|
Post by leah on Sept 26, 2006 15:49:24 GMT -5
i think it is interesting that betty gow told scott berg she had worried the lindberghs blamed her. why would she think that all those years when they utilized her to care for jon. also think it interesting that berg's biography didnt pick up a hint of charles' philandering.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Sept 26, 2006 19:37:59 GMT -5
That does ask the question about guilt of something not explained in the kidnap case script. It does imply that something else happened that maybe more than one employee may have been lead into believing they were each responsible to keep their silence. This is easy to do with house employees, as the family can bring each to believe they were personally responsible for some incident for a family members breakdown, but not for the claimed kidnap story. This is why I claim something other than a kidnap happened, and that it involved a family member as the cause.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 26, 2006 20:08:09 GMT -5
Rita/ you pose a fascinating question......on the one hand Isador Fisch managed to fool almost everyone he dealt with into thinking he was either filthy rich or dirt poor.....then kept them all isolated one from one another. I suppose it is equally possible that CAL fooled everyone too on his end of the bargain? Maybe even fooled them into thinking that Charlie was "alive and well"? After all CAL fooled everyone into thinking he was happily married and had only 3 kids? A couple of real chameleons who could fool all the people some of the time/ both represent "a conspiracy of one".
|
|
|
Post by rita on Sept 26, 2006 22:42:28 GMT -5
Exactly how can Bette Gow think they blamed her for Charley as a kidnap victim, something that would have happened if she was there or not. I suppose that both Bette Gow and Violet Sharpe could have been individually told they were responsible for telling their boyfriends of Charley's location the kidnap day. That plot would not support both Violet and Bette having overwhelming feeling of guilt from possible boyfriends Red, chauffeur Henry, or Butler as they were not suspects, so where did their individual guilts come from? Was Charley's disappearance from another cause, and from which both Bette and Violet could have been individually made to feel guilt over?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 27, 2006 6:41:33 GMT -5
I believe that the ladder was constructed in a manner that would allow it to be left behind. It is one more example of the planning involved and the consideration of possible situations that might arise by Hauptmann and Co. It is also one more example of why the possibility of encountering a locked window would have been addressed .
|
|
|
Post by leah on Sept 27, 2006 6:53:51 GMT -5
i think not only the possibility of a locked window but which window would be over an unused room is important. obviously the study wasnt being used in the early evening but that has to do with the timing. who knew when cal would be home and the light (with the desk just at that side of the house) would be turned on. i think that window was planned and prepared and not just from the outside.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 27, 2006 16:43:38 GMT -5
One of the most revealing and important characteristics of the ladder design is that it was obviously planned to be placed next to the window against the shutter as opposed to the more traditional and utilitarian position centered on the window and at sill height. This clearly indicates to me two things. One the kidnappers were well of the sight lines afforded through the Library?Study and the wide French door from the Living Room and wished to avoid placing the ladder in direct view even at the cost of a more awkward ladder position. Second, it demonstrates that they had little concern regarding the need to overcome a locked window and shutter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2006 17:35:45 GMT -5
Not directly - no. But it does demonstrate Breck's willingness to overlook a very important detail as it relates to Hauptmann's defense. Think about this for a minute and ask yourself if you could remain silent about this during the trial in good conscience. Maybe this is an indicator of more then one person working involved in its construction? I think the 'frugality' excuse lacks merit and I cannot accept it. If you are risking all you don't spare a couple of cents. No, I think we are learning that there seems to be a good reason for just about everything they did. Everything was planned for a purpose. I was also thinking that Samuelsohn may have been a first choice, and if what you suggest is true, re-thought out the origin which caused them to build their own after Samuelsohn for the purposes you mention. Agreed. Again, this idea that it was a 'last minute' decision is a Lone-Wolf explanation used in order to explain away the dilemma presented by Hauptmann's expected and/or employment situation. It's weak. Or perhaps the inverse is true. Maybe it was meant to trace to someone specific. We assume the chisel was dropped accidentally but this too could have been left behind on purpose. Well also think of his defense - that a skilled Carpenter wouldn't have built this 'thing.' Well we have the benefit of a Master Carpenter in Kevin and look at how much has been revealed. See my point? I look at all of Kevin's observations and wonder to myself how Keraga missed all of this stuff. My personal differences aside here.... I saw Keraga's replica ladder and it was a fine piece of work.... so why did he miss all of these things for the years he has been researching this case when only in a few short months Kevin spots them? I applaud Kevin for not allowing any personal theory get in the way of his observations. Not exactly. Koehler himself noted that Hauptmann had smaller and better suited planes then his larger Seargents available in his garage and wondered why he didn't use them. He also pointed out that other plane marks on the ladder did not match any of his planes. Furthermore, Koehler notes that Hauptmann did not have a brace, try square, level, or hatchet which were "essential" carpenter tools. He seems to be convinced this ladder was assembled elsewhere as a result of these, among others, point I mention above. I thought what she heard was a cat? Regardless, the wind is an issue we need also to deal with. Would this ladder lean against the house without blowing over in a heavy wind if no one was there to hold it? Agreed. Ever wonder why no one in the house heard any dogs bark? Why not post the ladder to the left side? Because it wasn't, is this an indicator the Perp utilizing it was left-handed? All it does, for me, is show an injury prior to death. I don't believe its the cause of death merely because it exists. He may have even been killed because of it. Good point. There must be a reason for her to say that, yet, the Lindbergh's did nothing but defend her. Maybe there was something behind her quitting when she did which relates to this. Also, I believe Berg knew but chose not to put this in his book. Take for example Hertog. She found evidence without having the access Berg did and look at the negative attacks she received from the family: Based on meticulous research and documentation, I gave a direct, hard-nosed account of their involvement with the German Reich and their activities and speeches for America First. Unlike Berg’s biography of Charles, my book defined Anne Lindbergh’s views and her role during this pre-war period, confirming both her support and participation in his work. Furthermore, Berg had omitted Charles’ six-year extramarital relationship with another woman which I was able to verify, describe and substantiate.
-- Susan Hertog www.salon.com/letters/2000/02/25/frat/print.html[/blockquote]
|
|
for kevin and michael
Guest
|
Post by for kevin and michael on Sept 27, 2006 19:08:48 GMT -5
Michael: please clarify your one-use disposal theory or "throw-away" question? Are you saying its too valuble or too specialized for this single use to leave behind?
I believe that the ladder was constructed in a manner that would allow it to be left behind. It is one more example of the planning involved and the consideration of possible situations that might arise by Hauptmann and Co. It is also one more example of why the possibility of encountering a locked window would have been addressed . Kevin
Question||: Do these two ideas match|? What ladder could you NOT leave behind? rick
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 27, 2006 20:12:30 GMT -5
A ladder with your prints all over it ( would you be secure in the ability to eradicate these?) A manufactured ladder which could possibly be traced to a point of purchase. A ladder unique to particular trade or individual. A ladder which can be identified as the property of the criminal.
I am sure there are more, today DNA would be another
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 28, 2006 9:55:38 GMT -5
We all agree that the ladder was designed so that it "could" be left behind. Kevin seems reluctant to say more than that it was designed to "allow" it to be left behind. That is to me the most sensible position -- and a consensus. We can all branch off from that.
But what is really new here, it would appear, is Kevin's next contribution, that the ladder was also designed because of foreknowledge that the shutter and window lock would not be a problem. That is breathtaking. Such foreknowledge would also assure the perp(s) that the time frame could be met. (After all, foreknowledge would also include the fact that CAL had a weapon in the house that he would not hesitate to use -- presumably)
Michael's emphasis on careful planning once again suggests the problem and fallacy of "last-minute" decisions, except the possibility that rail 16 was a substitute. It could be, of course, a mix of planning and last minute caused by some factor that we have yet to uncover. Rick's postulate might enter here - that the child died. But then we are back to a large conspiracy.
A minor point. Anne thought she heard a child, Elsie said it was a cat. Curious little incident.
I wonder if Kevin would venture an opinion on how a person would step into that room from the ladder the way he describes the possible scene?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 28, 2006 17:13:43 GMT -5
Michael~ Good on you for posing the question if the perp may have been left-handed. I guess again we might have to consider the vantage point of someone entering the room below, had the ladder been placed on the other side of the window. But it does seem to me that a right-handed person (being where the ladder actually was) has an added burden, in an already precarious position, of manipulating shutters and the window. As you would know my theory is that the child was handed out by insider, also having the ladder man reaching out to receive the bundle with left hand. Just an aside on Condon and the suspicions of how the kidnapper happened to read the small newspaper he put his letter in. It crossed my mind that perhaps just the letter in the paper was to have been his grand gesture. He may have been quite surprised himself that he actually rec'd an answer(?).
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 28, 2006 23:05:09 GMT -5
I am not sure the ladder was designed to be left behind. I can not commit myself to say it was or was not. Obviously it seems sensible to say it sure looks that way but truly it would all depend on sequence of events that we don't know. Just for an example the car that Anne heard might have been designed to take the child away. Then again perhaps there was a misque. The car came up didn't see his accomplice and took off leaving the baby and kidnapper behind leaving the ladder and baby in the snathcher's hand. Taking the decision for quickness the snatcher had no choice but to leave the ladder behind.
Handing the baby out the window is certainly possible. Then you have to ask how the small mud samples got inside? Would one from the inside scurry to find any mud and plant it? This person would have to go outside then come back in. Wouldn't having mud in ones hand give a more chance of a print to be picked up. One thing for sure if Wendel's account was true involved or not involved would not mud be found going toward the door? We also go back to the discussion the wiping down of prints. If the intruder got in wouldn't there be a high likelihood of prints with all the moisture and mud? I am more inclined to lean the intruder got in took the child and perhaps someone inside was more the watch than a participant. One who could signal Ann was here and Betty was there. Leaving the nursery an open field for the snatch.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 29, 2006 8:29:37 GMT -5
Let's just say that it was a contingency allowed for.
Certainly, but that carries some very big problems with it. For starters the third section is simply not needed for a hand out. Why, with the effort to make a lightweight ladder and the trouble regarding rail 16, would the kidnapers bother making and carrying it along? It is somewhat akin to the window lock scenario, you would design and build the ladder accordingly. The second big problem is that a handout would obviously require the presence of one of the 5 household members. Their absence during the kidnapping would raise the bar substantially in terms of risk. Could they coordinate their absence and the timing with the outside crew to minimize this? I doubt it could be done with certainty. The third problem is why that window? That double hung window with obstructions in front of it is the hardest to hand out through. Was that a result of the shutter situation? All in all , it appears that an insider actively handing the child out the window is unlikely unless you start including more ( or all ) of the Lindbergh household. So we are back to the same old argument of a hoax vs a crime, IMHO.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 29, 2006 12:12:45 GMT -5
Hi Gary~Do we know who and when traces of mud were noted? CAL had run outside and come back in=mud? Anne had earlier been out side and later in nursery=mud? Makes me wonder. Have you seen the sketch of the nursery by Corporal Wolf (Ronnel's board)? He says it's not to scale, but I found it very interesting to see the whole layout. May be some indicators of why a particular window was chosen(?) (maybe the choice of an insider?)
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 29, 2006 12:20:15 GMT -5
One insider help doesn't mean the whole household was involved or the Hoax thing. O. Whateley's whereabouts were not as clearly defined as the other adults. I think he had the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 29, 2006 13:56:35 GMT -5
Would still like to hear Kevin on the likely position of the intruder as he enters the nursery, and how he thinks he would have exited - in terms of swinging out on the ladder -- with or without a "package" over his shoulder in a burlap bag. That has always bothered me whether two sections or three. The reason I keep at this is the issue of the width of the window, and how someone's legs would spread going out, and let not knock anything over or move the chest. Leon Hoage tried to get at that with his theory about the dust swirls on the windowsill, but I don't think anyone really understood what he was trying to say -- which (of course I may be wrong) was that the swishing around should have left something. Some mark, some bit of a burlap bag, some hand print (we know there was mud on the sheets in the crib). Perhaps the thread should be titled Immaculate Evacuation.
The mud on the floor has always been another question, and all sorts of theories are floated. We know that, best they could tell, the smudges only "point" inward. Curious there is no mix of forward and return, no?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 29, 2006 15:48:14 GMT -5
Wow WC, your really taxing my literary capabilities with this request. It would be far easier I think to make a video. Let me try and put something together. Regarding the sill marks, or lack of; I just don't know. My faith in the recording of the crime scene that night is not very high. Measuring with a shoe and that sort of thing does not inspire much confidence. As for not disturbing anything upon entry, once again I would submit that we really don't know this to be fact. I could see the suitcase and toy being disturbed and replaced on exit. There does seem to be an effort here to leave little if any indication of an entry. Now I suppose one can look at that in two ways. One, as some believe, that there was no entry to begin with. But this seems to me to then defeat the whole rationale for the ladder. On one hand the ladder is only a "prop" to indicate an outside kidnap and on the other a "clean" undisturbed room which seems to indicate the exact opposite. The other way of looking at this is that the kidnappers were extremely concerned with a premature discovery and desperately wanted the Nursery to appear normal to anyone who might look in ( without actually going to the crib). Anyway , your guess is as good as mine. My certainty lies more with the ladder. I know it was designed for the three section deployment and that tells me that the kidnappers were unconcerned with dealing with a lock. It also tells me that they had to enter the Nursery.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 29, 2006 17:07:28 GMT -5
Hi Kevin,
I am in the room only for moments but if you read my paragraph my viewpoint is not handing the child out the window. The mud traces in the room clearly make me lean the other way. If I sustain my continued belief of inside help I would think it plausible that Whately or Gow for that matter would detain those that might wander close to the room. Perhaps giving a sign that all is safe such as a bathrom light off (being safe) and on if not. Sometime I ponder how ridiculous it is to suspect them yet the outrageous advantage the kidnapper had I can believe no less of some meaningful contribution somewhere.
The little amount of mud is noted and if planted or hoaxed I think you would find more of it. Certain authors have recorded Betty Gow showing the early investigators where the mud was including the smudge on the sheets. Take that as one wills to do.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 29, 2006 19:03:58 GMT -5
Rosner claimed the "footprints" in the nursery were consistent with Anne's golf shoes and she had made them. This is generally an ignored fact. The marks on the wall and the mud on the shutter prove to me this ladder had been employed. WC's observation is important. How exactly does one get both in and out without disrupting the scene inside and leaving it exactly as it was found? Would a kidnapper be so calm and collected as to place a ladder against the window, enter the room, take a 30-pound baby, push back the large toys from the window, get back on the ladder, and then take the trouble to close the window before descending with the baby? Or did the kidnapper leave by way of stairs in the house? If the kidnapper was so calm and collected, and assuming that he left by way of the window, was not the child choked or smothered first? What assurance did the kidnapper have that the baby was asleep or would not awake if asleep? (R.G. Harvey, Special Agent - Memo to Sisk 5/34) And what about the 3rd window? Not much is ever said about it. Why was this window locked?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 29, 2006 20:32:46 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
You bring up some interesting points. I do believe Wendel is still overlooked. You can't base an opinion based on his confession. I think it possible he was accurate on details he knew about and perhaps got certain things wrong he was not privy to. There seems a confidence in Wendel's story how the kidnapper exited that raises my eyebrow and even Lindbergh claims as interesting.
Perhaps you can add some scenarios the locked window could have been used. I am not sure I understand. Who could or would have locked it? Are you saying the possibility they went in one window and out another?
About the mud ....remember there was a mud smudge on the sheets too.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 30, 2006 7:52:58 GMT -5
Hey Gary, good points. Sorry I didn't mean to infer that your position was a window hand out.
Michael, I am a bit confused regarding the locked window. Are you referring to the other (NE) double hung? I believe it was unlocked and partially open based on Kelly's photo that Mark sent me.
WC, I am attempting to put the entry method I believe may have been employed into a coherent and detailed form that can be visualized clearly. I still think a video would be easier.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 30, 2006 10:21:53 GMT -5
Hi Mairi,
Good point and a good question. The assumption of the early investigators and Betty was that it was from the kidnapper. I am not so sure we can do that. Can we. In my mind and I've also read Betty directed much of the pointing around in the earliest look at the room.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2006 14:55:39 GMT -5
Sorry guys... I am not the best writer and sometimes my thoughts aren't expressed properly in my posts. I can see I've caused a degree of confusion by what I meant. Let me clear this up by quoting Special Agent Sisk's report of 10/34 wherein Lt. Keaton was briefing him on the situation: ....but the third window was locked, as were also their shutters, but the shutter on the southeast window could not be bolted because of the fact that it was warped, but the two shutters were pulled together and stayed in place without being locked. Now according to Betty Gow, they closed and locked all of the shutters with the exception of the warped one which they "fixed" the best they could. She also claimed to have opened the French Window. So my point above is made to ask why is this window locked when the "kidnap" window was not? Does it make sense to secure one and not the other? Is it complete luck the Kidnappers pick the window that's unlocked AND its shutter cannot be secured with the heavy slide bolt? Somethings gotta give.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 30, 2006 16:34:16 GMT -5
Until a few minutes ago this is the first reference I've seen that claims the "third window," ostensibly the northeast sliding window, was actually locked. And so I wondered if Lt. Keaten might have been mistaken here, given the timing of the report a full 2 1/2 years after the fact.
Interestingly, I just went back to Trooper Wolf's Major Initial Report, March 1, 1932 and something I haven't noticed until now, although I must have read it a dozen times. In it, he writes:
"There was a window on either side of the fireplace (both were regular sliding windows). The catch also shutter on left window were securely fastened. The window on the right of fireplace was closed but not locked and looking out the right hand shutter was open and the left half closed, beneath this window there was a small wooden chest..."
Wolf does not describe this very clearly, but it does appear he is saying that the nursery's northeast window, along with its shutters, was indeed locked. In this case there is a frustrating lack of clarity over the locked / unlocked status of the east nursery windows that night, as evidenced by lack of documentation in reports and the issue not even being raised at the trial. On the other hand, it seems quite clear the French Window was open and swung inwards, while its shutters were locked.
For such a potentially pivotal point, this general lack of focus and specificity seems remarkable and I tend to believe this ultimately had something to do with the issue of perceived liability on the part of Betty Gow or even the Lindberghs. Or perhaps the issue of the northeast window has simply been overshadowed by the inability to lock its shutters. At the same time, I also have new questions about this apparent lack of consistency in the treatment of two side by side windows.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 30, 2006 16:40:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2006 17:51:15 GMT -5
This is a good photo Kevin, however, I don't think this is a shot of the original situation. The photo even appears to show the window open slightly since the rails don't meet. Do you have a date on the photo? Many were taken the next day, and some days later. I may be able to date it if you aren't sure.
Do you believe this is a shot of how the window looked during the kidnapping?
Joe's reference is even better then mine. It's something I have been aware of but never focused on until I read Keaton's which is more deliberate. Of course the timing of his account could be questioned as well as the fact he wasn't always truthful with the BOI and NYPD but aside from Schwarzkopf he probably knew more about the case then any other in the NJSP. I believe there's another account of this window being locked as well - if need be I could try to seek it out.
Does anyone have doubts concerning whether or not this window had been locked?
Gary - the "dirty" prints on the blankets in the crib comes from Gow in '34 during her trial preparation statement. She never says this anywhere else and I happen to find it dubious at best considering the rest of that process and how/what she is asked and how she answers. It certainly could be true but how does one measure the possibility of its truthfulness against the fact it was never before mentioned under more pressing circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 30, 2006 18:52:16 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I suppose the truth of it can only be measured by Kelly. That opportunity is long past gone I guess. Do you think the entrance mud was staged? How do you interpret the mud only showed an entrance and no exit? You think there is something to that? Do you have opinion how the kidnapper exited the house?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2006 20:23:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean....
I don't rule it out, however, there was so very little of it. I would think if someone did stage it they did a poor job. What Rosner and Thayer say about Anne's shoes is curious. They were certainly in a position to know, yet, they are the only source for this. This is another problem we always seem to encounter, which is, if you have (5) people in a position to know they all seem to give different accounts.... How does one decide which is correct - if any are in the first place? R&T did get more info out of the Gow and Whateley then did the NJSP so its possible they rec'd some from Anne too that the NJSP simply did not. So I suppose if R & T are correct then only the mud smudge on the suitcase is in question.
If it is legit, then I would conclude there was very little on the feet upon entrance and what was there wore off to the crib and none was left on the way back. There was a very large chunk of mud found on the top of the bottom shutter. This has always led me to believe one of the Perps had placed their foot there. Maybe they scraped the mud off the bottom of their feet somehow there before entering in the Nursery window?
It seems to me the "coverings" were utilized to soften the footsteps, therefore, weren't employed prior to entering the Nursery.... Which would mean an effort to knock or scrape of the existing mud on the bottom of the shoes might be necessary before putting them on. Of course a little may still have been there and seeped through the socks onto the floor. I don't believe we have any footprints in the yard which indicate approach which may be support this bit of speculation.
I believe it was possible. Lindbergh certainly believed it was possible and something Curtis said really sold him on the possibility he was in touch with people who were in that house on the night in question. The tough question to answer is 'why.'
The ladder doesn't appear to be a design of a "prop" as Kevin has pointed out. It's too exact, in my opinion, for such a purpose....unless of course it was meant to trace back to someone specific and that couldn't have been Hauptmann. No one told him to spend the ransom like he ultimately did.
So if it was made to perpetrate a kidnap why would they do so if the stairs were an option? I've thought maybe the ladder was used to drop off the ransom note only and the child had been taken by the insider out the door.... I have read about crimes where each individual in the group had a specific assignment, but really, why would someone who took the child leave not leave the note too? The only way the stairs would have been used, for my money, would be a "plan b" option - if something went wrong with "plan a" while they were in the Nursery.
Which of course is a possibility. This was a planned and well thought out event which I am quite sure involved an "insider."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 1, 2006 9:20:46 GMT -5
I was under the impression that the photo was one of the series Kelly took that night. Perhaps Mark can shed some light on this.
Regarding the "insider", I think who ever it was must have been in an extremely vulnerable position to begin with. To step up their role any further would seem to me to be suicidal. I don't know about the viability of a front door exit. It is another one of those things involving this case that is easier said than done IMHO. Perhaps a visit to Highfields would be helpful in understanding the viability of this option.
|
|