|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2012 19:39:57 GMT -5
Here is a relevant FBI document. If I recall correctly, its one of those HRO sent to me years ago: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 14, 2012 20:29:35 GMT -5
yes mike i remember this one. i printed all of the articles on that attempted kidnapping. wasnt lindbergh involve in the capture of the guy?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 14, 2012 21:31:11 GMT -5
Micheal, who is the "other brother" in this theory?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 15, 2012 7:28:10 GMT -5
can i ask one question, did you ever try this experiment since you know the results already? climbing with a third section looked very shaky i dont care who climbs it No Steve, I have never entered and exited a second floor window on a replica ladder in two sections without help. I have climbed both the two section and three section ladder, but I always have someone at the ground if I go higher than the first section. The problem is that as soon as you get up and you are above the ladder ( two sections at the proper angle) you are right against the wall and the ladder starts to kick out. I have done the entry with a conventional aluminum extension ladder. I would definitely go with the equivalent 3 section method. You just have more control when the ladder is in front of you and you can step off it as opposed to the crawl over the sill head first method, though that can be done. It's the exit that's tricky and I don't see how it's possible with baggage.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 16, 2012 6:22:31 GMT -5
at hopewell, with a replica ladder you could have put it together lean it against the house and climb it with no help. of course coming down was a problem for the kidnapper. thats why he fell
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 16, 2012 7:51:42 GMT -5
at hopewell, with a replica ladder you could have put it together lean it against the house and climb it with no help. of course coming down was a problem for the kidnapper. thats why he fell Well, once again, what do you mean by "climb it"? Are you saying someone went to the very top rung with no one below footing the ladder ? There's a huge difference between climbing partially up the ladder and going to the very top and getting off it and into a window. I'm not sure why you think he fell, was there any disturbance on the soft moist soil below the ladder found that I am unaware of? If you can leave footprints then you sure as hell will leave an impression from a sudden impact of 150+lbs.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 16, 2012 12:48:43 GMT -5
For those interested in Lizzie Borden. A descendant of her defence attorney is releasing her attorney's journals of the time. I got this off a UK news site.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2012 17:34:42 GMT -5
Steve, They never did "capture" the guy. There were many Law Enforcement people working on this - to include Post Office Inspectors, Milton Police, the W. J. Burns Detective Agency. The Chief of Police in Milton, James Travers, wrote an article for the True Detective Magazine titled: How Lindbergh Smashed the Morrow Blackmail Plot. Admittedly, I neither have nor have I read this article. But what I do have is this: They dropped off a dummy box of ransom and a double was used for Constance. Meanwhile, Lindbergh flew the entire family up to Maine. That seems to be the extent of his involvement. The Suspect was a de-coder during the War and worked as a Customs Inspector. They claimed while they knew he had written the notes, they didn't have enough evidence to convict in Court and that he was harmless anyway excepting his un-natural compulsion to write these notes. (!!!) What appears to have happened was that Major General C. R. Edwards, whose property the ransom drop was on, intervened on behave of the Suspect - and the matter was dropped. What I do when I research something is try to accumulate as much material as I can on a subject then try to make as much sense as possible out of it once I feel that I have all there is to find. I think what happened was this: People believed Morrow did have an illegitimate son. Once DMJr. started getting "tucked away" in secrecy the rumor emerged that it was "that" son and not him. Some then became mixed up thinking DMJr. was the illegitimate son and I've seen others refer to him as Anne's "half-brother" when making reference. The Story I mentioned earlier involves DMJr. It could be it wasn't him rather the Illegitimate Son but substituted for him in this story for the reasons above. Confused? I always was too until it became clear who the Illegitimate Son was as opposed to DMJr. (the "real" Son). The problem is they get morphed into the same person. Absolutely. I've seen people who believe in "the fall" say Hauptmann was lucky enough to land on the board which is why no mark was found. The odds are astronomical, and when you consider it was in the dark - it would be almost impossible (if it happened) that none were made once "He" got up. I'm interested! Please keep me posted...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 16, 2012 19:27:37 GMT -5
Oh okay, now I remember hearing about this illegitimate son theory. Though I've never read it, my understanding was that this was an angle explored in the Norris book, before he decided there was no illegitimate son at all. (Speaking of Lizzie Borden, there's a theory that an illegitimate son of her father's sneaked into the house and committed the murders, though I think there's about as much evidence for his existence as there is for Dwight Sr.'s extra son). Either way, this ladder stuff is baffling and I'm not clear on people's respective stances. I mean, was the ladder used, or was it an unusable prop designed to throw off the investigation? And, if the ladder was used, could it have been only to gain entry and another exit point was used since it would've been difficult to get back down the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 16, 2012 20:40:38 GMT -5
i think hauptman did some kind of fall, i dont know where kevkon gets his info ive seen people go up the replica ladder at the very window, one guy could have done it, as far as lizzie borden i bought the new book called "parallel lives" its about a thousand and so pages at christmas time. they might wish they had this added info from the defense team at the time. ive been to lizzies house and met people from the fall river historical society who wrote that book
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 17, 2012 7:27:05 GMT -5
Michael, even if a climber fell on that 1x8 plank, it would cause a disturbance. If you look closely at the photo of the ladder marks you can see that the plank has not been moved or disturbed. Wolf, I get my info from building and re-creating evidence such as the ladder. Could I ask once more, have you ever seen someone climb to the top rung of the 2 section ladder and get off it without anyone assisting below? LJ, the ladder was certainly no prop. It was most definately climbed and the proof is found once again in Kelly's photo of the holes in the ground. The depth of around 1 1/2' can only occur when a load greater than 150 lbs is on the ladder. There are also other marks in that photo which can only be made from someone climbing it. www2.snapfish.com/snapfish/slideshow/AlbumID=4401973021/PictureID=177105956021/a=2962195021_2962195021/otsc=SHR/otsi=SPIClink/COBRAND_NAME=snapfish/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2012 7:53:41 GMT -5
Yes. I was of the exact same opinion back when his book was written. However, I've discovered more information since that time which I believe is probably 5 or 6 years now.
Imagine those who would say, point blank: it's all BS, before Bill found what he did. How'd they know? How do they know anything? They don't. They are taking guesses at your expense. That's why its important to look at - then consider - everything yourself. Listening to certain personalities, who hold a bias near and dear to their hearts, is a serious mistake. They have a right to it, of course, but they try to "bully" people into believing they know best and everyone else is an idiot or something.
Weigh it accordingly and if there isn't enough to draw a conclusion yet - then don't. Again, I have about 12 years of Archival Research under my belt, and I am still wrong at times, I continue to learn, I continue to find new information in those same archives, and people teach me new things. I learn everyday by ideas/topics we discuss here. I think a good Researcher always leaves room for mistakes because they happen even in the most rock solid of cases. One has to be able to intelligently adjust to them instead of irrationally shrugging them off or calling them insignificant as a way to deal with their existence.
Fact is, no one is above being wrong or making a mistake. But to actually try to prevent someone from doing research based solely on the fact one has made up their mind about something - is unconscionable.
One of the "Illegitimate Son" theories say that THIS Son was romantically involved with Violet Sharp. It sounds crazy and its easy to shrug off. However, what I found was that the person who was "supposed" to have been the Illegitimate Son actually was in the habit of "hanging out" with and "drinking" with a "Staff Member."
What does that mean? Could be nothing as it relates to this case, in fact, I don't believe it does myself. However, it shows this whole "story" isn't just created out of thin air and there's something behind it. And so it shows this stuff needs to be looked at then pursued to its logical conclusion before disregarding or blowing it off. And if something does come out in the future regarding this angle I will be able to apply it to this research to see how it fits. The research is like this Board - all different angles and ideas coming together.
We learn a hell of a lot more collectively then we do flying solo.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2012 7:58:51 GMT -5
I've always held that opinion myself. It's good to see someone who has attacked this specific matter neutrally come to the same conclusion.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2012 9:19:02 GMT -5
Kevin, thanks for posting the photo of the ladder imprints and the "shoeprint." I haven't seen that one before and it seems quite revealing. My first impression of the placement of the shoeprint itself, is that it's not in a location I would expect for someone in the normal course of climbing up or down a ladder. Added to this, that it appears to be the only recognizable print in the immediate area due to it's relative depth in the mud, would seem to indicate a point of impact for the individual on that ladder.
I'm not necessarily debating whether or not a catastrophic failure of the ladder occurred, but it seems a good possibility whoever was on the ladder may have had the need, or been forced to for balance reasons, to step off a higher rung than they had originally planned. And a sudden splitting of wood in the dark may have been enough to startle even a seasoned climber in such a tense moment. Can a correlation between the side in which the ladder split (I think it was left) and the side of the ladder where the one deep shoeprint appears, (left) be considered here?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 17, 2012 10:12:32 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, it's a shame that this is all that exists regarding the ladder prints. Without saying too much, I am presently involved in a new investigation regarding all that you have brought up. As part of this I am building several more ladders and creating a variety of tests on them. One thing I have learned so far is that I can re-create those impressions fairly accurately. In doing so I found that in the process of removing the ladder from the left side causes that respective hole to distort while the right one stays fairly intact. I wish I could say more regarding the fall theory, but hopefully everyone will soon be able to learn a lot more about both the ladder and the child's death.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2012 11:34:31 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin, and I guess I've always favored something unexpected happening on that ladder for a number of reasons. Good luck with your investigation and I'll be looking forward to your findings!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 18, 2012 11:43:15 GMT -5
Thanks Joe! I always tell everyone that due to the awkwardness of that ladder anything could happen to someone climbing it. It really wouldn't have to break to cause a mishap.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2012 18:55:30 GMT -5
Joe,
I am not seeing what you are. Where do you see a shoe-print?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2012 9:07:55 GMT -5
Michael, what I'm seeing in Kevin's photo is what I believe to be a footprint located about ten inches to the left of the impression made by the left rail of the ladder. It appears to be oriented at about 60 degrees counter-clockwise from vertical, facing generally forward in the direction of the house.
Kevin, from other photos, I believe this is the where the shoeprint impression was found. Am I looking at the same thing here?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 19, 2012 10:01:52 GMT -5
Well Joe that seems to be another one of the voids or discrepancies in the evidence as collected and reported. Depending on what source you reference both the ladder prints, chisel, and footprints seem to be located in different positions. The most accurate reference is usually the official police survey map. However, that survey shows the footprint almost directly in front of the ladder holes. The problem is that the map incorrectly locates both the ladder holes and plank on the ground. So as far as I can tell it's anyone's guess.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2012 18:03:27 GMT -5
You could be right Joe but it's just that I don't see it. I do know there was supposed to be a footprint at the base of the ladder pointing toward the house. My memory was that its supposed to have been to the outside of the right of the ladder rail. Of course I could be "mis-remembering" or the source could be wrong. If what you see is there then I obviously am. BTW.... Here is the 1930s Map I promised "someone" a couple of months ago (could be even longer then that). It shows the different NJSP Stations, where they were, and how many Troopers were assigned. This should give you the proper perspective surrounding the first night concerning those who arrived, from where they were deployed, and the timing involved: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Sept 5, 2014 18:04:02 GMT -5
I think I am on the Anne thread. Amyway, I recently reread Hour of Gold Hour of And I found certain passages very interesting how AML referred to the baby in a letter to her mother in law. Now perhaps grief could account for that. And the need to distance herself from the horrors of it all. However, AML didnt always distance herself. Nevertheless I just found this passsage interesting. (I hasten to add I do not believe that AML had anything to do with her baby's death). It is so odd that this a member of this family who was so intensely private published her diaries. Although personally I believe AML went back and redacted a lot of info.
From Hour of Gold Hour of Lead, 1932, page 247:
"The baby's body was found in the woods near the road from Hopewell to Princeton. It was identified by the homemade shirt Betty and I put on it. Also the teeth and hair. There seems to be no possible doubt. The child was evidently killed by a blow on the head -killed instantly undoubtably, and from the state of the body and from it being so near here, a long time ago, perhaps in panic in the first blast of publicity."
She reffered to her baby as "it" twice when writing to CAL's mother. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 5, 2014 21:35:46 GMT -5
Deedee, this has always puzzled me greatly, such an odd detached statement from a mother. Not my baby but "the baby", not Charlie but "it", not his body but "the body".
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Sept 6, 2014 18:44:15 GMT -5
She reffered to her baby as "it" twice when writing to CAL's mother. Interesting. Deedee: That's because "It" wasn't her baby.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 14, 2016 8:37:26 GMT -5
Michael, Susan Hertog's book stated Anne never got over the loss of Charlie. This is understandable for any mother. I always wondered what she couldn't get over. Was it (A)The fact she lost her son, or (B)If she was involved with the process to get rid of him, or (C)If she lived the rest of her life suspecting her husband was behind the whole kidnapping scheme and death of her son. (His treatment of Charlie was odd to say the least) Can you share your thoughts on this? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2016 15:00:03 GMT -5
Michael, Susan Hertog's book stated Anne never got over the loss of Charlie. This is understandable for any mother. I always wondered what she couldn't get over. Was it (A)The fact she lost her son, or (B)If she was involved with the process to get rid of him, or (C)If she lived the rest of her life suspecting her husband was behind the whole kidnapping scheme and death of her son. (His treatment of Charlie was odd to say the least) Can you share your thoughts on this? Thanks. I don't think it's something I can do in a post. If you happen to read my book, I think the information there will help you to find the answers you seek. There's things that went on that nobody in the house was mentioning. As I've said in the past, secrecy about specific facts may have been kept private for reasons other then having to do with the actual crime. However, if one wants to know what really happened, it's important to see what occurred, or did not, in order to come to a personal conclusion. Too often the various books on this crime tell us what to believe when those Authors filled the pages with bogus information.
|
|