mis alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2006 12:59:29 GMT -5
So warp-age won't prevent the lock from working? When a shutter "warps" what does it do? Bow inward or outward? Help me picture this in my mind. Maybe they were just using the wrong terminology. Perhaps it was never attached correctly in the first place...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 2, 2006 16:09:39 GMT -5
Well, here's the thing. When a shutter warps it may bow or it may twist. Now in a situation such as a common door where there is a stop, such bowing or twisting may keep the door latch from aligning with the strike plate. In effect what is happening is the door contacts the stop at some point other than the latch position and so is held out making the latch engagement impossible. But with regard to the shutters a different condition exists. Here there is no stop, and the latch and receiver are both free to move independently of each other. So if one (or both) of the shutters are warped (either twisted or bowed) you are still able to align the latch and receiver. The only way that the latch would not be able to be engaged would be if the latch was improperly installed ( meaning it never was "latch able") or if the hinge arm was bent and thus caused the latch and receiver to be out of alignment. In that case you simply would not be able to fully engage the latch ( slide the bolt into the receiving catch) because they no longer line up in the vertical axis.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 25, 2006 6:51:31 GMT -5
I am starting to wonder if everyone ( especially me) has been looking at the shutter closing situation from the wrong perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 25, 2006 7:40:18 GMT -5
What's on your mind here?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 25, 2006 15:37:52 GMT -5
Well as WC referred to in one of my favorite movies, Double Indemnity, that little man in my gut has always kicked regarding the whole shutter closing affair. It just doesn't sit right with me (or him). That is, at least, in respect to providing some sort of protection from the elements. As I said a while back, this is tantamount to closing the screens in the winter. And it seems so out of place in a house where no window shades are drawn. However, if we look at the shutter closing from the outside perspective there may be some rationale for it. Could it be that the shutters were a signal or a marker for the kidnappers? the real shame of all of this is that the " fixed as best I could" statement regarding the so-called warped shutter was not investigated further. What exactly does that statement mean. Were those shutters ajar? Were they fully closed and partially latched? Not latched at all? If we knew the exact configuration of those lost shutters on that night, prior to the discovery of the missing child, we might be able to ascertain whether or not the kidnappers could determine the entry possibilities to that nursery.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 25, 2006 18:05:10 GMT -5
Yes! Great post Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 25, 2006 21:23:55 GMT -5
We must also remember that Mrs. Morrow backs up this story in her statement: I remember that I tried to fasten the shutters of the corner window in the nursery directly above the corner window of the library and I could not bolt the shutters although I closed them. My daughter told me at the time that the shutters were warped and could not be bolted on that particular window. So we see her too saying the shutters had an existing condition and she is trying to close them on Feb 6th - a cold night. However, the report does not say whether or not she locked the window but I'll bet she did in order to seal it. I would guess that there had to be some existing situation to, at least initially, satisfy the Police. We see in the pictures their examination of the area before the shutter was removed. Is it possible they found but didn't make comment concerning a contradiction in this story anywhere? Or is it possible they simply did not check out this particular angle taking the families word on it (as exemplified with the female footprint evidence). Or was it just overlooked because they were more concerned with the ladder, etc. I don't know. I have to believe the shutter wasn't "right" whether it was by warp-age or some other cause. It still could have been used as a signal of some sort but these people just had to know the slide bolt wasn't engaged and the window was unlocked.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 26, 2006 6:02:46 GMT -5
Michael, I don't know which is stranger; closing the louvered shutters in the winter or closing the shutters in the winter when you know they won't latch. Remember also that this isn't the easiest of operations to perform, especially on a cold and windy night. And to boot, the corner window has a table and suitcase to move. So the rationale behind opening the windows fully in order to close a louvered shutter that can't be latched on a cold, wet, & windy March night in a Nursery with a sick child is what?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 10, 2006 7:18:50 GMT -5
|
|