|
Post by rick3 on Nov 17, 2009 4:28:04 GMT -5
Michael...yes I see now--it doesn't make any clear sense unless there is one car down the Lane, and another car over on Featherbed? Maybe thats how the thumb-guard gotted dropped? How much time do we need to walk all over the Farm? How did all this foot-traffic get buried in the Lone Wolf Theory? Maybe the green car Ellerson saw in the afternoon stayed there until the snatch after dark? That would make at least 2 cars? Oh yes, and 2 drivers?
Kevin is absolutely 100% right! There is a huge problem with the symbol signature! Some sort of odd symbolism, weird fear or insecurity code? If any gang has "the package", the real deal [eg Charlie Jr] well then it would have been a walk in the sun to prove that! A photo, or a phone call, or hand print, or foot print with crinkled toes, a lock of hair, or accurate identification of birthmarks! (there was a turtle or strawberry under CJrs armpit) Its relatively simple to prove possession! The SS symbol and SS sleeping suite are extremely poor subs. What exactly is their provenance? eg unknown?
This implies that all the negotiations between JFC and C?J are as phony as a $3 bill! JFC's job/assignment is to lead us all on a wild goose chase with no possible conclusion. The Extortion in the Bronx does not have CJr--it has the similar sleeping suite for collateral? For this they get the $50K for 14 ransom notes? Condon is not creditable as is proven. He is chosen as an actor--to be or not to be?. I always thought he was the one spouting Shakespear! There is an obvious plan on super sleuth JFC's part not to ask for anything the gang doesnt have access to/ eg CJr.
Even the color of the blue Silko thread would have been a sure-fire positive identification--but apparently this issue is not raised until May 13th? Too little, too late.
So the only rational conclusion we can draw is that there are "back-channel" negotiations going on behind the scenes with the "real kidnap gang" which actually has the goods? The Extortion in the Bronx is merely a cover story to permit these back channel negotiations to continue safely in secret, and out of the public eye and/or police interference and bungling. By some Means, these negotiations break down and fall apart. 216
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 17, 2009 16:54:10 GMT -5
Rick, I don't understand this conclusion. The sleeping suit may not be the best proof of having the child, but the trail of the ransom notes is unbroken. I don't think Condon was a bad choice for a go between given that the object in question ( the child) could never be returned alive. In a sense, it always was a wild goose chase. The real question is when did this chase begin? I guess I'm alone in believing it started a couple of minutes after BRH entered that Nursery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2009 19:24:12 GMT -5
Gary, let's go over this again.... What is your theory?
Well I do believe I read he was good with a gun when he was a boy. No, you have to fear everyone...unless one of them is on "your" side. I just think it must be a factor to consider that Lindbergh wasn't supposed to be there. And honestly, I think the "snatch" occurred before he is officially recorded as being home.
But its "less" bold if they have an inside connection. Theres a little more assurance. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. While I know its not always the case, I think its a consideration that for some reason many don't want to ponder. Exactly why not I just don't know.
Yes, this car is often forgotten about isn't it?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 17, 2009 23:14:45 GMT -5
Perhaps, but it's still a helluva gutsy move. There's not a lot that "insider" can do for you once you have committed.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 18, 2009 7:49:32 GMT -5
Oscar Bush's account of the footsteps as I understand have both leading to featherbed. Is this correct? Or does Bush mean he finds two sets of prints one of which leads to featherbed Lane. I have always been attracted to the location of the thumbguard and possible story it has. I always thought it presented an argument for two exits. If not then a strong argument for someone attempting to remove evidence. Actually the later is more in my thinking. Gary....there was no apparent motive for the finding of the thumbguard by Betty and Anne? there fore...it must have been dropped there by accident as well? Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 18, 2009 12:12:45 GMT -5
Hi Rick,
My best answer is "I don't know." Here is my theory though and I (for Michael) do believe there is more than likely an insider. If the thumbguard was placed or dropped on the kidnapping night how would it get there? Especially if the exit of the kidnapper is towards featherbed. Who went out in the that direction? For one Whately went out that way to purchase a flashlight. Now as he is approaching the entrance he sees the police cars further ahead. Taking the moment getting the flashlight as an opportunity to dispose evidence finds he didn't quite get off the estate and quickly disposes it out the window.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2009 7:04:32 GMT -5
Here is a very rough and/or crude map to give us an idea. As anyone can plainly see - I have no idea how to use the program. Anyway, it isn't exact but I think you get the picture...
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 19, 2009 7:27:12 GMT -5
Gary....as the evidence of Deception at Highfields expands I think Whateley out in the driveways with a flashlight is a strange revelation. Maybe he was "looking for the thumbguard" lost earlier. I'm still considering the possiblity that Charlie Jr. left in the green Ford coupe (Condon's) seen by Ellerson at 3pm? And not at 0830pm! Norris, A Talent to Deceive, has a nice summary of the puzzles to be considered: Chapter Thirty Four. [Caution--2nd Ed. does not have an index?] Suecam found only one addition to the 2ed....Seth Mosely discovered that Dwight Jr. was at Highfields the nite of the snatch? pp.21-22. Maybe Dwight needed a ride back to Amherst?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2009 16:53:35 GMT -5
Ok Gary....
So you think it may have been there the whole time and missed. And the theory is that Whateley sees it laying somewhere and decides to move it from where he picks it up. My next question is why? No matter where you find it....it implies the escape route, and that the sleeping suit had been removed. How does moving it there provide any benefit for someone? Is it done to confuse the Police by directing them away from Featherbed Lane? Maybe he finds it in the Nursery which would imply that he's stripped before he left the house?
Rick, if he's gone at 3PM then everyone in the house is involved. Is this something you are willing to accept?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 19, 2009 18:34:05 GMT -5
Michael--I don't think we really know how long Charlie Jr has been missing? 3 hours or 3 days or 3 weeks? If the number of anomalies gets much bigger then they cannot be hidden from other family members and servants at Sorrel Hill...or Next Day Hill. So"yes". Norris mentioned Anne being in rather good spirits and never frantic to cover for Dwight Jr or Elizabeth? They are not all "involved" as Edgar Cayce said=just around being misslied to by the primaries. Like a shell-game=button, button, whos got the button? CJr is MIA for 72 days? So where is has he been?
Red herrings are used to throw readers (cops/detectives?) off track. For example, Gillian mentions that "[the] actual red herring was smoked, then dragged across the trail to distract hunting dogs from their objective." (95) Hunting dogs were thrown off track. They were given false clues that led them in a different direction from their prey. Therefore....the thumb guard in the driveway could also be a diversion intended to confuse us all? Who has access to CJrs thumbguards anyways?
Or maybe it accidentally fell off a passing car? But whos? BRH's? CAL's? Whateley's? Ellerson's? Condon's?
Kev--Semper Fi...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 19, 2009 21:11:16 GMT -5
You must have a lot of faith in the ability of people to keep secrets, Rick. Semper Fidelis.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 20, 2009 10:17:07 GMT -5
Michael,
Again this is theory of "what if." Now consider a "clean up" drawn by an assumption that the nursery was wiped down. Who else knows what else might have been needed to conceal. A fallen thumb guard, found in the room or in a critical area, and put in a pocket later to get rid of. Maybe the thumbgiuard was taken off prior to the kidnapping. The opportunity to leave the property to get the flashlight accompanies the thought to rid whatever including the thumbguard. Looking at the photo it seems shorter of the main road than I was giving it, yet assuming here , finds it better not to have the evidence at hand after seeing cars approaching the entrance. W knew the police were on their way and certainly might search him not knowing who W is.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 20, 2009 10:43:53 GMT -5
on sunday/monday I have off and want to submit some other things about W and possibly even a considered motive. I would like to brush it by you. What I am offering now is that the thumbguard displaced is part of the clean up of the nursery.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 20, 2009 14:59:06 GMT -5
Gary, you think it plausible that Whately goes out to get a flashlight and the best he can do it to dispose of the thumb guard in the main driveway? I know you guys are convinced that an insider was at work, but I just don't see the reason why when you list the pros and cons of such assistance in such a high profile case. An inside accomplice is the largest liability in a crime like this. Forget about the fingerprints, that would not be likely to identify anyone in that day prior to capture. But having an inside accomplice would and you would do everything possible to throw everyone off that trail. For starters you would avoid an "odd" night like the plague ( it's still seems to be the #1 reason I hear people cite as a reason for an insider). Then there's the Nursery, you certainly wouldn't leave everything nice and tidy. And you wouldn't shut the window and remove the ladder, either. No. I think you would want to leave no doubt in everyone's mind as to how the room was entered and the child removed. Because if you don't, that insider who can finger you and unravel the crime is in an extremely perilous situation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 20, 2009 20:04:41 GMT -5
I am interested to hear more Gary. Gow seems to draw most of the focus so its important to consider other possibilities.
Rick: I think we can strike out that he's been gone before he's dropped off.
Kevin, it seems to me you are saying that evidence of an "insider" proves one didn't exist because, if one did, the insider would eliminate all the evidence that points to "them."
Doesn't that assume the "insider" is a seasoned criminal?
I think there is no doubt, when looking at the evidence, where the entry took place OR where "they" wanted us to believe it did. There was no fall. Next, if an "Insider" exists, to what degree is the "Insider" utilized? There are varying degrees of this. (Like when Violet provided information to the Reporter).
It's a double edged sword. You either need inside information or you made no plans whatsoever. Am I wrong?
The Hall-Mills Murder was in 1923. The card found at the foot of the body had a print on it identified as Willie Stevens.
I seriously believe they were worried about prints. Whoever was on scene went to great lengths to "deaden the sound" of their footsteps, alter the size of their prints, and protect against leaving prints. They seemed very prepared.
If you knock everything over how do the people downstairs claim they didn't hear anything? This is something Garsson believed couldn't have happened regardless.
The window had to be shut in order to prevent the note from blowing off. The ladder is unnecessarily removed, we both agree, but to what end? I say to impress there was attempt to escape with it and to remove evidence from the scene by the Kidnappers OR that's what happened.
Either can be true.
How much do you want to bet that if Hauptmann named Gow or Whateley as an Accomplice he wouldn't have been believed? How much of that would have to do with Lindbergh? He refused to permit them to be subjected to a lie detector even though he told Agent Larimer he believed it very possible someone in the household may have assisted.
I realize you are skeptical about inside help and I also believe information can be gleaned, and learned from a serious degree of preparation which would look like they had help from the inside. There's also a lot of other explanations to be considered before drawing that rock solid conclusion.
We do need to keep attacking it from all angles.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 21, 2009 6:31:02 GMT -5
Aha--2 out of 3's not bad? eg Sat/Sun/Mon? One reason this case is still out to lunch is that the clock only started clicking "forward" when Whateley called the cops? eg never backwards? Who saw CJr on Monday? not CAL? not Ellerson? Not Betty? Just Anne/Ollie/Elsie?
But Occam's Razor might proscribe that Charlie Jr. left only after Betty Gow arrived? Ellerson's Chevy Roadster leaves about 3pm and passes a Green Ford Coupe in the driveway--Condon's? CAL gets home around 8:30pm but never sees CJr? the Window of Opportunity opens to meet our needs? So whos lying now?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 21, 2009 10:42:01 GMT -5
Not exactly. Anyone taking on the part of assistance from the inside would certainly know their vulnerability. And so would the person on the outside. It doesn't take a"pro" to understand that and the risks involved. It would be common sense to minimize the traces of the insider while leaving as little doubt as possible that an outsider carried out the crime with no assistance.
Sure, there could have been an "insider" who provided info. I am primarily responding to the notion that a member of the Lindbergh Highfields staff took an active part in the crime
I think that sword has a few more edges. Why limit your choices to A or B?
Sure, it would be possible to id someone from prints. But you know how difficult that was back then. My main point was that the use of inside assistance would be far more risky.
I don't think you need to go to those lengths. But you certainly would want to mitigate anything that would make it appear as though someone on the inside assisted.
And why would you place the note on the sill in the first place? And why seal it? An insider would want this "kidnapping" resolved asap and without detectives prying about.
It wouldn't matter if they believed him. They would have to follow that claim and that would mean scrutiny of the highest degree. Hauptmann would also have to provide details. I doubt very much that anyone in that household had the resolve Hauptmann possessed.
I don't know if it's a matter of being skeptical or not. It's more of a matter of looking at the facts, circumstances, and evidence here. Then it's a matter of deciding whether or not there are more options than the two that always seem to prevail. Just look at the evidence in it's entirety and decide for yourself whether or not there's been too much effort expended attempting to make it fit only a few possibilities when in fact there are others to choose. We have a kidnapping that was supposedly planned when in fact the very timing shows otherwise. We have a kidnapper who has no ability to hold a victim and absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise. We have a risky second floor method of abduction in a rural setting with far more favorable options ( especially if one has a gang and inside assistance). You may call it skepticism, I just think the facts don't fit.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 21, 2009 14:00:51 GMT -5
This debate is getting good, and is exactly what we need!
Ok. I think this assumes certain things which may or may not be true. We have a house full of people. The Butler, the Butler's Wife, the Nurse, Anne, the baby who cries out (even when the Mother approaches, the Dog who barks at everything, and possibly Lucky Lindy. We have an Estate that even some Locals don't know where it is. We have tricky back roads that seldom accommodate "machines" and when they do are noticed by those nosy Locals.
There's a small "window" of opportunity that once its taken doesn't last a lifetime. It exists only to someone who either knows about it or accidentally stumbles upon it. There's a lot that has to happen, and there's much we can second guess in hind-sight. Yet, the evidence seems to indicate both a lack of haste, and inside help.
Every Police Officer I see writing in confidence is indicating this isn't a one-man job as well as an inside job. Even Spitale was convinced of it. But, no one dare pursue this line because of Lindbergh won't allow it - even though he himself seriously accepts this as a real possibility.
I think all angles have to be given a lot of attention.
I couldn't think of any. I am game for any other anyone would like for me to consider.
Sure, but my point was they were worried about it. And so was Lindbergh wasn't he? I don't see how its more risky using someone on the "inside" to assist in any way they can. In fact, it appears almost a necessity unless they are extremely lucky in more ways then one. The ladder itself suggests they weren't relying on luck.
If the circumstances allowed. But here they didn't. It's somewhat of a Catch-22 but its the lesser of two evils.
Good questions and they need to be examined. I would expect it to be sealed, but the sill seems strange.
I wholeheartedly disagree. In the end they were attempting to find evidence AGAINST Fisch's involvement. Anything that did point to that possibility was either ignored or buried. They just wouldn't do it and would NEVER cross Lindbergh.
It's good that you don't, because it helps me test what I find which disagrees with that philosophy.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 21, 2009 15:36:53 GMT -5
It may not last a lifetime, but I completely fail to understand why you think this "window" is so small. Look at the personal lives of the Lindberghs prior to that March. There are many opportunities and many of them would carry far less risk. And had the kidnapping not occurred, what makes you think there wouldn't be plenty of Highfields opportunities to come? I still think too many people get hung up on the timing issue. Forget it for a moment.
Yeah, the Boulder, Co police had the same belief in the Ramsey case . How did that work out?
I have no problem with that, though this thread was weighed toward the Highfields staff.
Why must it be a planned kidnapping or not? For starters, it would be impossible to plan a kidnapping on that night unless you were unaware that the child is not usually there at that time. So where does that leave the idea of a "gang", planning, coordination, etc? Why is in inconceivable that the child was not the object? For example, if the object was to get into that Nursery, grab the child, and leave behind a note with your demands wouldn't it be more likely that you would leave the note first while your hands are free? Do you think he simply forgot about the note? Why is this simple, but extremely important act so poorly executed? This is what it's all supposed to be about, right? So you lave an unmarked envelope laying on the window sill after you have taken the child. That would imply a second dedicated trip up the ladder as I very much doubt you would be able to do this, carry the child, and hang onto the ladder all at once.
Ok, they were worried about prints. Of course that may have been more from fear of prosecution than being id'd. Why is the insider more risky? Because this person is at ground zero and can't get away. Here is the weak link in the chain of this crime. Look at Red, had he actually been involved what do you think would have happened?
Why? Let's start with the #1 reason people suspect inside help, the one we all have heard from the beginning. How did they know the child would be there that night? Exactly. You would have to be an idiot to pick that night if you had an insider helping. And the insider would have to be a bigger idiot to agree to it. And why? Why not just wait for another weekend?
Too bad no one informed Red and Violet about that ;D
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2009 9:40:59 GMT -5
The window is small because, if they prepared for this crime like I think the circumstances suggest, then they targeted the time when the child was put to bed.
Still unsolved right? How does that happen? When you know who did it but can't make a case because you either screwed up and/or they are too smart OR you don't know because you screwed up and/or the criminals are just too smart.
I think its weighted that way due to who has chosen to post and what their individual thoughts are. I think its obvious where my position lies but it certainly is not going to be absolute until I put it in my book. I won't do that unless I am certain at the time and I'm nowhere near that chapter yet. There's a lot of other things I haven't discussed which causes these thoughts in my head. The B. Altman blanket for one, which I don't mind sharing since I've already posted on it previously. This would be in line with Gary's reasoning he's put forth about Whateley. I can't attribute it to Whateley but its just another piece to throw on the scale in order to be weighed and considered.
Even if its not a planned kidnapping I think we'd be hard pressed to say its not planned, whatever the motive is. Additionally, the same goes for Insider help. Regardless of the motive, help seems to have been needed - the degree of which is debatable, of course, but needed nevertheless.
And so with preparation they decide to enter the Nursery. And they had to know it was. They went straight for it, and the ladder shows (thanks to you) that it was designed for this effort. Again the timing is troubling. If the child isn't there why wait for that time to strike? If your goal is something else why not hit both? The note troubles me. It doesn't strike me as something done on the fly in the middle of a job meant for something else. Their lack of "ad libbing" or haste troubles me. The evidence reflects actions of one thing and one thing only. Aside from the ladder breaking everything is precise and like a well-oiled machine.
And it breaking doesn't even seem to effect anything. There's no evidence of a "fall." That's something passed down through time which must be necessary in order for Hauptmann to get the chair, therefore, he fell and the child died on scene. That's what HAD to happen so the Prosecution pretended it did.
This is a very good question/point. I think brain-storming is required and there's nothing to say you're wrong. I've considered several possibilities and I think yours should be added....
1. The note was forgotten then remembered. 2. By design, the child was to be removed first. 3. More then one person involved, one of which was to leave the note after the child had been taken. 4. The note was left behind for the Insider to stage. 5. The note was left on the sill in order to show Police and leave no doubt where the entry/exit was located. 6. Any combination of the above.
I hear what you are saying but without this "link" then your odds are astronomical. Then consider Lindy's loyalty to them and the fact he's running the show. There's no stronger position to be in.
Honestly the exact same thing that happened.
Method, means, and motive. You choose the path of least resistance. I do believe the crime was originally scheduled for a weekend.
Mrs. Morrow stepped in for Red and he was allowed to leave on his own free will without being properly deported as he should have been. It's nice having friends in high places.
We'll save Violet for her own thread.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 22, 2009 11:46:48 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow this. Why so? And even then, that still leaves a lot of open windows.
Or you get locked into a position from which you unable to escape. Or because you put a misguided sense of loyalty, ego, and pride over simply seeking the truth no matter where it comes from. Or because you can't think outside of the box.
A caveat here, the Nursery window/entry has strategic advantages over other room/ window alternatives. It's remote location and proximity to the back escape route makes it so.
If we overlook the placement and contents of the note and the fact that the child didn't survive.
That would depend on what the odds are covering. If you lock yourself into that then you have no choice but to go with those odds. Also, long shots do come in once in awhile.
You honestly don't believe he would have "cracked". You don't believe a link would have been discovered? They sure put him through the ringer.
But aren't you justifying a position by saying this? If it were planned for the (a) weekend then why didn't it come down to a weekend? Obviously there was no concern for the child's health. So what stopped all of these gears?
Ok, but it certainly wasn't a walk in the park for these two.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 24, 2009 7:09:24 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but they went straight to the Nursery window, and the ladder was built for a 2nd story room with this shutter. They were there as early as 6PM but waited...what are they waiting for? Once you put the totality of the circumstances together, once you weigh and consider them carefully, it appears they targeted to strike once the child was put to bed.... That leaves a small window with a limited amount of "getaway" time.
All of these things can happen, which leads to other lines of investigation once this fails. See what I am getting at?
Interesting. I've never considered another window outside of the French. I honestly couldn't say which I would have attempted because I don't see any success in any choice under the circumstances. I do know this area is visible from the "driveway" leading to the house where the windows in the back or opposite side would not be. What excludes/erases them in your line of thought here?
Assuming the child was supposed to survive, and both the contents and placement of the note weren't by design.
I am thinking like someone whose heart is pounding and they are in fear of getting caught.
I am thinking they might not even have the note, or its some kind of strategy if they are caught in the Nursery.
I am thinking in line with someone in charge of the ladder. Holding it steady. Assembly and disassembly. Removing it. One goes in to get the child and the other takes care of the rest.
A theory has been offered that the note was actually moved by someone in the house innocently. I take that a step further. The note on the window sill shows exactly where the entrance and exit were. The window is shut, and the wind didn't blow it off. And there are NO prints in this area at all. I don't believe it was done to erase the Staff or Anne's but to make it look like the Intruder was worried - its overkill - and its suspicious on more then one level.
The window must be shut or the wind blows the note off of the sill. The ladder is removed to show these people LEFT the house. "Ok, they went that way"
There were more then (15) people who knew the child was staying over. There's a lot of conjecture that plays into this scenario. What was different and why? Was it scheduled for the weekend past and something happened so they go for the next available opportunity? Is Lindy absent, and does this assist them in some way?
No and it shouldn't have been. In fact it should have been worse. If it not for Inspector Walsh, Sharp would never had even been pressed. If it not for the FBI, Brinkert would never have been found.
|
|