|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2006 11:20:51 GMT -5
Hi Kevin,
In my opinion it is easy. When Michael C and I were in Hopewell we were shocked. It would take seconds. The issue to me is the luck of not being seen. I am sure the nursery door was shut so you would have to close the door behind you unless someone came to tidy things up.
If Betty was the insider I think it would incriminate either Lindbergh or Johnson. For someone who has no car and has a boyfriend when would she find the opportunity to conspire such an event. Her involvement also is a distance and hard to bridge to Fisch and or Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 1, 2006 11:49:41 GMT -5
Everybody always asks Mark, why not ask me? (Sigh) I'm hoping he retires early so that I can put in for his job. ;D That photo was taken on March 2, 1932, of that I am reasonably sure. Of course I am not (and should not) the last word on anything surrounding this case so always double-check or question any point that might not "sit well" with you. The question now becomes if this shot represents the true situation of the window when the "kidnapping" occurred. Now when looking at the photo....is it me or does this window look slightly open since the rails do not meet? If this is the case then the answer is definitely 'no' since no one claimed it was and in fact - the exact opposite is true. Cpl Wolf arrived at about 10:55PM and had only been preceded by Williamson and Chief Wolfe of the Hopewell PD. According to Cpl. Wolf: ....I arrived at the Lindbergh home in Hopewell and met Colonel Lindbergh who explained the case briefly to me after which I immediately phoned Headquarters to make sure they had the right information. The Colonel then took me up to the nursery and after looking the room over and disturbing nothing I went downstairs and detailed several of the troopers to guard the premises so that footprints would not be destroyed. Unfortunately, neither Wolfe nor Williamson say whether or not which windows were locked etc., although Williamson does say all (3) were closed. I see no other alternative but to rely on Cpl. Wolf's observations which is supported by what Keaton told Sisk. After Cpl. Wolf arrives we see the start of many people flooding the scene and anyone of them could have been responsible for unlocking the window or even opening it. Tpr. Kelly, for example, begins dusting for prints right away and his report claims that he checked both the inside and outside of the "kidnap" window. It seems to me that he could have done the same on the other window as well. It might be important to point out that Shoeffel, and Keaton were to arrive only about 10 minutes after Kelly did. So I suppose my point is this photo was taken after considerable traffic and investigation had occurred within this nursery. I think this depends on so many things we just don't know yet. Exactly who this was could reveal much in that department. It's not easy for me to swallow either....its just that everyone seemed to think it possible - then. I find that important and even more important that Lindbergh believed it could have happened. See my point? It might. I have been told, I think by Steve Romeo, that the back stairs no longer exist - that hurts.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2006 12:26:39 GMT -5
Were we talking about the front or back stairs?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 1, 2006 13:00:11 GMT -5
Hi Gary~CAL and Anne in dining room having supper-Elsie tending to sup and I guess the clean up-Betty having sup at some point, then listening to radio for however long(?)Then comes along Elsie wanting to show Betty a new dress, so they go to Elsie's room. Not much on the whereabouts of Ollie Whateley during that period of time. Then not much distance from him and Fisch at the Church of the something or other since they both attend. I guess then you and I branch off on Hauptmann, since I'm unconvinced he was either the kidnapper or CJ.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 1, 2006 13:19:13 GMT -5
Sorry Michael, no slight intended, just that it was Mark that sent me the photo. I will put in a word for you with the Gov.
They are definately open and the top sash is the one that is slightly down. While that is not completely unusual ( some like to use the top sash for ventilation, especially in rain conditions) it does make me wonder since I believe it was easier to lock the shutters via the top sash. I also note that no fingerprint dusting powder seems visable, unlike the other window.
You have infinately more knowlege about the investigation than me, so I defer to your judgement here. But for what it is worth, everything recorded regarding the state of the windows and shutters seems highly suspect to me. Especially since it seems that many of the nvestigators are simply stating what they have been told by someone else.
Gary, perhaps we should refer to the stairs as East and West to avoid confusion. I am talking about the East set which go the Foyer and front door.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 1, 2006 14:55:47 GMT -5
I think I deserve to be "smited" for stupidity. We were talking about the front steps.
I was having a conversation with myself and then posted on it like everyone else had been a party to it....
I'll let you on it now - I was thinking that if we consider the front steps then the back should be considered as well which was why I mentioned them in the post. On top of that, I just rec'd word from the infamous Mark Falzini who told me that back stairs ARE still there.
Well let's just keep on the look-out for something which may upset Wolf's observations coming from either Wolfe or Williamson. I think we all realize that new material turns up all the time - even from old material if you know what I mean.
For me its just considering what we have in order to get the closest we can to the true situation. If something turns up from either Wolfe or Williamson which says they weren't locked then obviously my position would have to change. It could be that Keaton drew his conclusion from Cpl. Wolf's report (or word on it) like you mention above and not from personal observation so anything from either of these two Hopewell Cops would completely upset the position.
I did find the other source I mentioned but it was Maj. Lanphier who was repeating what Lindbergh had told him to Hoover. Unfortunately he told Hoover that both windows had been locked which obviously was not the case, so it kind of neutralizes its value with this mistake (in my opinion).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 1, 2006 15:47:40 GMT -5
The West or back stairs seem even more problematic when you consider the length of the hallway above the living areas which must be traversed and where the bootom of the stairs lead. Either set would be like running the gauntlet.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2006 17:24:26 GMT -5
Hi Mairi,
I wanted to quick write this because I am not committed to Hauptmann guilty.When I say he is involved I am saying this on the basis and fact he was caught with the money. I am committed at this point that Fisch is guilty. The cough, the thumb, and Breckinridges's account with Fisch makes me say this.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2006 17:31:40 GMT -5
Kevin,
If Lindbergh had anything to do with the snatch the back stairs would be something to consider.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 1, 2006 18:01:13 GMT -5
Thanx for the reply Gary~Fisch wrote BRH letters from Germany, but the police took them and evidently they were never heard of again. Would love to see his handwriting. I often wonder if he was left-handed(?) A fur cutter with a lumpy left thumb(?) Wish I knew a fur cutter - I would demand to see his thumbs ;D
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 2, 2006 12:59:28 GMT -5
A musing for idle hours. There were no fingerprints found in the nursery supposedly. Out of which window did Anne hear a child cry supposedly, and Elsie tell her it was only a cat? Would not she have leaned out to hear better, and ditto Elsie? Hudson used silver nitrate on the ladder -- did he leave the nursery alone?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Oct 2, 2006 19:12:45 GMT -5
Did they look out the nursery window or Anne's bedroom window?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2006 20:22:18 GMT -5
According to both of Anne's Statements and Elsie's they were in Anne's room when she heard the noise through the window. I think when comparing the Statements against one another though, there is a much different flavor to them. First and foremost Anne's seems more dramatic and panic-stricken, while Elsie's gives the impression Anne is going into the room to get dressed. Anyone else see what I am seeing? Regardless, we know that Betty and Anne both touch the kidnap window area around 7:30PM so his point is still applicable. Anne's 3-13-32 statement has an interesting statement: We were with him at least an hour, straightening the room, closing the shutters, and attending to him. We found as before that the corner shutters would not close even though we both pulled on them. And another..... About 8:00 o'clock I think Betty stopped on her way down to the kitchen to tell me that she had looked in on the baby again so [sic] see that he was covered.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 4, 2006 7:10:29 GMT -5
Michael, what would it take to eliminate fingerprints on the various surfaces in the Nursery and end up with what Kelly found (or didn't)? Would the effect of "wiping" in itself leave some trace?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 4, 2006 17:35:18 GMT -5
Kevkon, that was always an issue. Here we have a nursery that is entered, a trip across the floor in the dark, including moving the screen, and the act of yanking a 25 lb (or so) child out of a sound sleep, and then finding no signs of entry (except, of course, the mud on the floor, and the phantom handprints Condon discovered) or exit. No one can pin down whether the window was left open or closed. Only Betty says it was raised and lowered. Etc. The note supposedly left on the window sill -- or was it only said to be there, as Condon suggested CAL told him as part of the effort to catch the perp. That is why I raised the question of which window did they peer out of? Why Anne's room? How could she, with her stated bad hearing, have picked up the sound of a cat or a baby with the window closed in her room? Why would they open and look out that window instead of the one where presumably the child was taken from? Why does Anne not mention the location of the note?
Why does Anne immediately agree with Elsie about the sound, given her hearing? Etc, etc, etc.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 4, 2006 18:26:03 GMT -5
I agree, there is much to puzzle over. But you know me, I have to go step by step. That is why I am trying to better understand the mechanics, if you will, of eradicating prints. I honestly don't know what steps miust be taken to completely eliminate them. For example, would a wet cloth work ? Would a solvent or detergent be required? How thorough must one be?
What about the outside of the windows and shutters, were they dusted for prints?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2006 19:11:53 GMT -5
Kevin, The original source material reveals that Kelly found no prints on or near the nursery window....not that he found "partials" or "unidentifiables" etc. but it is very clear that he found no indication of any prints whatsoever. His trial testimony should be compared closely with what's written in the source material and you will see he was being untruthful on the stand. Now that this point is out of the way.... I have never seen any indication the shutters were checked for prints. Also, just to be clear, I am not an Expert in fingerprint identification but here is what I have learned..... There are (2) categories that a print can exist in: The most desirable are the "porous" because the print gets absorbed into the material. Glass and painted wood are "non-porous" material. From what I have been told, prints can easily be made unidentifiable when enough friction on the evidence occurs. Friction will wipe and/or rub out the ridge details needed to identify a print. As an example, when you see someone in the movies pick up a glass with a cloth or glove then place it into a plastic bag - I'm told this will most likely destroy the fingerprint evidence and therefore should never be done. So, looking at the situation through this lens, I do not think it would have taken an enormous amount of time to wipe down the window and sill with enough force to remove all indication of prints there. One would have to make sure they hit all the areas where prints would have existed, of course, and that appears to be what happened because prints, even on "non-porous" hosts can last for years if left undisturbed - and Kelly found none.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 5, 2006 20:18:08 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, but I am confused on several points. Would friction rubbing, as with a cloth, erradicate all evidence of a print? I know it would be unusable, but wouldn't an indication remain? I am still confused about what Kelly actually found. I am more confused about the status of dusting the shutters and the outside of the window. I can see evidence of Kelly's dusting on the inside of the window in his window photo. But the kidnapper would only need to touch the outside.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Oct 6, 2006 5:16:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 6, 2006 14:01:26 GMT -5
Kevin, it is also noted that "smudges" were found on the ransom notes. Many people were incredulous that two women handling Vicks would leave no prints anywhere. We do not know if Dr. Hudson's techniques were used in the room as well as the ladder.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 16:28:17 GMT -5
Well I know that friction rubbing isn't going to remove petroleum jelly. It would certainly smear it, but only a solvent would eliminate it. I would also think that Kelly would see such an effort to wipe out prints immediately upon dusting. I am still curious about the fingerprint check of the outside window and sash as well as the shutters. Was this done and when?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2006 19:10:03 GMT -5
I encourage everyone to consult an Expert in fingerprints to know for sure but it seems to me from what I have learned that it wouldn't take much to completely remove fingerprints from a non-porous surface. Now the vicks question is a completely different another animal altogether....
I have read somewhere in the source material that Kelly did search the outside of the window but I can't see any luck due to the moisture that had to have contacted that area due to the weather. Exposure to water on non-porous surfaces will also destroy prints.
Concerning "inside help" Dr. Gardner has an interesting suggestion to consider in his book The Case That Never Dies on page 413.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 19:34:58 GMT -5
Yes but the shutters would have shielded much of the glass from the rain. And an outside intruder would only touch the window in certain areas on the outside of the window. Two locations of almost certain hand contact are the bottom edge of the lower sash and the bottom and top edge of the upper sash. That is where your fingers would be if you opened and closed the window from the outside.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2006 19:41:43 GMT -5
Good point but did it start raining before the shutters were 'closed?' My point is that if the glass is wet when touched then prints probably aren't going to exist.
I am not so sure about this. Upon entry a hand is going to have to come in contact somewhere inside - either the sill, ledge, window, or pane....regardless if its a "head-first" or "feet-first" entry. Again, it was very dark.
I'll search to see if I can find the source concerning outside of the window.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 7, 2006 9:08:14 GMT -5
Probably the whole point is moot anyhow as I would expect our cautious kidnapper to be wearing gloves. But if I were looking for prints on the window, my first step would be to have them removed so they may be checked on all edges. It would be pretty hard to do that with them in place, especially on the outside.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2006 10:48:35 GMT -5
I don't think it is moot. If the kidnapper(s) wore gloves then one would expect Kelly to find traces of prints on the inside area from at least Gow if not of Anne or other members of the family there.
Going back to Gary's post wherein he mentions Gow's observation concerning the mud on the blankets in the crib. If this was true then we know the Kidnapper did have at least mud on his/her hands. I tend to believe it was fiction because its not mentioned anywhere else but then one has to question why this bit of info is now being added to the mix?
Let's think about this for a moment.....
Cold, blustery, wind, mud, light rain. No evidence of entry into this window whatsoever with the exception of the ladder, a couple of mud smudges on the floor leading toward the crib, and ransom note. No prints, mud, or water on the sill or inside of the window.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 7, 2006 11:08:38 GMT -5
If I had more faith in the documentation of the crime scene I might offer an opinion. Unfortunately I don't. I keep hearing too many versions of what was found and what wasn't. I guess one question which makes no sense to me is why would any Highfields resident feel the need to erradicate their prints? I mean you would expect to find them and such a discovery could easily be explained. In fact, wouldn't you expect an inside job to leave the opposite of what was found? Would an insider want to leave any doubt that the kidnapping was carried out by an intruder?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Oct 7, 2006 11:20:55 GMT -5
I note Lindbergh's concern over anyone touching the envelope in the event it contained identifiable prints. His immediate reaction to avoid the envelope would have automatically raised the general awareness of potential fingerprints.
Would he then have pointed this out and resisted opening the envelope if he had been aware of someone on the inside having taken the time to do something which would have raised a red flag to investigators? I remain unconvinced that the child's nursery was "wiped down."
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 7, 2006 11:33:19 GMT -5
I sometimes wonder about the competence of the fingerprint taker. While at the same time O. Whateley's part of the house wasn't the nursery. Finding his prints there might raise a red flag.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2006 11:35:07 GMT -5
I think some of the cases Ellis Parker solved answers your question here Kevin..... If an outsider came in and out of that window physical evidence of such would have existed there that did not. Therefore, I come to the conclusion the scene was altered. The questions I have are 'how,' 'why,' and by 'whom.'
Can anyone say that any one of us operating under similar conditions could go in & out without leaving more of a trace? I couldn't repel into that window whether inverted or normally without leaving more signs of my presence behind then did this 'kidnapper' who did all of this in the dark.
Joe, I think your position assumes certain things if your point is to be true. One being Lindbergh knew whether or not there was inside help and the other is that he knew whether or not there were prints on the note.
|
|