|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 4, 2006 8:30:45 GMT -5
I am going to challenge something that many, if not most, people accept as a given in this case - the time of the crime.
The time is generally set at between 9:10 and 9:15. This is based entirely on Lindbergh's statement that as he sat in the living room with Anne he heard wood breaking. The sound, he said, was like the "slats of an orange box falling off a chair". At the time, and since, people have assumed that what he heard was the ladder breaking.
What he heard may have been the ladder. It may also have been a tree branch. It may also have been a loose shutter banging around in the wind. (IMHO, this is more consistent with the "slats of an orange box falling of a chair" than is the sound of a piece of lumber splitting.) What he heard may also have been his imagination - remember that Anne sitting right next to him did not hear it.
Because of the above, I do not think Lindbergh's claim about hearing wood break is sufficient to conclusively set the time of the crime at 9:10 - 9:15. That sets a much larger window of opportunity. It also allows for other scenarios for the kidnapping.
Comments?
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 4, 2006 8:49:11 GMT -5
No challenge to my thinking here. I believe the kidnapping took place over quite a long period of time starting with Lupica's car sighting and the Conover's sighting of the lights on Featherbed Lane. I believe the sound Lindbergh heard was the ladder " scissoring" together as it was removed by the kidnapper. The ladder breaking scenario just didn't happen, at least not on a climb. That sound, unless further damage was incurred such as a broken shutter etc, would not be very loud at all.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 4, 2006 9:46:04 GMT -5
<<I believe the sound Lindbergh heard was the ladder " scissoring" together as it was removed by the kidnapper. >> (Kevkon)
That still places the kidnapping at 9:10 - 9:15.
IMHO, what Lindbergh heard - if there was actually something to hear - may well have been totally unconnected to the kidnapping. The crime may well have been completed and the kidnapper gone by 9:10.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 4, 2006 11:37:09 GMT -5
Possibly, perhaps very possibly. But if he did hear what he said and it was related to the kidnapping I would put my money on it being the ladder slamming together as it is taken down. I have broken two ladders and the noise is insignificant, although the wood debris is not. However, accidentally losing my grip on the ladder and allowing it to fold together and fall makes a very distinct and loud noise. BTW it also caused the rails to break at the dowel holes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2006 11:42:17 GMT -5
While I'm still working on the Samuelsohn issue, I could resist throwing in my "two cent" on this thread. Let me simply say what's on my mind here.... I do not trust a word Lindbergh says. He lied about trusting Condon. He lied about his dog not being a barker. He lied concerning his earwitness account. etc. His recollection of hearing this sound came days later after originally claiming he heard nothing. I believe Ellis Parker nailed down the right time-line. It appears that Mrs. Henry Conover may have seen the same car Lupica did. She saw this dark colored sedan with a single driver at 3 o'clock near Wertsville Road. Then at approximately 6:30 or 7:00PM, the Conover family saw a car pull into Featherbed Lane and extinguish its lights. The condition of the road was so muddy and poor that they thought it may have been stuck. Shortly after interviewing Lupica who saw the car around 6PM, Parker then interviewed the Moore family who saw a car "at 22 or 23 minutes after 8, it was windy and this car went by. The lights looked as if they were splashed with mud." ...."Lights were very poor. Lights were awful dim. I know the lights were awful dim because there was no reflection. It was a sedan and I only gave it a glance." This was on Wertsville-Stoutsburg Road (Old Province Road). When asked by Ellis where the road went, Moore replied: "Up to the Lindbergh place."..."About two miles [from Lindbergh's house]."...."this road there is absolutely no travel. Lindbergh used the road more than anyone." Parker concluded that Moore had seen the same car as Lupica (and Conover) and measured the time it would take to get where the car was seen. He concluded the crime took place "around 8 o'clock." If this is true then I believe it explains a lot.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 4, 2006 12:56:57 GMT -5
Michael, I know you have a high regard for Ellis, but I think this time frame is awfully optimistic. Personally I think the entire episode took longer, although if one allows for multiple participants.... well that is different. Perhaps we shall be able to have a better understanding of the time required shortly.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 4, 2006 15:13:51 GMT -5
I have difficulty in understanding how Parker could have concluded that the car the Moore's saw, was the same one which had been seen earlier in the day, by a number of other individuals. A muddy sedan of non-descript colour would not have been out of place on the night of March 1, 1932.
I would agree that the vehicle seen at 3 pm in the afternoon of the same day is consistent with the chain of events leading up to Lupica's description of the dark sedan with the ladders across the seat and the Conover's sighting of the "out of place" vehicle struggling along Featherbed Lane at 6:30 pm. But what establishes the connection of this specific vehicle to the one seen by the Moores, almost two hours later?
I also believe the timing to execute the plan is just too tight, given the fact that Betty Gow left the child at 8 pm. Parker is essentially suggesting the kidnappers took only about twenty minutes to launch their assault on the house from the staging area immediately after the nursery light had gone out, position the ladder and scale it, get into the nursery, grab the child, repeat the process in exiting, gather up their things, walk 6/10's of a mile back to Featherbed Lane, get into their vehicle and then arrive at the point a few miles away, where the Moore's saw the sedan at 8:22 or 8:23 pm.
How long would all of this have actually taken?
For the walk from house back to Featherbed Lane alone, at a speed of 3 miles an hour, it would take 12 minutes to get to the waiting vehicle, which I think is being optimistic, given the darkness of the overcast night and being on unfamiliar grounds.
This would leave a scant 10 minutes or so to do all of the other above-mentioned things required to get to the point where the Moore's saw the vehicle. And this is granting Parker the luxury of assuming the kidnappers launched their assault at exactly 8 pm., just after Betty had left the nursery. Would they have even taken the chance to move so quickly after the light went out not knowing if the baby was asleep or not, or if the child's attendant had remained in the nursery rocking the baby, or sitting in silence for a while?
Unless there are some variables I've overlooked here, and that may well be the case, I can't see how Parker could have firmly concluded what he did.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 5, 2006 4:48:00 GMT -5
<<<I do not trust a word Lindbergh says. He lied about trusting Condon. He lied about his dog not being a barker. He lied concerning his earwitness account. etc. His recollection of hearing this sound came days later after originally claiming he heard nothing.>>> (Michael)
According to the dictionary, a "lie" is a false statement made with the intent to deceive; an intentional falsehood". While I believe Lindbergh was wrong in his identification of Hauptmann's voice, I do not believe he "lied" because I think he believed what he was saying was true.
An objective review of his "identification" of course pretty much destroys its validity.
Lindbergh stated on May 20, 1932 he heard two words. Putting together what Lindbergh and Condon said, the speaker was about 80 feet away. The words he said he heard were "Ay, Doctor" with the word "doctor" being pronounced with a definite accent.
On September 26, 1934 he was asked by a grand juror whether he would recognize the man's voice if he heard it again. He answered: "I can't say positively, I remember the voice very clearly I would recognize the voice to be identical with the one that I heard, it would be very difficult for me to sit here and say that I could pick a man by that voice." Taking into consideration the dreadful punctuation, I read that as "I do not know. Maybe." The police (not unreasonably) decide to have him try.
Here is where it goes off the track. Instead of putting Hauptmann in a proper voice array and making Lindbergh pick him out, they had him listen to Hauptmann (and only Hauptmann) after (and maybe all the while) saying that Hauptmann was John, Hauptmann was the kidnapper and murderer of Lindbergh's son. If what the police are telling Lindbergh is true - and he had no real reason to doubt it - than Hauptmann's voice must be the one that he heard. Consider him identified. That makes Lindbergh wrong - not a liar.
I suggest that had the police done it right and placed Hauptmann in a proper voice array that Lindbergh would not have been able to pick out voice (two words, 80 feet way, two-and-one-half years ago?) and that Lindbergh would have known it.
As for only claiming to have heard the sound days later, it is true that apparently he told Wolf that he had not heard anything to fix the time of the crime, however, according to Williamson, on that night "the Colonel said he heard a noise but it didn't impress him due to the windy night". Perhaps after thinking about it - and looking at that broken ladder - the noise took on a new importance to him. That is not to say that I think the sound was the ladder breaking or was otherwise connected with the crime, because I do not.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 5, 2006 5:33:04 GMT -5
And is that based on the time frame you believe existed for the crime?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 5, 2006 9:46:05 GMT -5
To Joe & Kevin.... If there was inside help then this would have occurred @ 8:00PM. They would have been staged and ready. It seems very probable if they were there at 3:00PM, 6:00PM, and 6:30-7PM this would have been the case. The plan is only "too tight" if you believe this wasn't a planned event. What I didn't post was there were strange cars being seen driven on local roads that mainly weren't traveled on by anyone other then locals over the weekend. The same applies to Moore's eyewitness account on March 1st. These are indicators that must be considered. One must also consider Steve Lehman's theory as mentioned in Dr. Gardner's unpublished work. There were more multiple people involved and only one car could hold the child. Parker took all available information and put 2 + 2 together. The car with the mud on it was most likely the car that got stuck in the mud on Featherbed Lane. Maybe it wasn't but taking into consideration the Conover's eyewitness account and the timing of Lindbergh's arrival it certainly suggests they were already on their way by the time he drove up. Lindy would have seen that ladder on the side of the house and/or seen the car on Hopewell- Wertzville (Amwell) Road. If they weren't ready to strike at 8:00PM where were they? They had been there since darkness fell just after 6:00PM. What were they waiting for... were they waiting for Lindbergh to come home maybe? MJR... How do you reconcile CAL testifying he trusted Condon when he told Agent Larimer he was suspicious of him? How do we reconcile the fact his dog, Wahgoosh, barked constantly and that everyone testified to this except Lindbergh who said he wouldn't expect that dog to bark? How do we reconcile that Lindbergh was protecting the employees, and declined the use of a lie detector yet told Agent Larimer they may have been involved somehow? No one can convince me that Lindbergh, or anyone else would truly, without prejudice, identify that voice. He lied numerous times.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 5, 2006 11:44:02 GMT -5
Michael -
<<<How do you reconcile CAL testifying he trusted Condon when he told Agent Larimer he was suspicious of him?>>>
So he was suspicious. In the end he had to trust him, did he not? I could be wrong here, but I do not remember Lindbergh going into what great trust he had in Condon. More like him saying he had no reason not to trust him.
<<<How do we reconcile the fact his dog, Wahgoosh, barked constantly and that everyone testified to this except Lindbergh who said he wouldn't expect that dog to bark?>>>
Lindbergh said he did not think the dog a very good watchdog. He said people told him the dog barked but that it was not a regular thing and that he would not expect any indication from "that dog" that there was anyone prowling around the house. Others described him as a barker. Maybe the people who spent more time with the beast knew him better. Sounds, in general, as though Lindbergh did not have much use for him.
Why would he bother to lie about such trivial, irrelevant things, anyway?
<<<How do we reconcile that Lindbergh was protecting the employees, and declined the use of a lie detector yet told Agent Larimer they may have been involved somehow?>>>
I suggest what Lindbergh was really protecting was his own sense of judgment. He said he did not investigate the people he hired. He was no doubt loath to admit he had made an error in judgment.
<<<No one can convince me that Lindbergh, or anyone else would truly, without prejudice, identify that voice.>>>
I agree with you.
What I said was that if Hauptmann had been placed in a proper voice array, Lindbergh would have known he could not identify the voice. The manner in which the identification was made ("here is the guy that got the ransom, you recognize his voice, don't you?") and the fact that Lindbergh went along with it and fell for it makes him a fool, not a liar and certainly not a killer.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 5, 2006 16:26:08 GMT -5
Michael, I must admit that my prejudice on this subject causes me to favor an expanded time frame for the kidnap. Personally I don't believe the kidnapping was conducted with a single climb. Not only do I believe at least two climbs were made I also tend to believe that multiple trips to the car were made as well. Now if there is more than one kidnapper, an idea which I am entirely open to, then logically there were probably multiple cars as well. In any case I think the early departure would have been noticed by the Conovers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2006 5:40:03 GMT -5
We are really on opposite ends of the perception stick concerning this....
My answer is no. He never had to truly trust him. Breckenridge told investigators he didn't think Condon was on the level either. I think that's important given he lived with him for a time and observed him from a closer position. Anyone who has purchased a used car recently can get my drift. Do you really trust the salesman?
You simply hope for the best.
I just don't see it this way. Everything I have says this dog barked at just about everything but in Court I see CAL saying he wouldn't expect the dog to bark. Anyone who knows the nature of this breed can tell you how these dogs react to a strange noise and/or person.
I don't see this as trivial. A main point in the papers was the dog not barking that night. I see CAL trying to personally neutralize this position and, to me, that is very troubling. He does the same thing with the identification of Hauptmann. It was reckless and he - himself knew this solely based upon what he said (as you posted) in the past.
I am convinced that CAL would have eventually identified that voice regardless of the circumstances. Of course you are correct if this whole thing were to be done on the level one wouldn't have expected him to under those circumstances....but this wasn't on the level.
The Conovers is something to look at more closely. I would think they would have too but they don't report seeing Lindy return home. I think we should kick around the various ways the Kidnappers could have exited the scene. We also tend to expect they went back towards Hopewell because of the baby's discovery location but its my position he was placed there later on so for me they could have gone in any direction that night. I would like to know where this road is that the Moore's saw that car high-tailing it past their place....I can't find it on any map.
The multiple ascent and decent theory is interesting but I see some problems with it considering the timing of CAL's return home and when we already know they were on scene. Of course a multiple trip up and down that ladder would be required if we are to believe someone went in and down in one shot doing and holding all they were supposed to have.
It seems to me, at this point, its a good possibility that someone handed the baby out of the window or simply used the stairs.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 6, 2006 6:36:13 GMT -5
Michael -
We are in agreement on the main point here and that is that Lindbergh's identification of Hauptmann's voice was nonsense. Whether it was because he lied - as you believe - or believed what he was saying but was wrong - as I believe - is really unimportant unless Lindbergh lying is part of your theory of the case, in which case I would like to hear more.
As for the dog not barking, Elsie and Betty both said the dog was in the servants' sitting room. That means he was at the opposite end of the house on a different floor. Especially if he was a barker if he heard anything he would have reacted. The fact that he did not tells me he did not hear anything. Unless, of course, him not reacting is part of your theory of the case.
Kev - What would be the point of multiple trips up the ladder or multiple trips to the car? I tend to agree with Michael that all of that would be unnecessary if Charlie was handed out the window or taken out by another route.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 6, 2006 8:49:09 GMT -5
Assuming of course that one has someone to hand a baby out the window. I am simply not a believer in the inside connection. Everyone has their reasons for believing that an insider was involved or not. For me the negatives of the insider job outweigh the positives. So I construct my version of the events that night accordingly. I see the processes required and to me it would be clearly a multiple climb; entry, retrieval, and replacement ( the note). Even if there are multiple kidnappers on site I still see multiple climbs. I am not trying to convert anyone here, it is just how I view the process. I guess climbing a ladder a few times is not such a big deal, for others it obviously is.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2006 17:01:23 GMT -5
I think based upon his very own statements he knew what he testified to was "iffy" at best. I see two possibilities for why he would do this despite this fact. Both are important (to me). I see it as he either did it at the behest of the Authorities. Possibly being shown everything else and explaining if they didn't have more a guilty man could walk. Or Lindbergh took this action himself without coercion. Exactly. So why does Lindbergh testify the dog wouldn't bark? What's wrong with the silly story the dog was all the way on the other side of the house tucked away from any potential intruder? Why did Whately announce to the press he believed it was an inside job due to the fact the dog didn't bark? Maybe Betty and Elsie forgot to tell him the dog was where he was supposed to have been - for I suppose the entire window of time the Kidnappers could have struck. And so, as the story goes, Lindy heard something that no one else did - to include Wahgoosh, the famous barking Fox Terrier... Taken in the context of everything else that was supposed to have happen I just don't buy it. In the words of Dr. Henry Lee: Something ain't right And now we see the Father of the victim apparently making things up to protect the story-line. I see some snags but hey...what's a few more on top of the mountain we already have? As of now I believe Parker was right, however, I am not closed minded to the possibility of your theory - It won't be something I'll forget about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2006 17:12:08 GMT -5
BTW Kevin....
I found reference to an attempted kidnapping in Riverton, NJ on March 11th. A 3-year old was almost abducted @ 1:20AM when the father (Claude Anderson) heard a noise coming from his room he got up to investigate. Upon entering he saw a man hovering over the crib trying to lift the child (Chilton). The father and culprit then began to fight. The Perp then "darted" out of the room and escaped. The family dog, a great dane, sleeping in the next room did nothing. Anderson claimed the dog had been acting "dopey" all day as if he had been drugged. When Police arrived the nursery was in perfect order and there was no sign of forced entry.
The case was turned over to Ellis Parker.....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Jun 6, 2006 17:25:17 GMT -5
Kand M: Im still having a huge problem with anyone climbing the ladder even once--if it is to climb into any second floor window anyways. Maybe just to climb up far enough to look in to be seen or high enough for the inside person to hand Charlie down or just high enough for the ladder to break? That would surely sober up any potential climber? If you have an insider all set to go--then use them. They can wipe up and pick up long after you are gone over hill and dale. Most folks pick Ollie since he dies? And is seen out together with our climber Fisch in the Bronx.
As for anyone physically negotiatiing the shutters, the windows, the nick-knacks and the trunk.....well there is precious little forensic or chiseled evidence to support or prove that? After all, the ransom note is in the way on the window ledge?
"....and thru the open window they hand Charlie..." (a sandwich as the train comes rumbling thru) MTA by The Kingston Trio
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 7, 2006 6:45:29 GMT -5
<<< see it as he either did it at the behest of the Authorities. Possibly being shown everything else and explaining if they didn't have more a guilty man could walk.>>> (Michael)
I will suggest another reason the police viewed Lindbergh's identification as important and may have manipulated him to make the identification. Once Lindbergh took the stand and testified that Hauptmann was John, there was not a chance in hell that Condon was going to contradict him. Since Condon was waffling all over the place, Lindbergh's testimony would have put him in a position where he either identified Hauptmann or said that Lindbergh was wrong. I do not think those words would have formed on the man's lips.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2006 18:45:17 GMT -5
MJR,
I would agree this could be a reason IF it weren't Lindbergh. I don't see him being easily manipulated by anyone. I also think Lindbergh 'talking' to Jafsie would have achieved the same desired result rather then committing perjury. But I suppose tampering is about the same as perjury however a lot less people would have known he was engaging in it....
It seems to me the threats are what turned Jafsie against Hauptmann and in the end self-preservation prevailed.
...Also don't forget Lindy trying to convince Anne after the verdict why Hauptmann was guilty. That's one of the strangest things I can think of.... And I don't have Nicholson's book I have his actual letters so I know this happened.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 7, 2006 20:05:27 GMT -5
<<<...Also don't forget Lindy trying to convince Anne after the verdict why Hauptmann was guilty. That's one of the strangest things I can think of....>>> (Michael)
IMHO, this, like many other things people identify as strange, probably has a simple explanation. Remember that Anne did not attend the trial - she did not hear the evidence presented against Hauptmann. What she heard was the crowd outside the court house screaming with joy at the conviction. Even Lindbergh, who believed Hauptmann guilty, was bothered by this crowd - going so far as to call it a "lynching crowd". Anne also knew that Hauptmann had a wife and son of his own. I do not know that Lindbergh was trying to "convince" her as much as he was putting her mind at ease that this husband and father whose blood was being screamed for was unquestionably guilty.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2006 5:21:28 GMT -5
How do you feel about the other comments he made during this occasion?
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 8, 2006 6:23:02 GMT -5
<<<How do you feel about the other comments he made during this occasion?>>> Michael
Such as?
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 8, 2006 6:48:50 GMT -5
I know Rick and you certainly are not alone in that thought. The ladder's reputation has grown to almost mythic proportion. But I have climbed a replica, as have others, and though I wouldn't want to paint a house using it, the ladder does it's job. The whole "ladder breaking" issue has clouded the reputation of this ladder and is unfortunately often used irresponsibly by authors on both sides of the aisle. For that reason I don't expect my theory of multiple climbs to ever become very popular.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 8, 2006 8:30:12 GMT -5
<<<For me the negatives of the insider job outweigh the positives.>>> Kev
If I may ask, what do you view as the negatives of the insider job idea?
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Detective on Jun 8, 2006 14:08:02 GMT -5
kevin....just a guick thought.....maybe the ladder was designed, modified and tested by the "young men" after picking up the wood from AS's shop? but for the weight of one of the lighter fellows?
Then the ladder is delivered to Highfields on the afternoon of March 1st "and someone much heavier is the designated climber".
Apparently, these guys arnt rocket scientists or wood engineers and did not calculate for the additional heavy weight???
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 8, 2006 15:15:38 GMT -5
<<<For me the negatives of the insider job outweigh the positives.>>> Kev If I may ask, what do you view as the negatives of the insider job idea? Mjr Well the most severe problem , at least for me, is that the one thing that an insider would fear the most is any action which would highlight or emphasize an insider role. Simply put, the last thing you would want to do is arrange for the kidnapping to occur at an unusual occasion known only to a few. That is a red flag that the police picked right up on. And any accomplices, fearing for their own safety, would absolutely not want their inside connection compromised. That starts the domino effect. An insider would certainly have time on their side in picking a location and time which is more routine in nature. The kidnap date, the warped shutter, the unlocked window, and CAL's intended dinner speech are all items which gave and continue to give cause for an insider's role. No one in their right mind would emphasize their actions with these anomalies.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2006 15:54:38 GMT -5
Nicholson Letter 2-14-35 (excerpt): He tells me that Hauptmann was a magnificent looking man. Splendidly built.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 9, 2006 9:29:26 GMT -5
<<<He tells me that Hauptmann was a magnificent looking man. Splendidly built.>>> Michael
I do not think anything of it, Michael.
(Please, tell me that you are not suggesting what I think you are suggesting because:
1) it is not true
2) it would be irrelevant even if it was true
and
3) it is the kind of discussion that contributed to me leaving another board on this case. I am having fun here. Please do not make be give up on this board, too.)
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 9, 2006 9:34:20 GMT -5
Kevkon -
So, where would you take him? Most anyplace is going to get questions about how someone knew where to find him.
Next Day Hill would not do because there were far too many people around. Any attempt to take him from, say, a car (force it to the side of the road, etc.) would not only have you dealing with awake, alert adults who could identify you, it would almost certainly having taking Charlie from Anne and/or Charles - meaning you would have a big fight on your hands.
The seclusion and stealth of Highfields sounds right to me.
Mjr
|
|