|
Post by rick3 on Sept 20, 2006 9:47:24 GMT -5
Well Kevin, the mythology of the ladder break is now greater than the sum of its parts? If CAL and Anne hear the ladder break (?) and Charlie Jr. has a fractured skull, then.....what else can AGWilintz conclude but that BRH with his game leg, and Charlie with his multiple skull fractures "fell off the ladder onto the wooden walkway"? Sounds more like Fractured Fairy Tales to me?
WC--in a similar vein, I am not the first or the last to theorize or publish that Charlie Jr died at either Next Day Hill or Highfields and the rest of the weekend was spent cleaning up the blood evidence? Secrecy, silence and denial is not the same as a conspiracy? [Ahlgren and Monier, Noel Bern, William Norris, et. al.] As I explained to Jack on Ronelles board, trying to add more and more names into a cover up and then saying they all couldn't keep the secret is a bogus way to prove there could never had been any secrets to keep? I am not the one to leave 50+ questions about the LKC hanging out in midair for 75 years? After all, Violet Sharpe committed suicide, Ollie died in one year or so, Fisch fled to Germany, Betty Gow went to Scotland, Red Johnson was deported (for what reason) to Norway, Duane Charles Baker disappeared, Nosovitsky disappeared, Ellerson crashed his car and became an alcoholic, .....? CAL lies more than once about the dog, the ear witnessing, etc. CAL and Anne lied about Charlie being perfect? All the gangs on yachts headed out to sea? Many witnesses like Robert Thayer and Dr. VanIngen were purposely not called to testify?
With forensics, reason and Ellis Parker we might be able to prove who did the crime, but we cant prove who didnt? Just like we cannot prove there was no cover up, deception or silence among the players?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 20, 2006 17:58:18 GMT -5
Well then lets find another crime, hobby, or whatever, because we are all wasting our time here.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 21, 2006 6:52:23 GMT -5
Your words not mine Kevin. ( I am going to retire when I have 831 posts and 63 exhalts) I would like to raise the issue of the 3 main kidnap gangs (Condon, Curtis, Means) proving they actually have Charlie Jr and that he is "alive and well". Why didnt the family ask for any of the following?: - fingerprints to match those of Dr. Erasmus Hudson
- footprints to match Charlie's prints taken at birth
- lock of Charlie's hair
- location of any strawberry birthmarks
- description of curled toes
- location of any warts or moles
- snapshot or photo
- bleu-thread t-shirt made by Gow
- phone calls to parents to hear Charlie's voice
- description of all the words Charlie can say
Likely, the symbol and the sleeping suit were compromised and no clearcut proof was demanded or offered? Why didnt CAL/BRK & JFC suspect a double-cross? Do the flaws in confirming Charlies ID support Ellis Parkers "two separate crimes theory"?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 21, 2006 9:43:14 GMT -5
Well, Rick, I think you argue (in this instance) in a somewhat sophist posture, by bringing in everything from the living room, dining room, and kitchen as if they were of equal value.
I do not believe that the early(?) deaths of some people in the case prove anything -- except Violet Sharp's suicide, which certainly has not be examined adequately, as noted by several authors including John Douglas, who believes in BRH's guilt, but in a possible conspiracy as well. So I will repeat, do you believe Breckinridge and his wife would be party to an effort to cover up the death prior to March 1, 1932 of Charlie?
Let me pursue this a bit further. Breckinridge had his own set of investigators, and he was very much instrumental in attempting to follow up the Rosner angle, and also that of Mary and Peter. He shadowed Condon (not well enough, probably), lived there, etc.
Your premise depends upon his basic dishonesty and willingness to cover up what would be the greatest scandal in American history -- far more shattering than Harding's Teapot Dome, the Black Sox, etc. And all to protect Lindbergh? Now, I can see that protecting Lindbergh was also protecting a certain vision of America that he represented (all-American boy, world hero, etc) during the Great Depression.
But I don't think it came to that. I think that it is more logical to say that if the child had died, for whatever reason, it would have been easier to come up with a story than stage a kidnapping, which, after all is a helluva complicated business. Besides, if CAL was worried about a defective child, he knew that Anne was pregnant with their second, so that if he died he could take it somewhat in stride, telling the press that Charlie had been ill, and a cold turned into a sudden crisis and death.
So by the standards of Occam's Razor, the idea of Charlie's death before March 1, 1932 seems to me to get cut in half.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Sept 21, 2006 13:19:46 GMT -5
Well, wc, I try to stay on a single topic for you:
Topic 1: I read John Douglas' readers digest version...its 3-4 pages long--hes looking for an accopmplice? This was never my theory, just a possiblily posed by Ahlgren and Monier since "almost" noone can confirm Charlies presence on Monday or Tuesday. Certainly not Charlie Ellerson the chauffeur? All I would add is that if CAL, Elizabeth or Dwight Jr. participated in Charlies disappearance, likely the "date" isnt important ?
Topic 2: Breckenridge starts out as CAL's personal attorney with attorney client priveledges. Even if CAL spilled his guts, its a secret? BRK then moves to "go-between" before Condon, then "minder" of JFC? Last, Chief Detective for the Rosner angle? Wow, thats alot of hats?
Hyperbole 3: Wow.....the Greatest Scandal in American History! The Assasination of Lincoln, or JFK? Pearl Harbor, Vietnam and Watergate? Well, OK, maybe 5th? Breckenridge is bound by friendship and attorney client priveledge....like a priest.
Hypothsis 4: Well, in a way this is all a "story", like JFCs tall tales. Noone was supposed to get caught, the money wasn't supposed to be marked, no one was supposed to get arrested, tried and executed. Maybe it just spun out of control, Welcome to Earth, 3rd rock from the sun? Its hard to match the multiple skull fractures et. al.[b]with an accidental death? Oops/ but they could have.
I'm 50/50 on this too.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 21, 2006 21:06:30 GMT -5
Hi Rick~ When you say the symbol was compromised, are you referring to Rosner?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic 5 on Sept 22, 2006 3:02:04 GMT -5
Mairi/ yes! Sending Mickey Rosner, a felon under indictment to New York City with the actual ransom note(?) or a handwritten copy was one of the more suspicious and criticized brainchilds of CAL? Even Schwartkopf had a conniption fit when he heard this. There are reports of this note being photographed and appearing in the papers. Apparently it was shown to Spitz, Bitalle, Owney Madden--the Al Capone of NYC, and maybe even Jacob Nosovitsky--Master Forger. Shortly after that JFC receives a symboled note. But the "Dear Sir" and the symbol never look exactly the same again? Was CAL phishing for an extortion gang or merely trying to catch Charlie's snatchers red handed? At Charlie's peril no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 22, 2006 9:05:22 GMT -5
Hi Rick,
Its hard to weigh the significance of the Rosner copy of the note. I personally believe the extortionist was the kidnapper. None of us can find proof of what happened so at times we have to vision what the indications are. In the CJ conversations with Condon (assuming he is not lying) clearly hint that CJ knew the child was dead. The point CJ never threw threats out for the life of the child which most professional investigators agree is a sign he knows he is dead. In addition the "would I burn if the baby is dead" quote indicates my leaning CJ knew the child was dead. To have this knowledge I have believe he is involved in the kidnappingas well..
The Nosovitsky story is interesting but I can not put him the story at all unless someone can tell me why. The fact he disappeared and that he felt Morrow owed him money is not enough. I don't believe knocking off a baby is a believable act of retribution.
I've studied Means and Curtis (Means lately) . At one time I did believe Means had the resources to be involved but if you read the testimony of his sidekick that was arrested with him I can certainly believe Means had no part.
I believe there is an inside source and find Ellerson the best candidate. If not, Whately maybe. I believe this insider planted the thumbguard either by design or mistake. I think there is a huge clue in the possibility Baker is JJ Faulkner. If so his involvement could be because there was a gambling debt to pay. Fisch fits the profile of a gambling problem. There are times he has noodles of cash and other times he lives like a pauper. These are all signs of a gambler to me. Baker realizing he had the kidnapping loot skipped town.
Rick I don't see a gun used on the baby. Think through this and it doesn't make sense. Unless the child was believed dead and the killer felt in his sick mind it was best not for him to suffer if he had a spark of life left. The stick poke was mentioned behind the right ear and this is where the bullet theory believes the wound to be. Its a consistent answer of the appearance of the skull. I think they botched the crime scene and the skull evidence is shot (no pun intended). Not knowing this I can see why they considered a bullet wound. A gun makes sound and if it was decided to do this in the car you have to get out of the car. All stupid risks in what otherwise was a smartly planned kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 22, 2006 13:14:43 GMT -5
Hi Gary...well first things first.....BC = before condon: There are a whole bunch of people who question the Rosner affair. No matter how many times CAL claims to have Charlie's best interests and his rapid return as his first and only priority it appears to the untrained eye that CAL is letting his huge EGO try and solve the case single-handedly? But not using others ideas and suggestions or input...only his own? As such, it sure looks like Cal's first suspicion, substantiated by threats or not, is that the Mafia, or the mob, or organized crime has Charlie and hes going to fight fire with fire? eg Spitz, Bitalle, Madden etc. CAL thinks hes going to play hardball with the big boys....NOT. If Charlie is still alive its bad for his health. Even Condon falls for the Nosovitsky rumors by having some guy named "Doc" in his kidnap gang on the boat? The relationship of the Nursery note to the remaining notes is still way up into the air. The handwriting is "disguised" Whoa...big surprise here, and the symbol looks odd? Only the word IS matches....DYBT? Certain evidence suggests that CAL was playing the Means and Curtis angles at the same time as Condon. Wow, that really muddies the waters? (but as you say Charlie is killed before Condon meets Cjohn) Also, Evalyn Walsh McClean claims CAL gave her a green light to follow up on Means? Why? and CAL ends up sailing the 7 seas with Curtis for 19 days before Xharlie is found on Mt. Rose Hill? This too muddies the waters? No Charlie, no symbol, no sleeping suit? Puzzling? Any port in the storm? I like the links between Ellerson, and Baker....these should be followed up upon in Lakewood and Englewood. Maybe even Ralph Hacker will turn up here? Wendel later claims that Violet Sharpe knew the chauffeur and his wife made plans w/ Condon? (see NYTimes May 8 1937: Sharpe knew chauffeur/ Dutch Schultz known Faukner/ mafia told Bitz hands off money hot/etc) www.network54.com/Forum/503283/message/1158252103/New+York+Times+May+8th+1937The primary reason no one likes the gunshot, in spite of all the forensics, is because it doesn't fit their own pet theory? Like that Charlie is killed in the nursery, but noone hears the shot? Maybe the gun had a silencer? Oops, now there is no blood too. So one thing is certain, if Charlie gets shot then it isn't at Highfield's and not on March 1st...but luckily we have days and weeks to deliver Charlie over to Mt. Rose Hill in the burlap. If the Purple gang, or the mob, or the Mafia snatches poor Lil' Charlie, and then CAL tries to catch them up and not pay the ransom like a good boy then Charlie Jr. is pretty much toast?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 22, 2006 15:14:41 GMT -5
Really? You mean the paper doesn't match? The tear marks don't match? The ink doesn't match? The circles are not formed from the same die? The holes are not exactly aligned? Forget about the writing.
No, I think it has more to do with the lack of a bullet, powder, and blood.
Good points Gary, why don't you consider Gow?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 22, 2006 16:42:04 GMT -5
Good one Kevin:
Here we have a body decomposed to a blackened skeleton beyond recognition and you are hoping to find baby powder?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 22, 2006 17:34:54 GMT -5
Beyond recognition?? Baby powder? What? ?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 22, 2006 22:14:02 GMT -5
Hi kevin.
Why not Gow? I'm swayed by her devotion to her job and the love of the child. Her responses all seem consistent of a victim rather than criminal. Her testimony at the trial shows no concern of having fingers pointed at her. I don't think she would be part of a kidnapping on the night she was there. She seems to be a take charge person and one not to follow other's ambitions and plans. I've often pondered why Else took Betty to her room to look at this dress. Being probably the worst location to be at the wrong time.
I think the Purple Gang involvement is somewhat ridiculous and a far reach of Gow tied to this group. Concerning Lindbergh as the insider and coordinator of the kidnapping of his own child I would agree with some of recent comments. If Lindbergh wanted his child dead ..why not hoax an accident and why a kidnapping?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 23, 2006 6:01:00 GMT -5
Thanks Gary for the well thought out response. You have a good point regarding Gow which I can understand. Too bad, because she is the one person who is in the perfect position to facilitate the kidnapping. Someone had to be able to insure that the window would be unlocked, IMHO.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2006 8:43:46 GMT -5
I find the possibility of Betty Gow's involvement in a staged kidnapping, highly unlikely. Anything other than a real and unexpected disappearance of CALjr, would have demanded upfront, unwavering participation and a direct line through her.
Edward Reilly realized the opportunity he had to extract some kind of deep and sinister admission through the "weakest link in the chain" that he no doubt envisioned would have had Gow melting down in guilt down before the jury. In addition to showing she would not be bullied, she had absolutely nothing to confess in response to any of the hypothetical innuendo and slander Reilly threw at her.
I believe her demonstrated devotion to the child belies any possibility of her participation in such a potentially convoluted scheme as a staged kidnapping to explain away any planned or accidental death. Her emotional outpouring in reaction to author A. Scott Berg passing along greetings from Anne Lindbergh during his book research, is a poignant reminder of how her devotion to the Lindberghs and feeling the need to remain in good stead, stayed firmly intact for over sixty years. And I don't believe she could have survived the fallout from any untowards involvement in 1932, well into her nineties.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2006 9:10:37 GMT -5
Rick, I do agree that if I were the Father I would want a little more proof the child was alive. Assuming they took the child doesn't mean they still had him or that he was alive.
These are good points but wouldn't Breckinridge do anything to protect CAL? I think that was his ultimate goal here and probably why his meeting with someone he believed was Fisch never came out in the wash and kept quiet (See Dr. Gardner's TCTND p.408).
Would we expect Means to tell the truth if he did know something of importance?
I don't know about this one. What do we really know as absolute facts? I believe everyone in that house is a suspect with my least favorite being Anne. Would one expect Betty to get caught out in public with her clothes off rolling around in a car with a Sailor who had VD?
No, but it happened.
Did the neighbors ever suspect the BTK killer was the BTK killer? Nope - they were of course - shocked. People do things for reasons unknown to us and only when we find them out does it make sense, and even then it sometimes doesn't. We don't know how this may have been proposed to someone or by who it was pitched. These variables are very important.
Anyway, my point is that I can accept someone excluding Gow but not for the reason that she loved the child or anything like that. In fact, her involvement could have been manipulated based upon her very love for the child, if indeed she really felt that way.
Did she survive? She died a spinster never to be married or have any children of her own.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2006 10:34:53 GMT -5
I think you're right in implying that Betty Gow died with a large part of her left unfulfilled and therefore there must have been a major motivating factor involved. As her life was unfolding in late 1931 and by all accounts of her demonstrated ambitions, she no doubt believed she would soon have to make a major decision around the difficulties of being tied to the Lindberghs in Highfields versus the pursuit of any future personal relationships and family that would take her elsewhere. It does seem that the kidnapping stopped the ambitions of Betty Gow dead in their tracks.
Human nature itself dictates we all absorb or deflect major life events in diferent ways and we know this case is full of variations on that theme. If Betty Gow had had the least involvement, however unintentional, ("Oh Violet, they just love the house and they feel so safe there... why they don't even lock the upper windows!") then yes, she does strike me as the kind of person who would have ultimately harbored feelings of guilt in the knowldege that she may have unwittingly contributed towards Charlie's death. And that this may well have affected her future interests and personal relationships to the point she felt she wore these feelings outwardly in a way that others were receptive to them.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 23, 2006 14:04:02 GMT -5
Hi Michael: Can we discuss your laundry list of 20 Feb: 1. There was an inside connection. How important is it which of the servants helps the kidnappers? eg Betty or Ollie? Either of them can hand Charlie out the window. Unless the insider is based in Englewood? eg Ellerson or Sharpe? 2. The child died in the Nursery. \ OK, but what tells us this? by the hand of the climber? And why would the Gang that Cant Shoot Straight kidnap a dead baby? You have said you think Charlie was smothered....but by whom? Do you suspect the insider of murder? 3. The child was brought to where he was found after March 1st. OK....I am totally in concert with this based upon Ellis Parkers calculations and also common sense. The animal damage to Charlie would be much worse in 72 days in the woods too. Was his body taken out to any of the yachts at Cape May or Norfolk? So now all the gangs are ransoming a dead body? Well, CJ sure knows that? - 4. Lindbergh's actions were very suspicious.
5. Hauptmann's involvement can not be explained away by a position that he was "duped." 6. Some evidence was manipulated. 7. Some Witnesses were coerced and/or coached. 8. The Police believed Hauptmann was involved. 9. The Authorities believed more then one person was involved
. 10. There was no "fall" off of that ladder. this is fine by me seeing how there was no indentations into the muddy soil. But we still need to get Charlie's skull fractures put on while he is still living to get a hematoma!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2006 9:41:17 GMT -5
I think its pretty damned important who the inside connection was. Armed with that knowledge it could point to other things and unravel the case.
Well, why would a gang collect a ransom on a dead baby? I've often floated the hypothesis out there this event really wasn't for the ransom. I think Gary may have a similar theory.
Maybe, or just maybe Jafsie knows it but claims CJ told him that when he didn't.
Lindbergh's actions were very suspicious... Indeed. He is essentially protecting whoever the "insider" was. Why? Was he stupid? Why not demand proof the child is alive after CJ supposedly makes this comment? Too many things coming from CAL for me to overlook.
We're talking about a child with, apparently, a very soft and underdeveloped skull. This could have happened anywhere at any time before or during the commission.
We know he didn't scream and certainly would have. He was "out."
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 24, 2006 20:51:01 GMT -5
Michael: I am trying to give CAL the benefit of the doubt: He may be trying to protect the family, or an individual within the family, or Charlie's defects? It must be overwhelming for everyone you meet to be in awe and want you to take charge? Clearly, the 4 colonels hiring Rosner, Spitz, Bitalle and Owney Madden, the beer baron of the Bronx, was to find Charlie in the hands of the mob? Some of Cal's actions were just dumb? One big lie is that hes only trying to insure the safe return of Charlie? Many of Cal's boneheaded ideas insured his death? Condon posted |"mony is redy" 18 times and then they give the gang hot money? Thanks to Irey from Treasury/ Be that as it may he lied under oath to bury BRH. Same as Condon. What makes the situation so confounding is that all the servants have something to hide. Some drug dealer told Evalyn Walsh McClean that he provided drugs to Sharpe and Whateley? Could be a deception or red herring but it muddies the waters. Maybe some of the servants were fooled into thinking they were helping? Harry Walsh, one of the better dicks on the case, was certain Sharpe was lying on purpose--but for which reason? Hey....at least the Eagles won!| wc: this Bud's for you...... disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=141545;article=33401;search_term=chauffer
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 24, 2006 21:56:37 GMT -5
I will keep in mind if inside help came from any of the 5 confirmed in the house that night they were very very good. Could Gow be that good. Why not? Like Kevin says there are good reasons to believe in her capability. If so she would be the Judas I can not see her being.
I really enjoyed BEHN's book. I think he was a fabulous investigator of the case. He might have had a wrong conclusion but he brings to light an interesting thought. Should we look beyond just the 5 being there that day? We know the probability that the nursery was wiped down but the improbability it could have been in those critical hours.
I've already decided my opinion is this kidnapping was very well planned and carried out almost with perfection. The only flaw I see is leaving the ladder. Apparently the kidnapper(s) believed the ladder would never come back to them. How would they know they did not leave any prints? Why bother covering your shoes and then leave this ladder? This is why I think there is something uncanny with the ladder. This is one of the many reasons that the WEIGHT of the ladder evidence in my opinion is far less than most.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 25, 2006 6:24:29 GMT -5
Gary, I believe the answer to this is revealed by the hodge podge of wood species and the extensive re-sawing used in the ladder construction. Here Hauptmann chose wood not primarily by its' suitability but rather by the fact that he had no previous contact with it. That makes rail 16 all the more ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 25, 2006 7:51:10 GMT -5
I think its a very important observation to make concerning this book and it should be applied to all of them. There are interesting points and facts that shouldn't be overlooked simply because the Author may have gotten one or more things wrong.
Now the issue of whether or not more then just these (5) is interesting...but then it once again raises the specter of a household conspiracy in which all (5) have to be involved. That's possible, but not probable. Still though - its something I've been keeping in the back of my mind for consideration from time to time.
The other issue came back to light during the JBR recent events. I recalled one of Leon Ho-age's investigations where someone had hidden themselves in building in order to commit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 25, 2006 10:32:25 GMT -5
Wow, this thread is very interesting.
Let's start with Gow. I think that if she was involved there were two things that might explain it. She was approaching spinsterhood - she is three years at least older than Anne. She might have believed that no harm would come to the child. She also was peeved (a mild word) at CAL's treatment of Charlie. She could get a new start, maybe, and still teach CAL a lesson. I find it interesting that she never married and lived under that shadow (according to things she told Berg and probably Kennedy, all the rest of her life.) She could be absolutely devoted, but she was ambitious (very much so), and wanted a life.
Breckinridge. Yes he was devoted to CAL. And yes the Fisch story (his, not BRH's) never really got much attention. But I don't see him involved in a cover-up of the death of the child before March 1 -- and the Fisch story (his) does not tally with such a cover-up.
The various woods in the ladder. Collected so that there is no connection, and then picks one from the attic. I find that is more than ironic. He is so bloody careful to prevent fingerprints on the wood, but leaves a calling card. It might qualify as arrogance. Dr. Schoenfeld would think so, probably. But it still goes uneasily in the innards. Remember "Double Indemnity," with Edward G. Robinson saying that the little man in his stomach just didn't agree with the idea of an accident? It is hard not to feel that way about rail 16.
Also, Kevin has qualified "ragged edge" in a recent post, but here again he enters a caveat. Not the most suitable wood for the job, only the most suitable for avoiding a connection to the perp. We keep going around this mulberry bush. Why not just say the ladder remains a damned mystery. Reilly should have kept after CAL on the ladder business when he had him on the stand, because he is the only one -- the only one -- in the house who heard that falling orange crate! (Now if Judge Trenchard had been an honest judge, he would have asked, as he did in another instance, "Now do you believe that?")
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 25, 2006 15:24:01 GMT -5
Just to clarify my statement. What I mean regarding suitability is that Hauptman could have purchased all this wood of a single species without having to go through the laborious effort of ripping and planing larger pieces to arrive at the final size. In the process of picking this wood out at the lumberyard, he would also benefit from the ability to select ideal boards with the proper grain orientation and minimal defects. Also, and I admit this may not mean much to non- woodworkers, it just goes against the grain (no pun intended) to mix woods. Particularly if one is working them together. Ideally a carpenter working up a piece like the ladder rails wants the boards to be of the same species. I would liken it is to a writer mixing pens and paper. So I don't know if I am circling the Mulberry bush, but I would say with some certainty that there must have been a reason for the added work and mixing of woods. Frugality? I doubt even a higher grade purchased at the yard would amount to much ( unless he shopped at Samuelsohn's ;D). A time constraint? I find that highly unlikely as the time it would take to get these boards at the yard would probably be less than the time required to re-saw and plane. So I am left with one remaining option and that is the need to produce this ladder without leaving any trace of the producer, or so he thought.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 25, 2006 18:01:52 GMT -5
I think we agree on a lot of this. You look at this hodge-podge of boards and conclude that it was to prevent a connection with the perp, yet, if we are to believe Koehler, he selected wood from a nearby lumberyard. I have a lot of trouble with connecting the dots here.
I.E. I want it to be anonymous, so I put together a less than first class ladder -- adding to the chance that it will break down. But, then, I also take wood from a nearby lumberyard, and even one from my attic. Again, if we are to believe Koehler, he was spotted there. I don't think he was, but that is neither here nor there. All I have done, really, is to eliminate fingerprints -- if indeed that was the case. The only "proof" of that is the absence of BrH prints - at least that could be found on the ladder. An "instrument" that was out in the wet til morning, and handled by many folks throughout its journey in and out of the house, and out to Wisconsin. On the other hand, there were plenty of unidentified prints on the ladder. We could conclude this is because he did not make the ladder. Perhaps we should be asking how Rail 16 got on the ladder? Of course it was from his attic, or maybe someone got it from his basement? Is it interesting, just play along with me on this for a moment, that there were so far as we know, no traces of its having been made in the garage? If he picked the wood because he thought it could not be traced, why worry about stuff in your garage?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 26, 2006 6:21:12 GMT -5
WC, if I were to construct a ladder to be used in the commission of a crime and I was unaware of the (neo) science of wood identification, I think I would feel safe from discovery as long as no fingerprints of mine existed on the ladder. The best way to achieve this would be by gathering up wood that I had no contact with. But in doing that I am sure that some of the wood I used would have come from a local yard I deal with. There are only so many lumberyards, so that becomes a high probability. To be honest though, if I wasn't aware of this case and forensics, I probably wouldn't even think of it.
What traces would you expect to find ? I doubt there was anything worth saving from the original boards. The clamps and tools required were present. What he would have great difficulty in doing in the garage is laying out and assembling the ladder in its entirety. But he certainly could have performed the mortising and re-sawing there. Hauptmann obviously felt comfortable with the garage to stash the loot there.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 26, 2006 10:23:59 GMT -5
OK Michael, I will try and construct some logical sequence of events based upon what you believe: - There is at least one insider connection?
- Charlie dies in the nursery?
- CALs actions are suspicious? eg. he comes home early to help out w/ family.
- Charlie did not fall off any ladder? plus:
......Wagoosh didnt bark so there may be no strangers present inside the house? It seems pretty unlikely, that Charlie receives the multiple skull fractures with a hole thru hard bone "post mortem"> Why, because there is a hematoma or blood clot opposite the hole. So while Charlie is still alive, some "instrument of violence" causes the wounds to his skull. But, Charlie if dies in the nursery-- we must conclude that Charlie dies at Highfields from smothering or his injury but before he disapperars? capicé ? Thus, dead Charlie is missing? In a blue-thread t-shirt no liess? Hmmmm. Did I miss something?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 26, 2006 13:41:00 GMT -5
As a Mom when mine were babies I always hoped they wouldn't wake up at the crack of dawn. I would have closed shutters to keep the early morn daylight out. How do we know unlocked windows rattled in the new house? I would guess we don't know that. The French windows weren't locked and even a bit open for fresh air. My vote is that an insider was at play and opened the window/shutters as a signal. Why choose that particular window? Who knows. It may have had something to do with the vantage point of whoever could have come into the room below it(?) I don't rule out that ether was used to make sure the child was quiet. (or chloroform) I don't know if there would have been a lingering smell of it--keeping in mind the partially open french windows and whatever length of time the kidnap window was open.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 26, 2006 15:00:03 GMT -5
Betty Gow certainly had the opportunity to give a signal. The vagueness of her (and CAL's) statements about the window being open are important in that regard. And yet we have Anne also saying it was impossible to latch the shutter. On the other hand, we also have Anne testifying that it was usually the French window left open, but she could not be sure that night which one was. This is a troublesome aspect of the shutter controversy. Surely Anne had no reason to front for Betty unless Rick is right in his speculation that the child was already dead. But further against that we have Elsie's statement that Anne went to the window and thought she heard a child cry, and she had to say, no, Mrs. Lindbergh it was only the wind. (By the way the fact that wind had not calmed down is interesting in terms of the modus operandi of the kidnap and the ladder and the enter/exit issue, but leave that.)
If this was cooked up, and the death occurred earlier, they did a very good job of all getting their stories straight to tell the police. The window issue seems the only one left in somewhat an uncertain state. (It is true, of course, that Mickey Rosner got more information from the servants than the police ever did in those early hours after the crime.)
I think Kevin and I have reached a very good understanding of our differences of emphasis. I respect his opinion. It comes down to one issue, really. He believes it was always intended to leave the ladder behind and that a lack of knowledge of wood science forensics permitted him that option. I believe that may be the case, but there is room for other interpretations: 1. The perp(s) was/were interrupted by a troublesome dog, whose marks Oscar Bush noted. 2. Leaving the ladder was essential to a selected narrative of the crime -- and I do not mean by this that BRH was framed, but that the ladder's presence points to a totally outside job.
|
|