|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 27, 2021 19:06:22 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! Yeah, I’m with you. I’m not seeing the official version as that viable.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2021 19:28:03 GMT -5
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. Michael, your lack of understanding for elementary physics and resultant rhetoric is just getting you in deeper and deeper here. Little wonder you seem to include little of it within your writings. Try thinking for a minute if Anne had been wearing the same foot coverings as worn by the kidnappers, instead of her more distinct and comparatively hard-edged footwear that probably would still have made an impression, even if she had been only half her actual weight.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2021 19:43:48 GMT -5
Michael, your lack of understanding for elementary physics and resultant rhetoric is just getting you in deeper and deeper here. Little wonder you seem to include little of it within your writings. Try thinking for a minute if Anne had been wearing the same foot coverings as worn by the kidnappers, instead of her more distinct and comparatively hard-edged footwear that probably would still have made an impression, even if she had been only half her actual weight. Joe, None of your theories make any sense whatsoever. If this was a legitimate crime, why in the HELL would these people care if they left footprints in one place but not another? You have these people studying theorems about how to step in mud but they couldn’t build a ladder that wouldn’t break? And again, for what reason? We know they were there because they left a note. The child was gone. And they left the ladder behind! Figure that one out too because carrying it a distance then leaving it anyway? But you’ve got them soft shoeing because they were sometimes supposedly worried about footprints? But only in some places but not others? Fact is, when someone stepped off that boardwalk they left a print. The print near the ladder facing the house proves this because the person who made it was wearing something over their shoe. In fact, it not only left a print but carried mud up the ladder some of which fell onto the top of the bottom shutter. Then it still had enough on it to leave marks in the nursery. So your sock theory fails and you’d have to explain why they chose not to care about leaving one there in the first place. Especially since it’s not desirable to have mud on ones shoes climbing a ladder. Again, none of what you allege makes any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 28, 2021 2:34:25 GMT -5
For Sue, Wow! That's a great photo of the home-made ladder on the greenhouse roof. There are two reasons why I like it:
(1) Its the first time I have seen a home-made Lindbergh-style ladder used in another application i.e. for use resting on an inclined surface instead of for "vertical" use as a classic ladder, for which it is obviously unsuitable. "C'est bien une bonne trouvaille" as we say here in Belgium.
(2) It annoys Joe.
My first reason relates to a larger issue. Its important that those with different theories of this crime be allowed to express their views. While logical contrary arguments are welcome, veiled suggestions to "shut up" are not. So I say "Hi Ho Silver" to encourage your further work. Great stuff!
I had a second reason but I forgot what it was. Must have been unimportant.
Best wishes, Sherlock.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2021 9:40:34 GMT -5
Michael, your lack of understanding for elementary physics and resultant rhetoric is just getting you in deeper and deeper here. Little wonder you seem to include little of it within your writings. Try thinking for a minute if Anne had been wearing the same foot coverings as worn by the kidnappers, instead of her more distinct and comparatively hard-edged footwear that probably would still have made an impression, even if she had been only half her actual weight. Joe, None of your theories make any sense whatsoever. If this was a legitimate crime, why in the HELL would these people care if they left footprints in one place but not another? You have these people studying theorems about how to step in mud but they couldn’t build a ladder that wouldn’t break? And again, for what reason? We know they were there because they left a note. The child was gone. And they left the ladder behind! Figure that one out too because carrying it a distance then leaving it anyway? But you’ve got them soft shoeing because they were sometimes supposedly worried about footprints? But only in some places but not others? Fact is, when someone stepped off that boardwalk they left a print. The print near the ladder facing the house proves this because the person who made it was wearing something over their shoe. In fact, it not only left a print but carried mud up the ladder some of which fell onto the top of the bottom shutter. Then it still had enough on it to leave marks in the nursery. So your sock theory fails and you’d have to explain why they chose not to care about leaving one there in the first place. Especially since it’s not desirable to have mud on ones shoes climbing a ladder. Again, none of what you allege makes any sense. No disrespect here Michael, but I think you just need to get back to the basics and try using a little more science and less rhetoric. The kidnapper(s) never intended to make any more footprints than was absolutely necessary. That’s why they were wearing soft textured coverings over their feet. This is something bad guys are prone to do.. masking their activities to make it more difficult for the good guys to catch them. And at the same time allowing for quieter movements within the critical interior area of the house, ie. the nursery above the people that the kidnapper(s) was hoping were all residing on the lower floor at that time. Were he/they successful? Reasonably. They were able to approach the ground under the nursery window by traversing the narrow boardwalk relatively undetected. Did they feel the need to tiptoe along this very narrow boardwalk, set up and use the ladder without leaving the boardwalk, (except for one footprint) as you assert? Of course not. They undoubtedly would have stepped off a number of times or their feet at least would overlapped the boardwalk’s edges. These instances were just not visible as noticeable prints because of the soft coverings and the ground being firmer and less impressionable than the ground further east of the house. Let’s talk about that one muffled and indistinct footprint. You believe it was made by the ladder climber and that he somehow left the narrow boardwalk he felt he was mysteriously compelled to remain perched on until that point (WHY?).. essentially doing a 180 in mid-air, before coming down on the ground with his left foot only, to the left of the ladder’s left rail, at which point he began his ladder ascent. And within the set up of the ladder, still no other prints. (WHY?) Again, The only reasonable answer is that the ground near the house did not readily display footprints made by the bad guys in their soft foot coverings. Lol.. and you want to chastise me about magic socks and carpets! I believe you have this all backwards basically. That muffled footprint was made by the kidnapper coming down hard on the ground after the ladder cracked.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2021 9:58:47 GMT -5
For Sue, Wow! That's a great photo of the home-made ladder on the greenhouse roof. There are two reasons why I like it: (1) Its the first time I have seen a home-made Lindbergh-style ladder used in another application i.e. for use resting on an inclined surface instead of for "vertical" use as a classic ladder, for which it is obviously unsuitable. "C'est bien une bonne trouvaille" as we say here in Belgium. (2) It annoys Joe. My first reason relates to a larger issue. Its important that those with different theories of this crime be allowed to express their views. While logical contrary arguments are welcome, veiled suggestions to "shut up" are not. So I say "Hi Ho Silver" to encourage your further work. Great stuff! I had a second reason but I forgot what it was. Must have been unimportant. Best wishes, Sherlock. Sherlock, inspiration for ideas can come from many sources, including the one you and Sue have pointed out. I don't know if Hauptmann ever used or saw a horticultural ladder, but I do know that as a boy, he enjoyed climbing up and down the ladder that folded down from his attic at 64 Bautzner Straße in Kamenz. I've attached photos of a fairly typical folding wooden attic ladder, demonstrating its un-nested down and nested positions. Sorry about the tiny file size. And I'm not trying to annoy you at all, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 28, 2021 16:02:01 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Thanks for your kind words. We all get passionate at times about this infuriating case.
Your photos of the attic ladder both nested and un-nested are interesting. Maybe something like that was Hauptmann's inspiration, if in fact it was he who built the ladder. I live in an old Brussels town house and I never go to the attic without thinking of this case. I don't check to see if all the floorboards are there. I'm not that far gone (yet.)
You mentioned something new to me in an earlier posting: was there really the imprint of a burlap sack in the mud at the foot of the ladder? Its shameful that photos, plaster casts and reliable measurements were not taken of this and the footprints.
Best wishes,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 28, 2021 20:57:46 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Thanks for your kind words. We all get passionate at times about this infuriating case. Your photos of the attic ladder both nested and un-nested are interesting. Maybe something like that was Hauptmann's inspiration, if in fact it was he who built the ladder. I live in an old Brussels town house and I never go to the attic without thinking of this case. I don't check to see if all the floorboards are there. I'm not that far gone (yet.) You mentioned something new to me in an earlier posting: was there really the imprint of a burlap sack in the mud at the foot of the ladder? Its shameful that photos, plaster casts and reliable measurements were not taken of this and the footprints. Best wishes, Sherlock Sherlock, Actually there were at least two plaster of paris casts made. One underneath the nursery window and one at St. Raymond's Cemetery. (See The Dark Corners, Vol 1, page 172 and The Case That Never Dies, page 319.) Both have been lost. Below is a photo of the cast made at St. Raymond's (there is no known photo of the cast taken underneath the nursery). The fact that the NJSP had these 2 casts and that Wilentz did not use them at trial can only mean that the 2 casts did not fit Hauptmann's shoe size. I think this is the best piece of circumstantial evidence that someone besides Hauptmann aided with the kidnapping. As for the burlap or socks over the shoes. There can only be one reason that doing that. It certainly wasn't to disguise the shoe size; the burlap or sock would have made little or no difference. The only reason to cover your shoes is to lessen the sound of a hard leather sole on a hardwood floor. That's why I don't understand how the ladder could have been used as a ruse. The kidnapper(s) put burlap or a sock over their shoes to soften the noise in the nursery, the ladder was climbed (leaving a dollop of mud on top of the bottom shutter) and a mud trail was seen inside the nursery - from the Louis Vuitton suitcase to either 2 or 3 smudges of mud on the floor leading to the crib.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 29, 2021 3:24:57 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Thanks for the info on the plaster casts etc. I will look up the references in Dark Corners and The case that never dies.
Regards,
Sherlock
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 29, 2021 7:33:08 GMT -5
Thanks so much, Wayne, for the St. Raymond shoe print! The measurements on the cast are indicated in inches. The shoe print is 11 inches long. I had read that the print found was that of a size 8. A shoe that is 11 inches long is more than a size 8, probably nearly a size 11--at least in modern footware. There appears to be some discrepancy in the estimation of the shoe size here.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 29, 2021 7:55:20 GMT -5
Thanks so much, Wayne, for the St. Raymond shoe print! The measurements on the cast are indicated in inches. The shoe print is 11 inches long. I had read that the print found was that of a size 8. A shoe that is 11 inches long is more than a size 8, probably nearly a size 11--at least in modern footware. There appears to be some discrepancy in the estimation of the shoe size here. Hi Metje, I meant to reference that photo. It's from Michael's Dark Corners, Vol. 2, page 283. Again, I think the takeaway is that since Wilentz did not offer either cast as evidence in the trial, neither cast was taken from Hauptmann's shoes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 29, 2021 8:43:29 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Thanks for your kind words. We all get passionate at times about this infuriating case. Your photos of the attic ladder both nested and un-nested are interesting. Maybe something like that was Hauptmann's inspiration, if in fact it was he who built the ladder. I live in an old Brussels town house and I never go to the attic without thinking of this case. I don't check to see if all the floorboards are there. I'm not that far gone (yet.) You mentioned something new to me in an earlier posting: was there really the imprint of a burlap sack in the mud at the foot of the ladder? Its shameful that photos, plaster casts and reliable measurements were not taken of this and the footprints. Best wishes, Sherlock Yes Sherlock, I agree we can get passionately overwrought about this case at times. I'm guilty here as much as anyone can be. Much of the colourful dialogue that can go both ways, has of course been borne out of long-standing disagreements on a number of key points within the basic whodunit jigsaw puzzle for this case, with a bit of p*** and vinegar of course thrown in for Zing! Whenever I feel the need to go back and pull out certain comments that others might consider antipathetic in nature but were truly only intended in a light-hearted way, as I did yesterday within a post response to Michael, is just another cue for me to remember there is always far more to gain here through kindness, consideration and mutual collaboration. Believe me, I’m always working on it and consider myself a very spiritual, but not religious person. I guess The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case is probably my personal final frontier within the tearing down of tired, antiquated and unproductive mannerisms in discussion.. perhaps you could call it my own crumbling Berlin Wall. And just to demonstrate that I’m really not a condescending ogre, I offer my daily prayer and affirmation for what it is worth. While I have many unanswered questions regarding this case, I have absolutely none as to where my personal source of life’s inspiration is derived. Dear Father.docx (9.44 KB)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 29, 2021 9:00:26 GMT -5
Thanks so much, Wayne, for the St. Raymond shoe print! The measurements on the cast are indicated in inches. The shoe print is 11 inches long. I had read that the print found was that of a size 8. A shoe that is 11 inches long is more than a size 8, probably nearly a size 11--at least in modern footware. There appears to be some discrepancy in the estimation of the shoe size here. Hi Metje, I meant to reference that photo. It's from Michael's Dark Corners, Vol. 2, page 283. Again, I think the takeaway is that since Wilentz did not offer either cast as evidence in the trial, neither cast was taken from Hauptmann's shoes. Wayne, I've looked at the shoeprint evidence which I tend to believe more likely than not, was actually made by CJ in his jump from the wall. But if I were in Wilentz's shoes, I wouldn't have entered this into trial evidence either. I feel there is just not enough here to conclude either way that it was made by Hauptmann, or not made by Hauptmann. I know investigators pulled every pair of his shoes they could find, but two-and-a-half years after the jump took place, we simply don't know if Hauptmann had the exact same lineup of shoes he had on April 2, 1932. I previously pointed to the fact I have a pair of size 8 loafers, (which look small compared to my other shoes but which fit my feet like a glove) while I normally wear a size 9 to 9-1/2. I even have a pair of size 10 composite toe construction boots which I use at work. So if I had made that jump in my loafers and then thrown them out afterwards believing the impression I made might come back to incriminate me, would that clear me from having made the jump if investigators only had access to my size 9 to 9-1/2 shoes? The soft and malleable nature of the ground as well, seems to have compromised the accuracy of the final cast, as there appears to have been some backflow within the muddy ground. All in all, I'd have to conclude here that the cast neither demonstrates Hauptmann made the shoeprint or he didn't make it. Lord knows, Wilentz had more than enough going for his prosecution without having to introduce something as potentially argumentative as this point.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 29, 2021 10:59:39 GMT -5
Wayne and Joe, I recognize the reality of your comments regarding the prints. I was surprised at the number of inches in both length and width of the shoe print posted. Obviously, this shoe did not belong to someone wearing a size 8 as had been reported in other sources. Hauptmann's height is given as over 5'9" tall, perhaps slightly under 5'10". According to a standard scale, a man 5'6" to 5'9" would wear a shoe size of 9.5 to 10.5. A man of 5'10" to 6'2" would wear a size of 11 to 12.5". i realize that there would be some variations among humans and that the mud could interfere with the size of the print, making it seem larger. The size of the footprint in the photo is marked as 11 inches long. This is not a size 8; it is a size 11 or slightly less. The width of 5 inches (again marked) shows a foot of considerable width, more so than the average. It's possible that the print did correspond to the size worn by Hauptmann, but that might have been difficult to prove esp. given the conditions of the ground, or the source might have been suspect in some way. I understood that Condon's son-in-law, Ralph Hacker, was involved in the casting of this print. Condon would have had to point it out to Hacker before he made the print. Were there any witnesses to this operation?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 29, 2021 12:23:23 GMT -5
In regards to the ladder design, there is a short but interesting discussion of this on the forum back in 2006. For those who haven't seen it, on the discussion board go to the heading titled "Theories" and at the bottom of page 2 is a thread titled "Lt. Finn's Position". Michael posted something stated by NYPD Lt. Finn in the summer of 1933. The ensuing comments by contributor "Kevkon" are very interesting. I've always found his posts to be very thought provoking and filled with common sense.
In regards to the dimensions of the shoe impression, I wear a men's 10 and 1/2 sized shoe/boot. When I measured the length and width of a pair they were 12 and 1/2 inches in length and 4 and 1/2 inches in width.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 29, 2021 19:55:20 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Thanks for your kind words. We all get passionate at times about this infuriating case. Your photos of the attic ladder both nested and un-nested are interesting. Maybe something like that was Hauptmann's inspiration, if in fact it was he who built the ladder. I live in an old Brussels town house and I never go to the attic without thinking of this case. I don't check to see if all the floorboards are there. I'm not that far gone (yet.) You mentioned something new to me in an earlier posting: was there really the imprint of a burlap sack in the mud at the foot of the ladder? Its shameful that photos, plaster casts and reliable measurements were not taken of this and the footprints. Best wishes, Sherlock Sherlock, Actually there were at least two plaster of paris casts made. One underneath the nursery window and one at St. Raymond's Cemetery. (See The Dark Corners, Vol 1, page 172 and The Case That Never Dies, page 319.) Both have been lost. Below is a photo of the cast made at St. Raymond's (there is no known photo of the cast taken underneath the nursery). View AttachmentThe fact that the NJSP had these 2 casts and that Wilentz did not use them at trial can only mean that the 2 casts did not fit Hauptmann's shoe size. I think this is the best piece of circumstantial evidence that someone besides Hauptmann aided with the kidnapping. As for the burlap or socks over the shoes. There can only be one reason that doing that. It certainly wasn't to disguise the shoe size; the burlap or sock would have made little or no difference. The only reason to cover your shoes is to lessen the sound of a hard leather sole on a hardwood floor. That's why I don't understand how the ladder could have been used as a ruse. The kidnapper(s) put burlap or a sock over their shoes to soften the noise in the nursery, the ladder was climbed (leaving a dollop of mud on top of the bottom shutter) and a mud trail was seen inside the nursery - from the Louis Vuitton suitcase to either 2 or 3 smudges of mud on the floor leading to the crib. There was only a very small amount of mud found in the nursery. It could have easily been tracked in there by someone else or climbed up one way to make it look like someone entered the room. To quote Gardner: “Williamson remarked on several blurred smudges on the floor leading from the window to the crib. Wolfe, however, was surprised at what he did not see. He never forgot the feeling he had that night, his sense there should be more to be seen-more of everything. There were no muddy footprints on the floor of the nursery leading back to the window, nor any handprints or blood anywhere and the screen around the crib was undisturbed.”One element that stands out to me is that, upon exiting, the "kidnapper" chose to scale the suitcase and chest, instead of simply moving it to the side, which would have been 100x easier. No reasonable person would do this given the placement of things and the hurry he was in. To me, this lends credence to the idea that they only went "in" via the ladder but not out. Remember when Curtis said the child was handed out the door, Lindbergh found the story credible. So that should say something about the possibility of this being carried out by other means.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 30, 2021 8:03:25 GMT -5
Whenever I look at this representation of the St. Raymond's shoeprint on paper, prepared by someone who based it on the original plaster cast, along with a hand-drawn estimation of what was believed by someone else, to be the area within it that would have been occupied by the jumper's shoe, I have no questions as to why this piece of evidence would have been ripped to pieces by the defense if used by the prosecution. There is far too much room for error in such an estimation, especially when we're talking here about a half or even full size within a very common range of men's shoe size, and based on variability within manufacturers' footwear styles and sizes themselves. It neither inculpates nor exculpates Hauptmann as its source and I really can't understand why some folks jump up and down about this either way.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 30, 2021 9:25:36 GMT -5
In regards to the ladder design, there is a short but interesting discussion of this on the forum back in 2006. For those who haven't seen it, on the discussion board go to the heading titled "Theories" and at the bottom of page 2 is a thread titled "Lt. Finn's Position". Michael posted something stated by NYPD Lt. Finn in the summer of 1933. The ensuing comments by contributor "Kevkon" are very interesting. I've always found his posts to be very thought provoking and filled with common sense. In regards to the dimensions of the shoe impression, I wear a men's 10 and 1/2 sized shoe/boot. When I measured the length and width of a pair they were 12 and 1/2 inches in length and 4 and 1/2 inches in width. Lurp, I recall this discussion, especially the part about how much static load weight such a ladder was actually capable of taking. I believe key factors within the use of the kidnap ladder used at Hopewell, also include the actions and movements of the person climbing the ladder which would have imparted a more random and uneven set of vertical and horizontal forces on that very ladder's construction. I'd venture that a climber even just 50 lbs. lighter than the maximum static load weight of 240 lbs. determined by Kevin, would have been tempting fate while maneuvering about on the actual kidnap ladder under the conditions of that night.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 30, 2021 10:20:30 GMT -5
This has always been one of my biggest questions too: How and why did the ladder break? As Kevin showed, the ladder can hold at least 240 lbs, but even as I looked at those pictures I posted, I was aware that climbing a ladder is a more dynamic situation than just putting dead, static weight on it. Would that make a difference? Was the break consistent with the ladder being overloaded with those specific stresses? I'm not a woodworker or engineer of any kind, so I don't know. Also, how was the ladder held and stabilized on the ground? I would imagine it must have been, since it would've been incredibly difficult to climb back over to it from the window, if that's what happened, without someone holding the ladder in place--so where are that person's footprints, since we can see the impressions of the ladder footings? Maybe he stood under the ladder, on the boards... I dunno. It's tricky.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 30, 2021 11:15:22 GMT -5
This has always been one of my biggest questions too: How and why did the ladder break? As Kevin showed, the ladder can hold at least 240 lbs, but even as I looked at those pictures I posted, I was aware that climbing a ladder is a more dynamic situation than just putting dead, static weight on it. Would that make a difference? Was the break consistent with the ladder being overloaded with those specific stresses? I'm not a woodworker or engineer of any kind, so I don't know. Also, how was the ladder held and stabilized on the ground? I would imagine it must have been, since it would've been incredibly difficult to climb back over to it from the window, if that's what happened, without someone holding the ladder in place--so where are that person's footprints, since we can see the impressions of the ladder footings? Maybe he stood under the ladder, on the boards... I dunno. It's tricky. If there was someone else there holding the base of the ladder during the kidnapping, I can pretty much guarantee many more of his and the climber's muffled footprints would have shown, if the ground at that very location had actually been impressionable enough to do just that. I believe the only reason that one footprint to the left of the ladder's bottom left rail was visible, was due to the sudden impact and downward force exerted by the descending kidnapper's cloth-covered left foot at that very spot. And the larger muffled print to it's right, the item, likely CALjr in a burlap bag, he dropped.. or let down on the ground hard to make that print as well.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 30, 2021 12:27:59 GMT -5
It's possible. I tend to think a fall and a drop would've left more on the ground than a single print and the bag impression. There was also that line of female footprints too, right near where the cloth-covered print and the burlap bag impression were... But anyway, I'm more curious about why the ladder broke, and why it broke the way it did.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 31, 2021 14:28:57 GMT -5
Hi lightningjew, Could the ladder rail have been deliberately split along the grain to the dowel by using the chisel? It would (and did) give the impression that the ladder had indeed been used to access the nursery and that it had split under excess loading during the climb or descent. The "line of female footprints" may have been made earlier as Mrs Lindbergh threw pebbles up to the nursery window. She wouldn't throw pebbles from the wooden boardwalk - too close to the house. Did she then enter the house and, with her muddy shoes leaving traces on the nursery floor, check on the child as he fell asleep for his afternoon nap? As for the print of a burlap sack in the mud: doesn't this suggest a full sack dropped from a height rather than merely laid on the ground. I wouldn't expect a lay down to leave enough impression in the mud (on a rainy night) which was later identifiable as that of a burlap sack. All is pure speculation, I know. Best wishes, Sherlock
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 31, 2021 15:53:26 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh was hardly 5'1" tall and had a tiny figure. It's very unlikely that she wore a size 8 in women's shoes. Probably a size 4 or size 5. One has to remember all the problems we just discussed about the footprint posted which measures 11 inches and was claimed, at least by one source, to be a size 8! Did anyone bother to discover what size shoe Mrs. Lindbergh actually wore? Or is this simply someone's assumption?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 31, 2021 17:24:20 GMT -5
Hi Sherlock, You’re right about Anne Lindbergh being too close to the house to throw pebbles at the window, if those prints were hers. I think you’re also right that the bag impression wouldn’t have come from being just placed there. If we rule that out, then we’re left with the bag being dropped in a fall, which I’m not seeing, or being dropped there some other way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2021 19:05:23 GMT -5
The print facing the house at the base of the ladder was made prior to any climb. Joe needs it to have been made from a jump down but that doesn’t fit with the fact there was mud on the top shutter and in the nursery made from one shoe. He’s only ignoring that because he has to. Trust me, if he needed it he’d be all in.
According to DeGeatano’s testimony, the other mark had ridges that led him to believe it was from a “heavy woolen stocking” or a “sweater.” We must take into consideration that the prosecution didn’t want the burlap bag mentioned so this may have influenced his response. He also talks about how the impression was deeper in one place and narrower in another. For those with the TT it’s on page 928.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 31, 2021 20:31:52 GMT -5
Michael has previously posted this memo that was sent to FBI Hoover by Special Agent Lowdon:
"With reference to the footprints found outside of the window of the Lindbergh home immediately following the discovery of the kidnaping, Mr. Clegg stated that casts had been made of these prints and that it appeared that the kidnaper had worn over his shoes heavy knitted socks and that the threads of these socks were plainly visible. Mr. Clegg believe that the Division does not have any replicas of the casts made. He stated that there have been found in Hauptmann's residence several pairs of knitted socks made of thread which appears strikingly similar to the thread used in the socks worn by the kidnaper, as indicated by the impressions of the casts."
Very interesting memo.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2021 9:01:50 GMT -5
The print facing the house at the base of the ladder was made prior to any climb. Joe needs it to have been made from a jump down but that doesn’t fit with the fact there was mud on the top shutter and in the nursery made from one shoe. He’s only ignoring that because he has to. Trust me, if he needed it he’d be all in. According to DeGeatano’s testimony, the other mark had ridges that led him to believe it was from a “ heavy woolen stocking” or a “ sweater.” We must take into consideration that the prosecution didn’t want the burlap bag mentioned so this may have influenced his response. He also talks about how the impression was deeper in one place and narrower in another. For those with the TT it’s on page 928. A descending footprint is the only thing it could have been, Michael and it fits like a glove with all we know. I'm confident you'll understand this as constructive discussion unfolds as it should without anyone else continually feeling the need to defer to the guy who knows more about this case than anyone on the planet but has challenges processing the essential laws of physics as they apply directly to the circumstantial physical evidence here. No worries, time and space are far more illusory than you can imagine, and I know that only infinite patience produces immediate effect..
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2021 9:02:52 GMT -5
Michael has previously posted this memo that was sent to FBI Hoover by Special Agent Lowdon: "With reference to the footprints found outside of the window of the Lindbergh home immediately following the discovery of the kidnaping, Mr. Clegg stated that casts had been made of these prints and that it appeared that the kidnaper had worn over his shoes heavy knitted socks and that the threads of these socks were plainly visible. Mr. Clegg believe that the Division does not have any replicas of the casts made. He stated that there have been found in Hauptmann's residence several pairs of knitted socks made of thread which appears strikingly similar to the thread used in the socks worn by the kidnaper, as indicated by the impressions of the casts." Very interesting memo. Great point Lurp.. Hauptmann's hunting socks?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 1, 2021 12:42:38 GMT -5
I wanted to post another picture of Kevin Klein's replica ladder. According to him, this is what it would've looked like had it broken during a climb. Not sure what this means or how he got it to break, or what it says about why the break in original ladder occurred the way it did. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 1, 2021 15:01:26 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, Re your earlier posting: Covering his shoes with a knitted sock would not hide his shoe size but it would effectively hide the distinctive and potentially identifiable pattern of the tread, the distinctive impression which would have been left in the mud by an uncovered shoe. A cat's paw shoe-print at the Clutter home was the undoing of Smith and Hickok, the "In Cold Blood" killers. Did he anticipate (and thwart) an immediate check on all male shoes in that house, not having the time or desire to ditch the shoes with their distinctive tread which he was wearing that night? Regards, Sherlock
|
|