|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2006 20:00:32 GMT -5
The fingerprint investigation was very lengthy. When Kelly arrived, he dusted the window sill, window, and nursery note. He found no prints at all. This is important because the glass on that window should have had multiple prints on them. In fact, by the end of March 2nd - no prints of any kind had yet been discovered. On March 14th, Kelly used the same black powder on several "playthings" known to have been handled by Charles Jr. and developed prints. The report I have in front of me doesn't specify where these items were. They could have been in the nursery... I believe I have a report that specifies where they were but I haven't been able to locate it yet. Kelly "powdered" the crib on March 15th and found some prints. (24) photos of these prints were taken. Regardless, I don't think this affects the point concerning why no prints existed on the window sill, and window. And it clears up any argument that Kelly didn't know what he was doing or that the black powder method did not work. Fingerprints on non-porous surfaces such as metal, plastic, and glass can last for many years if not exposed to water and if left undisturbed. This is a good point Joe and very true. But consider that Kelly raised those prints on wooden toys that were painted yellow and red then consider the sill was touched later then the child touched those toys...just as a "control" to this position because it doesn't apply to the glass window of course. Different method and shouldn't be compared...that is unless Dr. Hudson attempted this method on the sill. I think he did but I'll have to double check if you are interested. This certainly doesn't explain the lack of prints in the immediate area of the kidnap window. Are we to assume they cleaned them after the kidnap out of habit? Remember how concerned Lindy was about the ransom note and fingerprints.... I also wanted to mention that Bill Leahy and Tony Hauck brought Lt. Hick's into the mix in late May '32. He went to Highfields and dusted for prints using both Silver Nitrate and Powder. Sworn Testimony of Robert Waverly Hicks:[Q]: Betty Gow was who sir? : She was the nurse in charge of the baby and the one that found it missing. Now, the thing Is I worked on the articles in there and the building blocks and books, and so forth. In addition to that, I was lacking the thumb prints. I had the most difficulty with the little fingers and the thumb prints. The thumb prints I found, they had a smudge like on them so I went out in the hall here where this banister is right off from the nursery here, figuring, psychologically speaking, that a baby 20 months old would grab something like that and, I assume, rock back and forth, and I was able to dust off the prints of the thumbs.
[Q]: The banister that protected the child -- : The landing banister.
[Q]: The landing banister? : Yes, or railing.
[Q]: Were they painted, sir? : Yes. Light shellac was on it or varnish, light in color.
[Q]: What process did you use on that, the powder or silver nitrate? : I had to use powder on that.....
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 19, 2006 20:18:31 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for the detailed response. What I find to be most unsetlling is that anyone other than an intruder, would have felt the need to wipe down the nursery, with the intention of removing all prints, when this very action by itself, would ultimately attract suspicion. It was Lindbergh who cautioned against touching the envelope. Does this in itself not imply he was already on the wavelength that the nursery would surely be dusted for evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2006 5:39:52 GMT -5
There are several ways of looking at it....
Lindbergh's action was reasonable. It could be he is just wanting the Police to find evidence.
However, I look at other of his actions and find them not to be. So I ask myself why is he being reasonable here and not elsewhere? What is the cause of his inconsistencies?
Next, I take my life's experiences and apply them everywhere else. It's something I do in order to gauge certain things.... Doesn't always hold true but I like the options it provides me to at least consider. For example, when you get Inmates who "tell" or "tip-off" staff about another Inmate doing something illegal.... sometimes this is a purposeful distraction technique to divert attention away from whatever they are doing which is illegal. They attempt to gain your confidence so that they are trusted and never suspected themselves.
CAL was not a Cop. It could be that he never considered them to be suspicious of not finding ANY prints there. Sometimes people out-think themselves in situations they just aren't familiar with. It's called "over-kill" and I do see that here with these missing fingerprints.
Someone removed them from that area. Was it the Kidnapper(s) or their "inside connection?" Was it someone simply fearing they would be suspected because their prints were there - but didn't have anything to do with the crime?
We've got enough intelligent thinkers here to come up with some ideas which may work. If they don't then we can eliminate them.
What do you think happened here Joe?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 20, 2006 10:34:47 GMT -5
Looking at the window picture taken by Kelley I would ask where you would expect to find prints if the kidnapper wore gloves and the nursery was relatively new and clean. I would say that opening and closing that double hung window which was new and free would not require much effort. Also , as I said before, try opening a double hung window with no pulls. You would use your palm under the lock rail to push up and open the window and your finger joints on the top of the lock rail to pull it closed. Neither would leave discernible prints. Also look closely at the front right corner of the suitcase in this photo and compare it closely with the opposite corner. It looks to me as there is some deformation which has occurred from compression. www.imagecabin.com/?view=11455466936b2cda67fcabe641637a4a32a0476266
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2006 12:27:01 GMT -5
Michael, this is one of those scenarios I have to dwell on until something more concrete emerges. I am baffled by the spectre that the nursery would have been "sanitized" for some kind of conspiracy purpose. If this was the case, it would seem totally self-defeating not to go back afterwards and lay down a "normal distribution" of prints after removing whoevers prints you didn't want discovered, assuming that was the reason. I believe there is a simpler explanation and that it has more to do with a perceived requirement on the part of the Lindberghs for a cleaner and germ-free environment for the baby, perhaps for a condition they didn't care to divulge or were not clear about at that point in the child's development. Kevin also makes good points about where the windows would have been touched for opening and closing and the lack of identifiable prints from other surfaces.
All of the other relevant physical evidence, especially the ladder, it's irrefutable connection to Hauptmann's attic, as well as the individual accounts given by members of the two households, tells me this was a real planned kidnapping from the outside, but with information somehow gleaned from the inside.
Kevin, I can't recognize any compression on the right side of the suitcase. I do notice the right side is basically 90 degrees to the angle of the picture being taken and the left side is more angular. This is not a symmetrical representation, and I think it's difficult to tell conclusively. I would also think the corners would be much stronger load bearing locations and would not be as easy to compress. But they might also be avoided in the event that pressure on them might cause the suitcase to go flying.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 20, 2006 12:54:30 GMT -5
Joe, if you have a high resolution copy of this photo and enlarge the suitcase it appears that the right corner bracket is compressed below the surface (top) of the suitcase while the others are raised above the top as they should be for protection. I think I must take an even more extreme position on the kidnapping crime scene as I am not convinced inside aid or info was required. And I really don't see any point to removing fingerprints, especially if the kidnapper wore gloves. How many surfaces in that room would he have to touch which would yield identifiable latents? Once again what logic is there in "cleansing" this room if one is making the argument for inside help?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2006 16:01:25 GMT -5
I've been thinking about Kevin's theory concerning a "head-first" entrance into the nursery. We know by the source reports that a smudge of mud was found on the suitcase. It was assumed it was from a foot but there's no evidence to suggest it couldn't have been from a - say - hand in a muddy glove.
The photo Kevin posted was taken on 3-2-32. I don't see what he sees but I believe him. What we don't know is if anyone leaned on this suitcase while examining the area. There is no mention of it in the reports. My guess is that it could have been made when the mark was made but that's just a guess. It's ashame the reports don't back it up but at least its now out there for us to consider.
Now concerning the lack of fingerprints....Sometimes the best argument is one that "makes" itself.
We have (3) options regarding this situation if you believe there was no inside help.
1. The Kidnapper(s) wore gloves 2. The Kidnapper(s) did not wear gloves. 3. The Kidnapper(s) took the gloves off sometime during the commission of the crime.
Now Kevin takes the position that opening and closing this window would "leave no discernible prints." I disagree for many reasons. This position assumes no one ever touched this window, or if they had - the window and the surrounding area had been cleaned after the fact but before the "kidnapping." This position assumes that using one's palms would leave no prints, and this simply is not true. This position assumes that fingers did not touch the top when closing but only "finger joints" and I say that's just not possible.
Any part of the hand leaves prints to include the palm. Palms leave partials and while these partials may not be enough to make a conclusive identification they're still there. This window had none - nothing on them. Not partials, not smudges - absolutely nothing.
Today, the Latent Print Units of most Law Enforcement Agencies process evidence by comparing latent fingerprints and palm prints found on evidence. And while I understand completely that treated or painted wood isn't the best situation for prints, as seen above, they were being found on like surfaces - elsewhere.
If the house was so clean, how does one explain the prints of Charles Jr. being found on the hallway rails in late May? Only the nursery window is supposed to have a daily cleaning?
Whether or not you believe there was inside help shouldn't affect the debate concerning these obvious facts. They need to be explained.
I don't want to go into the ladder here, but its certainly not "irrefutable" especially when the Experts all use less definite terms. That's coming from Kelvin who is not an Expert, and I think Kevin has clearly upset any rock solid conclusion Kelvin made about Hauptmann going up into his attic and sawing away at that floorboard (if it was there in the first-place). Regardless, I don't see what that has to do with missing fingerprints on and around the "kidnap" window.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2006 7:50:37 GMT -5
Michael a question for you regarding prints. Given the concave molding profile found on the window sash would you say that a print would register?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2006 19:44:37 GMT -5
First let me say again that I am not a fingerprint expert. I have printed and dusted in the past (years ago) as a training exercise but everything else that I've learned comes strictly from research on my own time.
Now, I look at that window and I suggest that someone may open or close it differently then the next person. They may even open or close it differently themselves at different times. I believe if Anne and Betty had just opened and closed this window then parts of their fingers and palms came into contact with this area.
There are very few patterned skinned areas on the human body but the underside of the hands are among those places. The patterned skin takes the form of ridges. These ridges contain pores, and sweat glands. These ridge also form distinctive patterns.
If someone touched the glass then a print would have been found. Whether or not the ridge count would have been sufficient to identify who made it is irrelevant because Kelly found absolutely nothing. If someone touched the window molding this too would have left prints. New wood with fresh paint which is kept clean should be a very favorable spot for someone dusting within just a few hours of it being touched.
Again - absolutely nothing. No indication of any prints were found there.
Cross this with Lt. Hick's efforts I mentioned above. He had trouble finding good thumb prints - but he was finding them...just not workable - that's important. So we are to believe this window was absolutely devoid of prints, any prints at all, only hours after being touched but that other like areas dusted days, weeks, and months later yielded prints, print smudges, and partials - which dated back to at least March 1st.
I am open to any suggestions but to say we wouldn't expect any there is something contrary to the totality of the circumstances.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 21, 2006 20:24:57 GMT -5
Michael, I use the word irrefutable because this is what I conclude from the ladder and attic wood evidence. I have no problems accepting as bedrock baseline that Rail 16 came from Hauptmann's attic floor. Whether he took it up himself is a secondary point, the primary point is that it came from the floor's original toe board.
I also don't want to sidetrack the thread but I disagree with your assessment of Kelvin's level of expertise as it applies to both the general nature as well as the intricacies of this evidence. I believe he qualifies as an expert on the subject, and that he has clearly demonstrated there is no need to have a string of letters and degrees tacked along after his name.
My point about the ladder having been built by Hauptmann was simply an ancillary point to counter the theory that because no identifiable prints were found in the nursery, an inside conspiracy involving direct participation by members of the household, had taken place.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2006 20:42:26 GMT -5
Knowledgeable - absolutely. Expert - no.
Experts do not ignore forensic guidelines and yes one does need these letters because it proves they studied the subject enough and understood it in order to earn them. I don't want to side-track this thread either but his position on the planer marks alone prove he is not above the level of novice on that angle.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2006 12:10:37 GMT -5
Joe , I don't mean to interject here but I would have to say I agree with Michael on this point . I have been called as an expert witness (construction) in a trial . And while I agree with Kelvins' work and more importantly understand the complexity of planer/machine marks( as well as agreeing with his conclusions) I would not be able to testify to such as an expert. There is an entire science of tool marking forensics which goes well beyond the admirable work Kelvin performed. That is why I have concentrated on the mechanics of this ladder and have tried to do some failure analysis, because this is an area which I feel more qualified as well as one sadly ignored. Once again, and I know Michael has expressed the same thought, Kelvin has done an admirable job and can only be commended for his diligence.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 22, 2006 14:52:49 GMT -5
Kevin...i am boosting your Karma points for a terrific observation!! In 1935 Arthur Koehler was confirmed as a wood expert...not a tool mark/machinist expert! EM Davis was the brains behind the scenes on tool and planar marks. Koehlers expertise was in wood anatomy and species ID. Nevertheless, Koehler went on and on under the promting/leading questions of AG Wilintz to testify on matters he was in no ways trained to answer! AK is busted.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 22, 2006 19:07:00 GMT -5
I can accept the points made about the qualifications required in officially being called a forensic tool mark expert and I fully respect the investment of hard work and dedication in the pursuit of higher learning. At the same time, important discoveries and the advancing of the truth in this case should not be and will not, be limited to "experts" alone. I think even the experts would agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by steve for joe on Apr 23, 2006 7:49:14 GMT -5
dontforget, kelvin backed his research with experts. i feel the planer marks are very compelling. and mike saying koehler wasnt qualified to testify on any angle f the wood is crazy. look at the defense witnesses on the wood. a complete meltdown
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2006 8:25:28 GMT -5
Kevin is right. Time and time again and again I have praised Keraga for his research. It seems like some sort of tactic for those who are against any type of challenge towards it to paint those Challenger's as claiming the report is "invalid." It's important to read everything I write very carefully in order not to be misled about what I say. Now, I have pointed out some legitimate problems I have with it, and for this I have been attacked. I have a problem with that.... I think I also have a problem with someone who slams people for "speculation" and then speculates themselves. As we see, based upon just the planer-mark issue alone, Keraga does what he condemns others for doing: Question [Melsky]: Why isn’t there a written report on the defects from the planing experts in the report?
Answer [Keraga]: I honestly didn’t think it was necessary. Maybe I’m too close to this, but once I found the thin scratchlike groove aligning on all of the boards, the consistent one-in-six offset, and the rectangular defects on Boards A, Board 26 and Rail 16, I thought, well that’s that. Because it is so compelling all by itself. I thought that researchers would get this. (December 18, 2005 CL) Another important quote from him: Many people have seen this right away. Some don’t. But the logic is inescapable, really. And one doesn’t need a Forensic Tool Mark Examiner to see it, although you do have to spend some time understanding the complexity of the planing procedure and the amount of variance that is possible. This is why I say it is obvious. (December 18, 2005 CL)
Here I see a clear attempt to evade the proper methods by claiming they aren't needed and then proceed to act outside the scope of his abilities. It does not work this way. This above statement is proof-positive Keraga does not understand the complexities surrounding this Science. There are guidelines for collection and identification of tool mark evidence. He did not follow them, and was not qualified to do what he did in his report. His conclusions on this aspect of his report is drawn upon what he thinks is adequate from his personal observations. Tool Mark examination is a serious science. It requires, at the very least, a two-year full time training program under the direction of an experienced tool mark examiner. It requires proper techniques and equipment to be employed and utilized by these experts... Guidelines (p122): www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/handbook/forensics.pdf Ranges of conclusions: www.swggun.org/guidelines_elimination.htmThis should be a reminder that egos and hurt feelings are counter-productive when trying to get to the bottom of this case. We simply cannot afford to quickly dismiss ideas because they don't fall in-line with our own theories AND if we have a nagging point about our own positions we cannot avoid discussing them or "tucking" those points away hoping no one else stumbles upon them. Nothing in Keraga's report is "secondary" in my opinion because he tries to tie in each and every point with the next. If he is taking liberties with one point how on earth do we know for sure if he didn't with another? Steve - That was Rick's point and I think he's done a little more research on Keohler and Davis then most of us. And another thing... Certain sections of the report seem to be "backed-up" while others aren't. The report includes quotes in these areas which support the findings in that area. However, there are important questions to be asked that I do not see mentioned in the report. For example, I asked one of those experts mentioned if they would go to court and testify to this report without seeing the wood themselves. The answer? NO.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2006 9:54:02 GMT -5
I can understand that a forensic tool mark examiner would decline to testify at a trial to the validity of Kel's findings on the planer marks, without first examining the physical evidence directly. I'd like nothing more than to see a formal study by a truly impartial, trained and well respected individual, directed entirely towards the truth behind those planer marks.
There is no agenda or party line factor within my own argument that these planer marks are as obvious to the eyes as they need to be, in order to recognize yet one more compelling link between Rail 16 and Hauptmann's attic floor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2006 10:10:25 GMT -5
I was referring to one of those Experts mentioned within Keraga's report. I find that especially important when considering the "conclusiveness" of his findings as told within the report. We are lead through the report as if it proves everything within it conclusively.
The tool mark experts are a different point altogether.
I think overall his report is something every Researcher should see and consider. It's important. However, we can't lose sight of the fact this report is presented ex parte. There are certain points and/or facts which get omitted from consideration and for me its pretty clear why. Now, whether you find them valid or not is a matter for you to decide but you should have them available to consider nevertheless.
We must consider what's omitted from the report, find what is opinion rather then fact, and realize it seems to be prepared in the name of Science but omits Science when deemed "unnecessary" but its author.
My style of looking at all evidence is to leave no (reasonable) stone unturned. If I see a legitimate problem to a solution of whatever is being debated I will raise that problem - it would be reckless not to.
Again, acknowledging there is a potential problem or legitimate question surrounding this aspect of this study is not a defeat. These types of problems need to be worked out, addressed, and resolved. This applies to all sides of the debate. Admitting mistakes, or the possibility that one could exist shows character not weakness.
|
|
|
Post by steve for mike on Apr 23, 2006 11:26:18 GMT -5
of course there not going to testify without looking at the evidence. i think kels report answers most of my questions, plus being in the attic and seeing firsthand that its the same wood as rail 16 is compelling to me. i conclude this evidence was not faked. thats my take after reading and looking at the wood evidence from all angles
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2006 7:30:48 GMT -5
I accept your position Steve but that's not what this is all about. The idea that some neutral person conducted this research free and clear of all bias and/or prejudice which revealed everything and it all pointed to the conclusion just isn't so. If it were I would have nothing to say. Then to call its Author an "expert" is just outlandish in my opinion.
I have had numerous problems with this evidence. Keraga's research (as contained within his summary report) seems to answer some of these problems but also seems to have created some more. When I ask legitimate questions concerning forensics and get the type of answer I rec'd above then my faith in the document as a whole slips down a couple of notches. It also seems to draw anger, as if I shouldn't be raising them which of course is completely absurd...
Now, that's not to say parts, if not all, is correct.
I just don't like the conclusions based partly some scientific evidence, and partly on guess-work but portrayed as science - all the while attempting to discredit those who speculate. Additionally, I am a fan of ALL the evidence being revealed in a research project such as this. If an Expert cited tells you they would need to see the wood to say conclusively what's in the report - that should be in the report. If the Author isn't aware the Expert feels this way ( and I don't know how this could be true ) then he isn't asking all the relevant questions - which brings me back to one of my recent points above made since we went off on this tangent.
Kevin and Rab's observations are a perfect example. They suggested the Electrician removed the piece of wood missing from S-226. Kevin mentioned this on Allen's board and Keraga quickly dismissed it based upon, I assume, Rauch's testimony (as contained in what was emailed to me). This again proves my point. If anyone did their homework they would know that testimony isn't true. Now, if I hadn't met up with Kevin then its possible he would have accepted this and never mentioned his theory again. This idea to shrug off and fail to research those angles which may upset your ideas and theories do not bring us closer to the truths of the case.
In any event, Kevin and Rab theory seems very likely if S-226 was in that attic and explains away many problems which most of us have with this evidence. So while we have a CourtTV program which will show that Hauptmann DID go into his attic and saw this floorboard, we here will know - more then ever - how unlikely that really is.
Maybe I am the only one...but to me its very important to get it right.
Now Joe's suggestion that its a "secondary point" may or may not hold true but we must not abandon the approach of getting the facts correct first and foremost. I think its best to draw conclusions as to what's primary or secondary after all the real facts fall into place.
And not just what we want to be the facts.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2006 8:29:24 GMT -5
As I have stated, I have no doubt that the rail and floorboard were once one. That belief is based more on wood anatomy than machining marks. What Michael is saying regarding the identification of tool marks is absolutely true. Essentially we are looking at frequency and not amplitude. Also all of these reports leave out important information regarding the wood machining process. I agree with Kelvin's assertions and conclusion, but at the same time found several exclusions and what I would call over simplifications that were troubling. I would add this, analysis of any wood machining is probably more complicated than it would appear due to the incredible variation of nature and the human factor of processing this wood. Here is an example, presently I have a large cabinet job which has required a lot of machine planing. I put new blades on the planer at the start, now after many hundred of feet of hard maple being run through the blades are ready to be changed. If you look at the wood run through this planer from start to finish you would have a hard time saying it was all from the same machine as these blades became nicked and dull. Now the speed and feed rates did not change, but the way I fed the wood through did due to the changing quality of the blades. A forensic tool examiner would know what to look for here and be able from experience to differentiate between these variations.
|
|
|
Post by steve romeo on Apr 24, 2006 13:17:43 GMT -5
well, if you have questions on the wood, you should do what gardner should have done, get a team in there with experts to examine the wood. i strongly feel hauptmann sawed that board and put it in the ladder. people question this and ask why would he do this when he had plenty of wood in his garage? how do weknow what he had in 32? we searched the garage 2 and one half years later. this was a big mistake for hauptmann
|
|
|
Post by rita on Apr 26, 2006 0:14:54 GMT -5
Bursting the bubble Even leather or rubber gloves would leave prints of any pour or mold pattern on glass in wet weather. It is very unlikly that anyone went through the window that rainy day.
|
|
|
Post by steve for mike on Apr 26, 2006 5:30:12 GMT -5
thats the problem. i feel kel did his research without bias or predijuce.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2006 5:41:54 GMT -5
Rita,
Honestly, I can't say other "marks" did not exist. One of my main problems is the fact no prints, partials, or ridge count whatsoever were found there. Even if Elsie had cleaned that nursery top to bottom that very day we would expect some ridge marks to be raised.
Now I wouldn't expect the Kidnapper(s) to have touched the window from the inside - they shouldn't have any reason to have done so....unless to stop the wind and pressure from the others taking notice that an open window in the house was creating a problem.... But we do know that Betty and Anne had touched and opened the window so they would have left prints, partials, or ridge counts somewhere on that window or molding.
However, you have raised another variable - wet gloves.
Kevin's theory that whoever went through the window would have done so head-first is something I think which has been overlooked all of these years. If only (2) sections were employed then a "pull-up" was necessary and not much room at all for a "high-leg" over. Now with wet gloves there's no way someone would try that.
So now unless (3) sections were used to gain entrance then I must go with a "head-first" entry. This means the smudge of mud on the suitcase had to come from hand if its made going in. I say if its made with a foot going out then mud would have existed on the floor coming from the crib and no Investigator saw that.
We would then expect to see mud in the crib from these muddy wet gloved hands. No mention of this, in fact Kelly doesn't see this either - only Gow's trial preparation statement in '35 is this fact ever mentioned.
But we have this ransom note which doesn't appear to have been either wet or muddy on either the inside or outside.
We know the ladder was up against the side of the house in at least (2) sections at one time. We also know a chunk of mud existed on the top of the first floor shutter, which for me, indicates someone had either their muddy foot or hand there at one time.
This scenario is a pitfall. Each and every time I run it down through my head any means employed turns into quick-sand.
This isn't a normal situation.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 26, 2006 6:53:57 GMT -5
This is exactly why I encourage a re-creation. Too bad Court TV punted on this, even Kelvin's modified ladder would have revealed much about the entry possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Apr 26, 2006 15:17:05 GMT -5
The 3rd section of the ladder could have had mud on it and been placed on the shutter, then realizing the ladder was much to long to be used this way, the ladder taken back down and the 3rd section removed before replacing the 2 sections that were used. This could account for the mud on the shutter.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Apr 26, 2006 15:47:46 GMT -5
Going up a wet wooden ladder with either robber or leather glove would have made the gloves very wet because the wooden ladder surface is holding water in a slippery wet condition. With the wet gloves on as necessary to leave no fingerprints Michael points out a real mystery of the dry un-smudged ransom note. A person that entered through the window with such wet condition would have been soaking wet as the siding would even be wet loading the kidnaper's clothing. Did CAL place the ransom note for some reason?
There are many explanations that can force peoples actions in unusual circumstances, for example if the child had been taken earlier, but CAL was later telephoned and given instructions where to find or pick up instructions might explain the dry note.
Another explanation if the kidnapper is known, as some writers have suggested, and faking a kidnap note becomes necessary.
Another possibility is some covert operation CAl participated in caused the child to be held by adversaries with CAL knowing the reasons and consequences, making it necessary for him to set up the kidnap scenario in total.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2006 19:18:01 GMT -5
Steve,
That's a crock. You and I both know if someone is afraid another "group" of people are going to read something which may support their theory then the person afraid isn't neutral. Especially if the neutrality is years before the study is completed.
Elyssa,
I think the ladder being placed on top of the shutter would have been too dangerous a situation. I have always believed a foot was placed on top in order to center whomever was to rec'd the baby from someone handing him out of and down through the window to that persons waiting arms. Then I thought possibly someone "wiped" their foot on that shutter to shed the accumulated mud and now I am thinking its also possible a muddy hand could have left that behind. In any event I see it originating from someone who had been in the muddy yard and then on the ladder that night.
Rita,
I believe even if this note is inside of a coat - a muddy wet hand would have to place it where it was found. This adds to the mystery concerning exactly how this was done with a baby in one and on a (2) sectioned ladder and the ability to shut the window AND the note not being blown off the sill from the howling wind.
Leon Ho-age was always real big on the "inside connection" and false scenario that he believed existed here. From those of you who are unfamiliar: Ho-age was a PI who worked for Gov. Hoffman's re-investigation into the case. Ho-age's claim to fame was Insurance Fraud Investigation and noted that nearly 50% of all thefts and burglaries were inside jobs done for the insurance money. Rab was never too big on his abilities and felt because of his experiences with insurance fraud he was bias entering into this situation. While I have come to respect his investigative skills its hard to argue against Rab's point concerning bias.
Kevin,
A recreation of events would help a ton here. Maybe one day....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 26, 2006 21:40:59 GMT -5
Let me commend you all on an excellent string/thread. its not often we focus this much energy in one place and the tension is palpable. It never really occured to me that the note was so pristine after coming in out of the rain, wind, mud. the odd location of the note on the window ledge is legendary and was even mentioned by CJ according to Condon,and even the window ledge doesnt make sense either. More than one author has accused CAL of writing the Nursery Note and then leaving it in place because he knew the content and ....maybe wanted to give the perps time to escape. I always thought the note could have been delivered with the ladder as per a previous arrangement or "order" too. Although it doesnt have to be CAL that recieves and places the note on the window ledge--sadly it makes the most sense since "he is in charge", notices the note in an odd fashion, and then does not rip it open.
But there is another reason why CAl is connected to the note--the singnature/symbol with 3 holes can easily be attached to masonic ritual and CAL is the only Brother present that we know of. The vesica has been easily connected to Freemasonry and Sacred Geometry, as are the 3 pillars of Faith Hope and Love. I seriously wonder if the Symbol wasnt constructed specifically to draw the attention and cooperation of all Freemasons who would immediately recognise its form as the "signal" of one of their own in trouble or under attack? And as such provide aid and support for CALs control of the search? I think Schwarzkopf and Hoover would. Maybe multimillionaire Curtis as well?
|
|