|
Post by sherlock on Aug 25, 2021 5:57:09 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, Yes, I too have been open to the idea that it may have been planted. But I'd like to know more about the undergrowth where it was found. Was it thick, jungle-like and tall? It seems to have been deliberately dragged there instead of leaving it against the house (if it ever was....) or on the cleared area around the house. Was this an attempt to hide it? to delay discovery? And why, if it was just a plant? Would it, in the undergrowth, have been visible from the house. If not, its remarkable that Lindbergh led the police directly to it in pitch darkness.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 25, 2021 6:09:14 GMT -5
Hi Sue, That's a great posting about the Long Island greenhouses. Do you happen to know if these ladders were home-made by the horticulturalists? I can just visualise it: a regular ladder to reach the gutter then switch to a cat-/roof ladder to progress over the fragile slanted roof. All this is very much in line with my current line of reasoning: a ladder made for another purpose which found its way to Hopewell, either for (unwise, risky) use in the kidnap or as a distraction/plant. More information would be very welcome if you have it. Best wishes, Sherlock.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 25, 2021 8:33:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 25, 2021 11:48:34 GMT -5
Hi Sherlock, Below are some pics that show approximately where the ladder was and what the immediate area looked like, in terms of underbrush and how the ladder was left. I've added a marker at the ladder's approximate location. I believe the cop is standing in the ladder's approximate location. This contemporary sketch shows where the ladder was found and how it was laid out.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 25, 2021 14:59:52 GMT -5
Hi Lightningjew, Thanks for the photos. The red circle seems to be further from the house than 75 feet but that could be distortion of distance with the particular lens used. I was struck by how relatively open the ladder dump site seems. I had imagined dense undergrowth. It would seem that in daytime the ladder would be visible from the house but of course not at night. Its still a mystery how Lindbergh found this dark coloured ladder and led police to it in pitch darkness as soon as they arrived. Regards, Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Aug 25, 2021 15:09:35 GMT -5
Hi Sherlock,
I don't think these people, by and large, had degrees in horticulture. They were hired to work in these greenhouses, either because they had no experience and learned on the job, or because their families had owned greenhouses and they had experience from that.
My opinion about the employee of yesteryear is that they were far more conscientious, industrious, and ingenious than what you see today. I know there were all kinds of catalogs that you could order greenhouse materials from, but it's my opinion that they hammered together pieces of wood to make light weight ladders to get up and down the greenhouses.
I'm trying to contact a friend who was in the greenhouse business all his life.
Several years ago I located a letter from July 1935. A guy named George Anderson must have been running the Hopewell estate at that time? Anderson is said to have been the "overseer" there, and the letter concerns a shipment of plants from Bulk Nurseries. I think Jack Bulk ran the operation in Babylon, on Long Island.
Maybe the Lindberghs had been doing business with Bulk Nurseries for years, and someone just abandoned that ladder on the property?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 25, 2021 15:29:00 GMT -5
Hi Sherlock,
I think the ladder was said to be found anywhere between 75-100 ft. from the house, so, admittedly, locations are approximate in the above photos, but accurate to a few square yards, I would think. Since it's contemporary, the sketch is probably the best representation. Either way, you're right, not a lot of foliage or underbrush to stash or hide something. The ladder was left on open ground, plain for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 26, 2021 3:20:59 GMT -5
Hi Sue, That's my feeling too re the ladder. It was knocked together on-site to meet a need. Few safety considerations in those days! Could have been done by a roofer working on the Lindbergh house or indeed constructed for horticulture/greenhouse use. Looking forward to hearing any further information e.g. from your friend. Keep up the good work! Regards, Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 26, 2021 3:27:37 GMT -5
Hi Lightningjew, As we agree that the ladder was not hidden from view but left on relatively open ground I wonder if you have any idea why it was dragged away from the house. It seems pointless on the face of it. The ransom note alone was evidence of a "kidnap" so why the need to move the ladder? Regards, Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 26, 2021 9:46:26 GMT -5
That's a great question. The usual explanation is that the kidnappers tried to take the ladder with them, but panicked and decided to abandon it as they ran off--except there's no real indication of panic. No scramble of footprints below the nursery window to indicate a fall or any kind of accident or haste, just two neat sets of footprints as the kidnappers stepped off the narrow catwalk boards on the ground at the base of the house--footprints which led to the ladder in the yard, and which continued down an access road or trail, to the driveway. They crossed the driveway, reappeared in a field on the other side, and passed some chicken coops, where the footprints were replaced by tire tracks on the side of the main road. As investigator Leon Ho-age, hired by the NJ governor to look into the case, said, it's as if the kidnappers left a very easy connect-the-dot trail for police to follow. Further, there were no approach footprints to the house, so the kidnappers must've driven up the driveway. Having driven up, why not drive away too? Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out? Why eat up getaway time by taking off on foot through a muddy field in the dark? The usual explanation is that, again, the kidnappers panicked and blindly ran off, but, again, they didn't: No scramble of footprints below the nursery window or any real indications of panic or haste. It's a very weird crime scene, in which the perpetrators seem to be selling and spoonfeeding observers what happened. To give a clearer picture of things, I've attached an aerial view I made a few years ago, based on the police reports. Red = Main road Orange = Driveway Yellow = Construction access road Pink = Footprints Purple = Featherbed Ln.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 26, 2021 12:02:59 GMT -5
That's a great question. The usual explanation is that the kidnappers tried to take the ladder with them, but panicked and decided to abandon it as they ran off--except there's no real indication of panic. No scramble of footprints below the nursery window to indicate a fall or any kind of accident or haste, just two neat sets of footprints as the kidnappers stepped off the narrow catwalk boards on the ground at the base of the house--footprints which led to the ladder in the yard, and which continued down an access road or trail, to the driveway. They crossed the driveway, reappeared in a field on the other side, and passed some chicken coops, where the footprints were replaced by tire tracks on the side of the main road. As investigator Leon Ho-age, hired by the NJ governor to look into the case, said, it's as if the kidnappers left a very easy connect-the-dot trail for police to follow. Further, there were no approach footprints to the house, so the kidnappers must've driven up the driveway. Having driven up, why not drive away too? Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out? Why eat up getaway time by taking off on foot through a muddy field in the dark? The usual explanation is that, again, the kidnappers panicked and blindly ran off, but, again, they didn't: No scramble of footprints below the nursery window or any real indications of panic or haste. It's a very weird crime scene, in which the perpetrators seem to be selling and spoonfeeding observers what happened. To give a clearer picture of things, I've attached an aerial view I made a few years ago, based on the police reports. Red = Main road Orange = Driveway Yellow = Construction access road Pink = Footprints Purple = Featherbed Ln. View Attachment If the ground/soil directly below the nursery window was actually of a type, consistency and moisture level capable of demonstrating them, should there not have been many more visible and randomly-angled footprints below the nursery window based on the efforts it would have taken the kidnapper(s) to raise a two or three section ladder in place and perhaps one person to stabilize it, under the very trying conditions of that night? You're also incorrect in stating there were "two neat sets of footprints as the kidnappers stepped off the narrow catwalk boards on the ground at the base of the house." What showed near the base of the house, (if you exclude those footprints attributed to Anne from her earlier walk) was one relatively deep and muffled impression of a cloth-covered foot to the immediate left of the ladder's left rung and a more indistinct and larger impression to the right of and below the ladder's right rung. The set (or sets) of footprints which investigators then were able to follow in ground that had become "muddier" and increasingly-impressionable, all the way to Hopewell-Wertsville Road, did not begin at the catwalk as you implied, but further away from the house.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 26, 2021 13:03:33 GMT -5
Given the stray muffled print and the larger impression you mention (which was burlap-textured, so it could've come from the bag with CAL Jr. inside), it would seem the ground below the nursery window could hold footprints and impressions. So, yeah, there should've been a lot more below the window, showing how the ladder was set up and stabilized, if that's what actually happened. In any case, bottom line, investigators found two sets of footprints leading away from the house, to the ladder and extending beyond to the Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. If the footprints didn't start right at the boardwalk, but appeared further away than that, okay; maybe the ground was harder and drier further away from the house before it became muddier and softer again. I'm willing to concede that the kidnappers didn't jump or pole-vault off the boardwalk to the exact spot where the footprints first appeared. There was also, as you say, what appeared to be a line of female footprints between the catwalk and the house. I don't know if those female footprints had anything to do with the crime, why Anne Lindbergh or whoever would walk there, or why, from there, she would throw pebbles at the nursery window as she claimed to have done earlier in the day, especially since she couldn't see into the window from that steep of an angle. Maybe she meant that she threw pebbles at the other nursery window that overlooked the patio around back, but I still don't know why she'd walk through the mud to get there, when there was a catwalk/boardwalk just inches to her left. But the point, of course, is that there's no indication of a fall or accident below the nursery window, which the ground was soft and muddy enough to show, had that happened. All things being equal, then, there was no reason for real kidnappers to walk off through a muddy field in the dark and leave a trail for law enforcement to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 26, 2021 15:29:14 GMT -5
Hi lightningjew, Your aerial view of the Lindbergh house gives me a clear picture of the geography of the surrounding area - I found it to be very useful. I'm usually quite leery of footprint evidence but the point which both yourself and Joe raise about the absence of many footprints immediately below the nursery window is interesting.. .and definitely suspicious. We have only the written records of what people did, or said they did, on that night and this cannot possibly record every single movement of Lindbergh, Anne, the staff and the police in the minutes and hours after Charles Jnr was discovered missing. It would be perfectly natural for Lindbergh and Whatley to rush outside, verify the child hadn't fallen from the window, maybe do a circuit of the house perimeter and possibly look further afield, even without a torch, using light from the windows. And all that is before the police arrive, who probably did the same thing. It seems that CAL found the ladder before the police arrived then led them to it. I sometimes think the absence of footprints tells us more than their presence (as above.) It is, as you say, a very weird crime scene. An external kidnapper would want as much time as possible to escape before the alarm was raised. He didn't have to leave a note signalling a kidnap in the nursery, phoning the following day instead. He didn't cut the phone line. He didn't scatter roofing nails on the drive to disable cars leaving the house to get the police. Its as if he didn't care about a 3-State alert, monitoring traffic in the Holland Tunnel etc. etc. A final point. Can we believe that this household, headed by "Jungle Jim" Lindbergh in that remote spot, with a sick child to care for didn't have a single torch or even a kerosene lamp on the premises as CAL claimed? What would they do in a power outage? But this justified Whately leaving the scene and driving the car through the woods towards Hopewell to get a torch. What was in the trunk?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 26, 2021 15:39:16 GMT -5
All good points, good questions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 26, 2021 18:54:40 GMT -5
Concerning the two sets of prints leading from the house, Nate's assessment is on point. The real issue is that the accounts aren't as specific as I'd like. For example, Wolf's initial report says "the ground on the east side of the house was muddy and showed the imprints of fresh footprints leading off in a southeast direction." So while it doesn't give us a measurement it does give a good sense of where the prints begin. Considering other sources, like VonNieda, Bonsall, etc. which all say the footprints began at the house and lead away. Another issue is the pictures Kubler took. One is of a single print in the middle of the yard, leading "from the house and another a general shot of one "leading from house on east side to spot were chisel & dowl pin found." I've also seen one of the entire yard which is supposed to show multiple prints but any time I looked at it I couldn't see anything. Any of the prints in the pictures I have seen do not indicate anyone was running, slipping, or falling. Neither do any of the accounts indicate it. They all seem to show two people walking from the house through the yard to the ladder, then from the ladder onto the abandoned road to Wertsville road where there were tire tracks of a car. Williamson added the twist by indicating that he saw what he believed was a print of a female joining the prints near the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 27, 2021 3:37:58 GMT -5
That's a great question. The usual explanation is that the kidnappers tried to take the ladder with them, but panicked and decided to abandon it as they ran off--except there's no real indication of panic. No scramble of footprints below the nursery window to indicate a fall or any kind of accident or haste, just two neat sets of footprints as the kidnappers stepped off the narrow catwalk boards on the ground at the base of the house--footprints which led to the ladder in the yard, and which continued down an access road or trail, to the driveway. They crossed the driveway, reappeared in a field on the other side, and passed some chicken coops, where the footprints were replaced by tire tracks on the side of the main road. As investigator Leon Ho-age, hired by the NJ governor to look into the case, said, it's as if the kidnappers left a very easy connect-the-dot trail for police to follow. Further, there were no approach footprints to the house, so the kidnappers must've driven up the driveway. Having driven up, why not drive away too? Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out? Why eat up getaway time by taking off on foot through a muddy field in the dark? The usual explanation is that, again, the kidnappers panicked and blindly ran off, but, again, they didn't: No scramble of footprints below the nursery window or any real indications of panic or haste. It's a very weird crime scene, in which the perpetrators seem to be selling and spoonfeeding observers what happened. To give a clearer picture of things, I've attached an aerial view I made a few years ago, based on the police reports. Red = Main road Orange = Driveway Yellow = Construction access road Pink = Footprints Purple = Featherbed Ln. View Attachment One of the the key things, for me, that proves Ho-age to be likely correct is the fact they never stepped off the boardwalk on the approach. Why go through all this care upon arrival, only to disregard it later upon exiting? It was a TINY boardwalk. With the sloppy way they exited they should have at least stepped off to put the ladder against the wall (it would have been easier to raise it this way) and/or to try seeing into the room (as the shutters would not lock shut, so some visibility into the room is likely), in an attempt to see who might be present. Keep in mind, it's dinnertime - the whole family is not only home, but awake. What kidnapper would ascend a ladder at this hour without some clarity as to who was in the room? For all they knew, both Lindberghs were in the room tending to Charlie. It's insane anybody would think someone would do this without total assurance the child was alone and/or without inside help. When you then look at the exit, with the footprints all pointing one way, the note on the window sill for no apparent reason (it should have been on the bed) and then the ladder in the direct line of sight from the window (it couldn't be seen propped up against the house), it all seems to make a lot more sense. It all seems to say "LOOK AWAY FROM THE HOUSE WE WENT THIS WAY!"
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 27, 2021 8:58:43 GMT -5
Well said. And, in addition, how did they know which room was the nursery in the first place? They watched the house? Realistically, that's useless in determining interior layout. The most that's going to tell you is whether or not anyone's home. Either way, prior surveillance would've revealed that the family wasn't at Highfields on Tuesday night--so why did the kidnappers choose to strike then? I could believe that someone let it slip to the wrong person that the family would be in Hopewell instead of Englewood, but again, how did they know which room to target? It's been said that the houseman, Olly Whateley, gave tours, but that's apparently not true.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2021 10:02:33 GMT -5
Given the stray muffled print and the larger impression you mention (which was burlap-textured, so it could've come from the bag with CAL Jr. inside), it would seem the ground below the nursery window could hold footprints and impressions. So, yeah, there should've been a lot more below the window, showing how the ladder was set up and stabilized, if that's what actually happened. In any case, bottom line, investigators found two sets of footprints leading away from the house, to the ladder and extending beyond to the Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. If the footprints didn't start right at the boardwalk, but appeared further away than that, okay; maybe the ground was harder and drier further away from the house before it became muddier and softer again. I'm willing to concede that the kidnappers didn't jump or pole-vault off the boardwalk to the exact spot where the footprints first appeared. There was also, as you say, what appeared to be a line of female footprints between the catwalk and the house. I don't know if those female footprints had anything to do with the crime, why Anne Lindbergh or whoever would walk there, or why, from there, she would throw pebbles at the nursery window as she claimed to have done earlier in the day, especially since she couldn't see into the window from that steep of an angle. Maybe she meant that she threw pebbles at the other nursery window that overlooked the patio around back, but I still don't know why she'd walk through the mud to get there, when there was a catwalk/boardwalk just inches to her left. But the point, of course, is that there's no indication of a fall or accident below the nursery window, which the ground was soft and muddy enough to show, had that happened. All things being equal, then, there was no reason for real kidnappers to walk off through a muddy field in the dark and leave a trail for law enforcement to follow. LJ, you claim it would seem the ground below the nursery window was capable of showing footprints and impressions. Then where are the other footprints one would then expect to see within this immediate area from the level of activity that no doubt would have taken place positioning the ladder and before ascending and after descending? Due to these two print examples being the only ones actually showing at the base of the ladder, I believe that one also has to consider the level of force required to make these impressions. Yes, I would agree that the larger impression could well have been made by a bag holding CALjr hitting the ground with some force, but I also consider strongly that the indistinct footprint to the left of the ladder’s left rail was made by the kidnapper’s left foot coming down relatively hard and unexpectedly due to the cracking and sudden, relative failure of the ladder. The lack of any additional footprints in this immediate area, indicates any further steps of normal force taken by someone now firmly back on the ground and wearing the same cloth coverings on their feet, were not enough to actually register footprints here, until he/they had gained some distance from the house, (perhaps beyond the leeward effect of the house’s east wall) to a point where the ground then became more of the type, consistency and moisture level required to actually yield sufficiently to foot pressure, and demonstrate the resultant footprint trail. The photo of the ground near the house, taken on the night of the crime, would seem to bear this theory out, showing its clay base to be of a relatively firm and unyielding nature, unlike the ground further east of the house which demonstrated the footprint trail.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2021 10:05:41 GMT -5
That's a great question. The usual explanation is that the kidnappers tried to take the ladder with them, but panicked and decided to abandon it as they ran off--except there's no real indication of panic. No scramble of footprints below the nursery window to indicate a fall or any kind of accident or haste, just two neat sets of footprints as the kidnappers stepped off the narrow catwalk boards on the ground at the base of the house--footprints which led to the ladder in the yard, and which continued down an access road or trail, to the driveway. They crossed the driveway, reappeared in a field on the other side, and passed some chicken coops, where the footprints were replaced by tire tracks on the side of the main road. As investigator Leon Ho-age, hired by the NJ governor to look into the case, said, it's as if the kidnappers left a very easy connect-the-dot trail for police to follow. Further, there were no approach footprints to the house, so the kidnappers must've driven up the driveway. Having driven up, why not drive away too? Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out? Why eat up getaway time by taking off on foot through a muddy field in the dark? The usual explanation is that, again, the kidnappers panicked and blindly ran off, but, again, they didn't: No scramble of footprints below the nursery window or any real indications of panic or haste. It's a very weird crime scene, in which the perpetrators seem to be selling and spoonfeeding observers what happened. To give a clearer picture of things, I've attached an aerial view I made a few years ago, based on the police reports. Red = Main road Orange = Driveway Yellow = Construction access road Pink = Footprints Purple = Featherbed Ln. View Attachment One of the the key things, for me, that proves Ho-age to be likely correct is the fact they never stepped off the boardwalk on the approach. Why go through all this care upon arrival, only to disregard it later upon exiting? It was a TINY boardwalk. With the sloppy way they exited they should have at least stepped off to put the ladder against the wall (it would have been easier to raise it this way) and/or to try seeing into the room (as the shutters would not lock shut, so some visibility into the room is likely), in an attempt to see who might be present. Keep in mind, it's dinnertime - the whole family is not only home, but awake. What kidnapper would ascend a ladder at this hour without some clarity as to who was in the room? For all they knew, both Lindberghs were in the room tending to Charlie. It's insane anybody would think someone would do this without total assurance the child was alone and/or without inside help. When you then look at the exit, with the footprints all pointing one way, the note on the window sill for no apparent reason (it should have been on the bed) and then the ladder in the direct line of sight from the window (it couldn't be seen propped up against the house), it all seems to make a lot more sense. It all seems to say "LOOK AWAY FROM THE HOUSE WE WENT THIS WAY!" I have little faith within the objectivity and stated conclusions of Leon Hoage about this case. I believe he was much too eager to align himself with Gov. Hoffman for the express purpose of providing contradicting evidence designed to usurp the state’s finding as well as making a name for himself. I’m not saying he wasn’t a smart guy and didn’t raise some good points, but he was far too adept at concluding in an unequivocal way, in the absence of essential, corroborating evidence, those possibilities Hoffman was only too eager to hear. And I believe his surrealistic writing style and lack of conclusive proof on a whole within his debacle of a report on Jafsie, only lends credence to his mindset for this case. There would have been absolutely no reason for the kidnapper(s) to perch like circus acrobats on that very narrow boardwalk as they approached the ground under the nursery window. What on earth would have been the point of feeling the need to stay on such a restrictive means of conveyance and attempt to mask this means of their approach, when minutes later they go clomping off leaving this so-called “breadcrumb trail?” The photo of the ground with ladder rail impressions near the house, taken on the night of the crime, would seem to bear this out, showing its clay base to be of a relatively firm nature, of the type shown. The only two visible impressions attributed to the kidnapper(s) within the immediate area of the ladder’s base, support this. I believe the only reasonable explanation here is that the combination of the kidnapper(s) foot coverings and the type, consistency and moisture level of the ground within the immediate vicinity of the boardwalk and base of the ladder, did not permit the production of visible footprint impressions here, until enough downward force and relative softness of the ground, did permit them at a point further east of the house and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 27, 2021 10:10:33 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, I agree: there's so much "staging" of an external kidnap here. As you say, the note on the window ledge, the footprints pointing away from the house, the ladder at some distance. This was then backed up by CAL saying he heard a cracking noise outside, his immediate opinion: "Anne, they have taken our baby" before any search of the house had been done, and his remarkable finding of the ladder in pitch darkness. Then he takes charge, restricting access to his staff, side-lining the police, and setting the hounds off in every direction: Mickey Rosner, Ownie Madden, Condon (the master of misdirection), Curtis, and "ransom notes" galore. All these firmly pointing to an outside job. And it worked!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 27, 2021 11:02:10 GMT -5
All things being equal, there would have been no reason to stay on the boardwalk--unless the idea was to leave as clean and clear a "breadcrumb trail" as possible for police to follow, with two sets of footprints just leading away. I mean, they obviously did stay on the boardwalk, unless the mud in that immediate vicinity took footprints and impressions, as we see (the burlap impression, the covered shoe), and yet somehow didn't at the same time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2021 11:39:44 GMT -5
All things being equal, there would have been no reason to stay on the boardwalk--unless the idea was to leave as clean and clear a "breadcrumb trail" as possible for police to follow, with two sets of footprints just leading away. I mean, they obviously did stay on the boardwalk, unless the mud in that immediate vicinity took footprints and impressions, as we see (the burlap impression, the covered shoe), and yet somehow didn't at the same time. I believe it all comes down to force of downward step. Stepping or falling off a ladder unexpectedly into the same type of ground you've just traversed in a regular walking fashion, would be represent two entirely different levels of force.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 27, 2021 12:37:23 GMT -5
I can see that. I mean, I do think there was a kind of force used to make that stray muffled print and burlap bag impression in the mud right by the ladder footing impressions. I just don't see the ladder breaking/collapsing there and/or someone landing on the ground as they fell, and then a scramble to get away since they may have been heard. It's interesting, there's an expert woodworker who's a member of this board, though he hasn't posted here for years unfortunately: Kevin Klein (I think he participated in the NOVA LKC documentary). He's studied the ladder more than anybody and built a duplicate--exact same specs and kinds of wood and everything--showing the ladder was sturdier than it looked. I've uploaded some pics he took of his replica, weight-testing it, which appear to show the ladder could hold at least 240 pounds (at which point he said couldn't add more weight; I guess the garbage can had reached capacity). These are from about 9 years ago:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2021 13:46:08 GMT -5
Here we go with the “magic” sock theory again. Step in the mud one leaves a print. Anne was tiny weighed next to nothing yet you believe she left prints inside the boardwalk. But 185lb man carrying a ladder seems to float cuz he’s wearing special socks and knows a the secret art of how to apply certain pressure in one place while, now mind you, turning off these abilities in the other places. Next up - a cloak of invisibility and a flying carpet!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 27, 2021 14:09:44 GMT -5
Well, in all fairness, we'll never know the exact consistency of the mud throughout the yard--where and why it was drier and less susceptible to prints in one place, where and why it was softer and more susceptible to that in others. All we have is where prints actually were, and what, from that, we can reasonably infer about the area immediately around those prints. In any case, when considering the prints and the mud, the point is that the official line--Hauptmann going to Highfields, knowing where the nursery was, setting up a ladder below, climbing up, getting in without making enough noise to alert people who were still up and moving about the house, getting back over onto the ladder carrying CAL Jr. without it falling during a gale, then falling himself, dropping and killing CAL Jr. as the ladder broke, and, in all this, just leaving (two sets of) retreating footprints (and a single stray covered-shoe one) as he walked off through a field in the dark... I think if that scenario--or even something similar--had occurred, the yard, and especially the area below the nursery, would've been a lot "messier".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2021 14:35:36 GMT -5
Well, in all fairness, we'll never know the exact consistency of the mud throughout the yard--where and why it was drier and less susceptible to prints in one place, where and why it was softer and more susceptible to that in others. All we have is where prints actually were, and what, from that, we can reasonably infer about the area immediately around those prints. I would agree if not for the reports, evidence that actually does exist, and all the accounts of those who were there to see it. No one that I know of spoke or documented sandbar-type places in the mud. They all said it was very muddy. Police used their flashlights to navigate the boardwalk careful not to step off. They returned the same way and walked around the yard to avoid spoiling the existing prints. The supposed kidnappers must have done the same on approach and staging. They should have stepped off in numerous places but only did once. We know this because there was a clearly defined print facing the house at the base of the ladder. We also know this because of the double set walking into the yard away from this area to where the ladder and chisel were found laying in the yard. From there the prints were lost in grass but picked back up on the old road. This idea that a pair of socks would prevent prints in the same area is silly. Same with this idea of pressure, slope, whatever…. We’re not talking about a bunch of physicists are we? These men and possibly a woman did care about prints in some places but did in others. That’s clear. The question now is why? Perhaps they didn’t want mud on their feet for the climb? Makes sense except they had to have been using a light source and seemed to have the luxury of time on their side. Neither is possible if the crime occurred as recorded by history.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Aug 27, 2021 14:42:15 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2021 17:14:03 GMT -5
Here we go with the “magic” sock theory again. Step in the mud one leaves a print. Anne was tiny weighed next to nothing yet you believe she left prints inside the boardwalk. But 185lb man carrying a ladder seems to float cuz he’s wearing special socks and knows a the secret art of how to apply certain pressure in one place while, now mind you, turning off these abilities in the other places. Next up - a cloak of invisibility and a flying carpet! Cute images. Here you go once again with your overwrought sense of exaggeration and hubris swooping in to save the face of yet another published personal theory.. I just seem to know when you’re around, when I hear that Lone Ranger theme song start. Okay, so maybe I’m exaggerating a bit here too on a Friday evening.. that’s finally arrived. But not with this part. Yes, I've previously heard from you on this critical matter, that Anne was as “light as a feather”, almost defied gravity and a few other choice superlatives. Now she weighs next to nothing. I have to wonder what Lindy actually saw in her.. perhaps he was able to see right through her! Why don't we stick to facts here? Anne weighed about 110 lbs., which is the equivalent of the weight of a 110 lb. gym barbell. For a moment, just try to imagine sticking one of those on its end and letting it down into the same type of ground along the house, displacing equal downward force upon a pair of 1930's style of woman's galoshes. Take your pick of any of these.. you know, the same kind Anne would have worn to add an inch or two to her diminutive frame. Whoever came to the base of the nursery window and set up that ladder doing everything on the ground they would have had to have done to kidnap the child, was unencumbered by the same considerations of physics which applied to Anne. This is readily apparent by a comparative lack of footprints made by the kidnapper(s) wearing their very effective, force-distributing cloth coverings.. whether you may want to believe it or not. I'd suggest perhaps a refresher course in general physics before you post any further on this.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2021 17:48:31 GMT -5
Well, in all fairness, we'll never know the exact consistency of the mud throughout the yard--where and why it was drier and less susceptible to prints in one place, where and why it was softer and more susceptible to that in others. All we have is where prints actually were, and what, from that, we can reasonably infer about the area immediately around those prints. In any case, when considering the prints and the mud, the point is that the official line--Hauptmann going to Highfields, knowing where the nursery was, setting up a ladder below, climbing up, getting in without making enough noise to alert people who were still up and moving about the house, getting back over onto the ladder carrying CAL Jr. without it falling during a gale, then falling himself, dropping and killing CAL Jr. as the ladder broke, and, in all this, just leaving (two sets of) retreating footprints (and a single stray covered-shoe one) as he walked off through a field in the dark... I think if that scenario--or even something similar--had occurred, the yard, and especially the area below the nursery, would've been a lot "messier". Absolutely.. and especially if that leeward-protected ground had actually allowed for more visible footprint impressions!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2021 19:04:25 GMT -5
Here we go with the “magic” sock theory again. Step in the mud one leaves a print. Anne was tiny weighed next to nothing yet you believe she left prints inside the boardwalk. But 185lb man carrying a ladder seems to float cuz he’s wearing special socks and knows a the secret art of how to apply certain pressure in one place while, now mind you, turning off these abilities in the other places. Next up - a cloak of invisibility and a flying carpet. Why don't we stick to facts here? I'd suggest perhaps a refresher course in general physics before you post any further on this. Just the facts Joe. The 110 lb woman carrying a pebble left prints in the place you say wouldn’t yield any. One of the kidnappers, wearing your magic socks, stepped into the mud near the ladder. And guess what? He left a print! Next two men, one presumably weighing 185lbs and carrying - at the very least a ladder - both left prints from the house to the yard. So turn Hauptmann into the great mathematician if you like, even Albert Einstein couldn’t do what you suggest based on the evidence that actually exists.
|
|