kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2006 16:41:42 GMT -5
If we assume for a moment that more than one kidnapper was involved and we know Lupica saw only one occupant of the car, is it not entirely feasible that two cars were involved? One for the child, one for the ladder man.
I am not so sure about that.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 13, 2006 7:41:18 GMT -5
Michael/ a few comments on the car sightings:
1. I am looking at my Metro Street Atlas of Mercer County...the way they name streets around Hopewell is crazy. Anyways, "Wertzville-Stoutsberg road" is the same as Lindbergh Road as it joins the driveway to Highfields. It runs North-South. As you turn right or south out of the Lindbergh driveway, Lindbergh rd. turns into Hopewell-Amwell road at the Mercer County line and proceeds 1 mile to the junction of "Province Line Road" which as such I am presuming is where the Moores see the muddy sedan one more mile South. (1+1=2?). Lets just assume that the muddy brown sedan is heading "South" away from Highfields? Why dont Moores see CAL's Brown Lincoln as well?
2. I'm surely fascinated by all this Car Talk...but mostly by the fact that CAL is driving around the neighborhood merely "minutes" after the snatch car, also a dark sedan, races South on Lindbergh Road. Its hard to imagine they didnt pass one another? Is this CALs first trip home today or #2? Kevin--if there is a second or third car involved its CALs!
3. If everyone is on the same page here? I mean all the insiders at Highfields, including Wagoosh, then we wont need to waste a whole lot of time trapsing back and forth to Featherbed Lane acrossed rocky fields with a ladder or Charlie. LETS ALL JUST USE THE DRIVEWAY AND GIT R DONE!
4. mjR: Im willing to entertain the notion that Annes footprints under the window are not there for throwing stones? Unless of course CAL is lying to her as well as all of us/
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 13, 2006 8:15:04 GMT -5
Kevin, I've considered this possibility in tandem with another event which may be of significance - Anne hearing what she thought was the sound of car tires on gravel at about 8:10 pm. I believe Oscar Bush also determined that two vehicles had been parked recently in close proximity in Featherbed Lane.
Most significantly though, I cannot believe one person was able to negotiate the entry to and exit from the nursery, without the assistance of someone else to stabilize the ladder and possibly receive the baby by handoff.
Can you be a bit more specific?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 14, 2006 7:35:58 GMT -5
Joe, I can't responsibly say anything specific right know, but I will say that Featherbed may not have been the only vehicle access.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2006 18:45:22 GMT -5
The Moores said they lived in Mercer County. They claimed they were on Wertsville-Stoutsberg Road. A "rarely" used road - mostly saw Lindbergh using it. The Moore's house was a "good two miles" from Highfields. The car was coming from that direction.
The first interview I have been able to find was Parker's in the early summer of '32. I found an interview with the NJSP after Hauptmann was arrested because the papers were reporting the Moore's were saying they had seen Hauptmann. Once interviewed the Moore's said the papers were lying and they had never made such a statement.
Ever consider this may have been a "pick-up" or a car leaving after the crime had already been committed? This would give them 12-15 minutes to make it past the Moore's house 2 miles away.
Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2006 17:38:32 GMT -5
I just found reference to the Moores telling Tpr. Lea they had information on a car they want to "turn over." It appears they did but to a different Trooper in the early morning of March 2, 1932. I'll continue to search for it and see what I find out.
I also found a reference to a "Mr. Windling" seeing a strange car. Could this be the Mrs. Wendling that's mentioned in the FBI Summary report? I'll keep looking for more under this name to see what I find.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2006 8:34:13 GMT -5
If anything of relevance can truly be attached to the "gravel" sound Anne heard about 8:10, I would have great difficulty believing it was the sound of the kidnappers leaving the scene AFTER the crime. We know Betty Gow checked her watch at 8 pm, when she last left the baby, therefore this would have left a scant 10 minutes for the kindappers to complete their mission and be on their way down the driveway, CALjr in tow. The timing is just too tight here, but I now think there may be something to the Moore's account of the 8:22 sighting that does relate directly to the kidnapping. Here are some additional thoughts and a bit of theorizing..
I've considered for some time, the sound heard by Anne was that of a vehicle dropping off the kidnappers (2) and required items (ladder, bag, other items) near the house. The kidnappers would then have laid in wait. The fact that Lindbergh arrived home at 8:25 pm would undoubtedly have raised an unexpected alarm, as it seems very likely in this scenario, they would have seen a car coming in from their vantage point.
Ultimately they decided to proceed, having come this far and it was shortly after 9 pm, after having observed the pattern of lights turning on and off in the vicinity of the nursery, that they decided to strike. Their retreat was along the footpath leading to Featherbed Lane where their own vehicle awaited. Leaving Featherbed Lane at about 9:30 pm, this would have provided them with about a half hour head start on the 10 pm check of the baby.
And the vehicle seen by the Moore's at 8:22 pm? It could well have been the same one heard by Anne outside the window at 8:10 pm. Perhaps the driver of that vehicle, having completed his part of the mission, ie. the "dropoff," had good reason to be back in the Bronx, to protect what might some day, be a required alibi for an unsuspecting hausfrau, or perhaps even the police?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 23, 2006 6:00:59 GMT -5
Joe, IMHO I think your scenario is pretty damn good. It makes sense to me and certainly provides a solution to more than a few problems. If you haven't already done so take a look at some of the aerial photos of Highfields taken right after the kidnapping. I think you will see the possibilities, especially looking at the news film truck.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 23, 2006 8:00:02 GMT -5
Kevin, yes I've seen a shot like the one you describe, although I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps some aerial footage in one of the documentaries? It does indicate support of vehicle traffic to a point although I've never heard of it being specifically used as a regular access route to Featherbed Lane. I've always been intrigued by that laneway that led from the Lindbergh's driveway and ran more or less parallel to the east side of the house, down to Featherbed Lane. When I was at Highfields a few years ago I took a number of shots where I thought the laneway might have originated off the driveway, based on approximate distances from aerial shots taken in 1932 and pacing these off. Here's one of them: I would have to believe that if anyone used that laneway as a strategic access on the night of the kidnapping, they would have been familiar with the property layout by prior surveillance or inside information.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2006 8:07:21 GMT -5
I see it differently. They are there armed with the knowledge the baby is put to bed at 8 (presumably) and it seems they are in position well in advance of this time. By your theory, they see the lights go out but then wait... What are they waiting for exactly?
Dr. Gardner has pointed out to me in the past that CAL always seems to be saying the child went missing between 7:30PM-10:00PM. When you think about it - its a quite odd thing for him to say. Could this be he doubted Betty in some way perhaps?
It seems too tight for an unorganized and uniformed crew. As for those armed with knowledge and perhaps and inside connection then its pulled-off like clock-work.
Especially if the child is handed down to someone on the ladder instead of the impossible scenario of climbing both in and out onto it.
I can't accept this at face value here. If they are ready at 8 and see the lights go out we are supposed to believe they wait. Then they are "surprised" by a car and CAL's return, something we are supposed to believe is what contributed to the date of the snatch in the first place.....
Then go ahead with it anyway? If I were them I'd be thinking "who's coming down this road next?" And "Was that car beeping at us?" .... "Let's get the hell out of Dodge!"
I don't see how this makes more sense then proceeding immediately once the lights go out. Too much emphasis placed on this "noise" CAL "remembered" coming from the kitchen on this windy night. BTW - where's the kitchen in relationship to where the ladder was?
Anyway - let's not forget the Police blockade. When do you think they made it back to NY (if you believe they traveled back there that night).
There are (3) times mentioned.... 8:22, 8:23, and 8:25... When considering the timing I think every minute is important. This could be an alternative explanation which fits. I personally believe there was more then one vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2006 21:25:08 GMT -5
Great try by the way Joe....
I was doing the same thing while walking the drive-way and walking Featherbed. As you know - no signs of these old "abandoned" roads from the ground. At least you fired off a guess... I couldn't even do that.
I made a major discovery today by the way....
I am not only seeking to "solve" this case, just as everyone else here is, but I am also very interested to get all the exact circumstances correct - as a matter of history. One such part, the Hoffman re-investigation, is very strange and full of complexities. I am always trying to "dicipher" the codes, code-names, and initials associated with the various reports.
I saw a report once with what I thought was the name "Snowmen" at the bottom. I obviously thought this to be a code-name but could never find out just who it was.... Well today I found out.
Probably not very interesting to anyone but me but I thought I'd share why this case is so interesting to me in more ways then one.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 24, 2006 10:39:03 GMT -5
I agree that the kidnappers would have been preparing themselves outside the house during the time the baby was being put down. But why the need to strike as soon as the lights go out? Assuming there was a known time window of 2 hours opportunity or even if not, why the hurry? Would it not be wise to ensure all acitivity on the upper level had ceased, by watching the lights over a reasonable period of time? Putting aside the car seen by the Moore's a short time later which may or may not be related, what specific evidence or motivation do you consider for an 8 pm strike?
Lindbergh's recollection of the events of that night as well that of others interviewed, seemed to evolve naturally over the course of the days following. This is quite common in any investigation as the timeline is refined to reflect a better additive understanding of what really happened. I believe it wasn't until around March 12, that there is any mention of the sound Lindbergh heard coming from what he thought was the kitchen / pantry area. I can well understand in the subsequent confusion of that night, his fleeting consideration of the sound, it's potential implications, and which he then dismissed almost as quickly from his immediate conscious recollection.
I would hesitate to use the word clock-work with any further implications they were anything close to a crack group of military-style operatives. More like a group of ameteurs with excellent practical coordination through manual trade related activity and monumental ambition and determination, who were also extremely fortunate they achieved what they did without being caught or discouraged from go through with it.
Who are you implying handed off the child to someone waiting on the ladder, a fellow kidnaper or an insider? I agree there was in all likelihood a handoff, but don't see anyone in that household capable of complicity in this crime, period.
I think the noise heard by Lindbergh probably comes into play but it doesn't cement my opinon the kidnapping happened at that time. Same too for the dog prints among those of the retreating footprints and the accounts of Kristofeck and Kucher. I simply have too many problems with the need to rush the house once the lights go out at 8 pm. I'd be concerned about a quick check on the baby 10 minutes later to make sure it was settled, or the nurse possibly rocking the baby in the dark.
If you look at he layout of the ground level, you can see the kitchen and pantry north of but directly adjacent to the living room. There is also a door at the east end of the living room connecting the pantry, in the same relative direction as the nursery, from which the sound emanating from either direction, could well have come through.
If the car seen by the Moore's was Hauptmann barreling back to the Bronx, then it seems resonable he would have beaten the checkpoint setup re-entering NYC. As for the car with the baby, I don't think it was ever intended they try to drive back to NYC that night, but somewhere within a half hour or so of Hopewell. The delay in producing the sleepingsuit tells me CJ (Hauptmann) didn't have immediate access to it and needed a few days to receive and wash it.
I think it's a reasonable explanation and if there is anything to it, it places less likelihood that the kidnapping had to have taken place shortly after 8 pm. Didn't Parker consider the possibility of more than one vehicle?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2006 10:49:56 GMT -5
I have always felt that the assumption that the kidnapper's knew of the 10 pm bed check is erroneous. In fact, when I look at the careful removal of the ladder, closing of the window and shutters and the overall lack of disturbance in the nursery, it seems to me that they felt no great time constraint. Not to say that they would not get the job done ASAP , just that they probably felt some degree of freedom believing no one would check on the child till the AM.
|
|
|
Post by Harriet on Jun 24, 2006 11:57:16 GMT -5
Why kidnap between 8 and 10, though? Why not after midnight when everyone is asleep? There's much more of a risk of someone coming in to the nursery (for whatever reason) when there are people awake in the house than when everyone is asleep.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2006 13:07:15 GMT -5
That is a good question Harriet, but keep in mind that the timing of the kidnap is not what I was referring to in my previous post . Rather that the kidnappers would likely assume that the discovery of the kidnap would not occur until the morning. As for striking early, I don't honestly think anyone can determine the rationale as it could be dependent on too many unknown factors relevant and known only to the kidnappers. However, if you think about it, anyone with the moxie to strike while the household is still up and around could enjoy some advantages. For one, sounds in the still active house could possibly be ignored as those from activities going on. If Lindbergh did hear the famous falling crate noise he obviously did not think much of it. Had he awakened in the middle of the night upon hearing this he may have had an entirely different response. With the bedroom layout at Highfields, or most homes for that matter, the nursery is usually located in close proximity to a caregivers room. Even opening that window with it's sash weight operation could possibly be enough to awaken someone in the dead of night. Then there is the issue of escape, both planned and unplanned, to consider. As it was various sightings of cars were reported. At a much later time any vehicle traffic would surely stand out more prominently. In the final analysis, who knows? I only believe that the kidnapper's felt that by minimizing the evidence of the crime they would be able to enjoy a much greater period before discovery and possible police interference.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2006 20:33:32 GMT -5
This is CAL we're talking about right? The same guy who laid down this rule in the first place? Did he forget his own rule?
Put to bed and never checked on again? Do you really believe this? If it were true it means no information, inside or out, was possessed by these people.
I base my opinion on the totality of the circumstances.
They show up on a night the Lindbergh's aren't supposed to be there. They were there before dark - so they weren't waiting for night-fall. As Harriet pointed out - they weren't waiting for everyone to go to bed. They were there before Lindy shows up but don't flee upon his arrival (and horn-blowing episode) if you believe they hadn't already perpetrated the event. They approach the nursery window by way of the board-walk (in the dark), something Mrs. Lindbergh apparently couldn't do in the day light hours if you believe they were her footprints leading to the back of the house. There is no "trial and error" - that is - they head straight for and strike at the one window with a warped shutter and apparently unlocked. Shall I keep going?
Additionally, how do these people know there isn't a Guard on the property? There certainly had been - more then one. How do they know they aren't there? Another lucky guess?
To me this isn't a "blind-luck" crime. This simple fact is just finding your way both to and from Highfields would have been virtually impossible for these people. There was planning and preparation. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 25, 2006 21:09:04 GMT -5
I feel like I am being Con-Scripted here. ;D
Of course there was planning and intelligence used in the planning and execution of this crime. The question is how much and how extensive was it? I don't exclude the possibility of inside help, but at the same time I don't think it is a given or even necessary. Now maybe you and many others feel that the 10pm check-up was known or assumed, I don't. It may have been or still is common practice to do this, but it is strange to me. As for the whole issue of Lindbergh being home or not, who knows? Am I to believe that this is the foundation of the timing of this event? Essentially we are coming from two opposite positions here. I don't necessarily believe that the kidnappers, though armed with some information, were as highly informed and knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Lindbergh household as you and others believe. Once again, I don't rule it out, I just don't see it as a given. And not seeing this as a given leaves my options open in understanding what may have occurred that fateful night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2006 8:31:52 GMT -5
OK - Let's get down to the nitty-gritty.
What do you think was known (and planned for) and what do you think wasn't?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 26, 2006 8:40:42 GMT -5
Are you suggesting it's unusual that Lindbergh could claim the child had been abducted between 7:30 PM and 10 pm, when his bedtime schedule would have made this very unlikely?
If so, what is your source that bedtime was always 8 pm sharp? My understanding about the routine was that once put down, he was not to be disturbed until 10 pm at which time he was taken to the bathroom one last time before morning.
In his Major Initial Report of March 1, 1932, Corporal Wolf states he was advised by Trpr. Carmody of the kidnapping at 10:30 PM by phone during a patrol stop. Carmody related to Wolf that Dunn had "received a phone call from Col. C.A. Lindbergh reporting Chas. Lindbergh Jr. was kidnapped from his nursery between 7:30 PM and 10:00 PM this date." Wolf subsequently interviewed Lindbergh and got basically the same story as to the timeline, so from this, it appears Lindbergh at that time, believed the child had last been seen "about 7:30 PM."
It does appear as though there was some initial confusion about the time. Considering Lindbergh didn't arrive home until 8:25 PM, he obviously was not in the best position to most accurately affix the time right away. It also becomes clear that by the time Wolf had written his March 1 report after interviewing the others, the timeline had been clarified to between 8:00 and 10:00 PM.
The entire account as it unfolded is also a little revealing in that if Lindbergh initially thought the timeline was 7:30 to 10 pm, then maybe this "rule laid down" as you call it, was more of a guideline than some sort of unyielding edict.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2006 8:45:45 GMT -5
I believe the kidnappers knew;
The location of Highfields The local roads at Hopewell The access to Highfields including trails and un-improved roads The topography The approximate location of sleeping quarters The window configurations The approximate height of the windows
After that I believe they may have assumed;
The Lindberghs were living full time in Hopewell The baby was put to bed at an early time
They possibly may have had information regarding;
The staff or household occupants The nursery location The domestic schedule or routines Lindbergh's work/social schedule Floorplans of Highfields
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2006 9:13:45 GMT -5
There are several Joe but in an effort to save time I will quote this one (Agent Larimer, FBI Report) interview with Lindbergh: It was a household rule that no one, including the nurse, was to disturb the child while sleeping between the hours of 8:00PM and 10:00PM. Anne says the baby was in bed around 7:30PM, and Betty claims the child was checked on near 8:00PM and was asleep.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2006 9:34:06 GMT -5
Kevin....
Concerning your position about what they knew - I agree. But in knowing this they probably were given information then physically went there first in my opinion.
Concerning what you believe they may have assumed - I think they knew to true situation. Why? If you go so far as to know the above then why would you assume the risk of not knowing these items? To me it makes no sense to plan one part but guess about another. If you are guessing here why hadn't they guessed wrong in the past? Some of the Locals didn't even know the Lindbergh's had been there yet - even on the weekends.
Concerning what you believe they possibly had information regarding - I believe they knew this too.
Concerning an additional position of my personal theories:
These people did not walk the distance from W-H (A?) Road or Featherbed Lane to Highfields.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2006 10:14:30 GMT -5
Sure, but don't we see evidence every day of actions which one would expect better intel was known and wasn't, ie Iraq. Look at how many criminals almost got it right but were ignorant of some condition(s) one would have expected them to know. Once again I don't rule out the possibility of more knowledge on the part of the kidnappers. I am simply working from the position of the minimal knowlege absolutely needed to pull off the crime. That leaves more options which the former position precludes. I use the same method with the ladder, I don't absolutely rule out the two section method of entry, unlikely as I think it is, I just look at all the possible methods without being constrained by an assumption.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 6, 2007 0:32:10 GMT -5
<<<Give the fame of the Lindberghs and their propensity for travel and the social demands put upon them, it is difficult for me to believe that there were not numerous occasions when the child would be vulnerable. With the enormous advantage of an agent on the inside surely a safer and less suspicious abduction could be arranged.>>> Kevkon Sorry, Kev, but I have to disagree here. Anne and Charles may have traveled a lot but Charlie did not. Where he could be found and when would only be known to a few, almost all of them insiders. I agree about the importance of not compromising the identify of any insider. If the insider's knowledge or participation was crucial to the commission of the crime, however, they would not have had a choice. If there was not an insider involved in this than the kidnappers were the luckiest guys east of the Mississippi because they would have had no idea who was where in the house or what they might encounter when they entered it. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. Mjr In a way, you could both be correct. There could have been an insider giving info, but it didn't necessarily have to come from the Highfields staff. The Next Day Hill were aware of Charlie's location as well. My own take is that I feel someone on the inside had to either help or at least know what was going on, but I don't think we'll ever be able to pinpoint who it was and to what extent he/she/they were in on it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2007 8:07:10 GMT -5
It's pretty damn hard for me to believe that a better opportunity, one that afforded more safety for all concerned, couldn't have been contrived with inside assistance. Just the trip down to Highfields would provide plenty of more typical abduction situations.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2007 8:14:51 GMT -5
Yet, despite all the obstacles and impossibilities - it happened and we still can't figure out how. What could have been better?
That's what bothers me so much. None of the normal precautions seemed to have been taken. And while we see obvious preparation in some places (ladder, ransom note, etc.), we also see a complete lack of it in others.
This was a confident bunch.....why I wonder?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2007 9:12:34 GMT -5
I guess, like all human events, a criminal's MO is a result of individual personality/psychology. Look at this Mad Hatter bank robber presently knocking off banks in Morris County, NJ. The guy walks into a bank wearing a different hat each time ,demands money from the teller and then walks out. I think he is up to 12 so far. And this despite local police, county police and the FBI task force all on the lookout. Who would figure such a simple and brazen method would be so successful in this day and age? Like our LKC , the robberies are both amateurish and yet surprisingly effective. Still the method of kidnapping employed in the LKC is troublesome. It clearly shows that whoever carried it out were unencumbered by many concerns typically exhibited by kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by cal77 on Jun 16, 2009 13:12:35 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 Did he or anyone ever get up and check for anything that might have caused the noise. I know I usually will.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2009 6:10:15 GMT -5
His first told that he heard nothing. Later he said he heard a sound that was like an orange crate breaking in the kitchen. He never investigated it.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 10, 2013 3:15:46 GMT -5
FWIW: The wood sounds Lindbergh claimed to have heard to night of the kidnapping could well have been, assuming that he was telling the truth, any number of things.
The estate in Hopewell was isolated, it was a windy, stormy night, branches and twigs from trees break off all the time during such times, and one could have hit one of the windows or the side of the house. Just because Lindbergh said he heard those sounds doesn't mean they were from in the house or upstairs. Sound travel in strange ways.
The limbs of a tree can, if loosened by a gust of wind, hit the side of a house with such a force as to make a noise that sounds as if someone was rapping against the shingles with a baseball bat, which, of course, doesn't make it so, but a limb can sound like that. We really don't know what sounds Lindbergh heard the night of the kidnapping, or where they came from.
|
|