|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 1, 2021 18:26:52 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.. The kidnappers never stepped in the mud on the approach, as there were no prints approaching the house. Yet somehow there was mud on the top of the shutter and a bit in the nursery. This does not make sense. Therefore the only footprint which could have transferred the mud onto the shoe is the one by the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 1, 2021 18:57:05 GMT -5
Contributor "Kevkon" did some great research on this ladder design, and for those who haven't read his thoughts on how this ladder design failed, go to the "Archives" section under the discussion board, click on "Kevkon" then onto his post of "The Ladder Failure Theory". His summation on this post is as follows: "The nature of the ladders' condition as found and the absolute lack of any evidence of a complete failure coupled with the symmetrical quality of the rail splits gives me cause to believe that they where in fact caused by the sudden scissoring or folding together of the two sections upon being taken down. When this occurs the joint is forced to go over center binding the rail ends which results in the splits found on the original ladder." Kevkon's research on this has to be respected as he actually did some hands on work with this ladder design. However, I have always felt that there are some valuable thoughts on this topic in Delong's interview of Schwartzkop very early on in the investigation. In this Schwartzkop's interview he stated that there was a mark on the white wall of the house about 7 feet up where "something apparently had crashed against it". He stated that the NJSP made several duplicat ladders and had men of different weights ascend and decend them. Eventually the duplicate ladders did split and "buckled in against the wall". The ladders did NOT collapse and fall but threw the men on them against the wall of the house. He stated that the NJSP speculated that the child, while being carried down the ladder, could have been forced against the wall striking his head with enough force to cause serious injury or death. This "scissoring in" of the ladder would explain why there was no evidence of a serious fall off of the ladder, yet explain how the soft skull of a 20 month old child could be seriously damaged. It's easy to forget that the Lindbergh house was made with fieldstones and not the more forgiving materials of today's houses. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 1, 2021 20:10:27 GMT -5
Contributor "Kevkon" did some great research on this ladder design, and for those who haven't read his thoughts on how this ladder design failed, go to the "Archives" section under the discussion board, click on "Kevkon" then onto his post of "The Ladder Failure Theory". His summation on this post is as follows: "The nature of the ladders' condition as found and the absolute lack of any evidence of a complete failure coupled with the symmetrical quality of the rail splits gives me cause to believe that they where in fact caused by the sudden scissoring or folding together of the two sections upon being taken down. When this occurs the joint is forced to go over center binding the rail ends which results in the splits found on the original ladder." Kevkon's research on this has to be respected as he actually did some hands on work with this ladder design. However, I have always felt that there are some valuable thoughts on this topic in Delong's interview of Schwartzkop very early on in the investigation. In this Schwartzkop's interview he stated that there was a mark on the white wall of the house about 7 feet up where "something apparently had crashed against it". He stated that the NJSP made several duplicat ladders and had men of different weights ascend and decend them. Eventually the duplicate ladders did split and "buckled in against the wall". The ladders did NOT collapse and fall but threw the men on them against the wall of the house. He stated that the NJSP speculated that the child, while being carried down the ladder, could have been forced against the wall striking his head with enough force to cause serious injury or death. This "scissoring in" of the ladder would explain why there was no evidence of a serious fall off of the ladder, yet explain how the soft skull of a 20 month old child could be seriously damaged. It's easy to forget that the Lindbergh house was made with fieldstones and not the more forgiving materials of today's houses. View AttachmentView AttachmentThat would have to be a really, really hard fall to kill a child, even a ricket-y sick one, against the wall. Plus I'd imagine the natural instinct is to use your hands to stop the fall which if the kidnapper did, would also likely prevent the baby from slamming in at full force.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 2, 2021 3:49:12 GMT -5
The scissoring -in mode of ladder failure suggests it was never even tested by the maker before use that night. Crazy!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2021 11:53:31 GMT -5
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.. The kidnappers never stepped in the mud on the approach, as there were no prints approaching the house. Yet somehow there was mud on the top of the shutter and a bit in the nursery. This does not make sense. Therefore the only footprint which could have transferred the mud onto the shoe is the one by the ladder. Trojan USC, can you please then explain to me, under the very challenging conditions of that dark and windy night: • How one or perhaps two kidnappers managed to approach the ground under the nursery window along that very narrow walkway, made up of one or two widths of hardwood strip flooring, without stepping off the walkway even once? • How one or two kidnappers managed to handle, raise and put in place a very finicky two or three section ladder, without stepping off the walkway even once doing this? • For what reason the kidnapper(s) would have felt oddly compelled to remain precipitously on that walkway anyway, during their approach and set up of the ladder? • How one kidnapper managed to step in an easterly direction from his position on one width of hardwood strip flooring at the base of the window, and was able to swing around 180 degrees, planting his left foot only on the ground without swiveling it the required 180 degrees, now facing in a westerly direction? I agree that the little fleck or glob of mud on the top of the shutter could have been dislodged from the foot of the ascending ladder climber. I’d venture it was simply picked up by this individual at some random point during his approach along the side of the house due to the knitted or ribbed nature of the soft foot coverings. I believe that other traces of mud were also picked on the soles of the cloth-covered feet during the general approach and deposited where they were observed in the nursery, ie. the edge of the suitcase swiped by the kidnapper’s cloth-covered foot and the rug’s fabric which also allowed for some of the mud traces to be transferred. It’s important to remember here there were very few traces of mud, if at all on the ladder rungs, or anywhere else, and this is a strong indicator that the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house’s east wall, was far from being the wet, highly-impressionable mud you seem to imagine, but of a much firmer nature. The crime scene photo of the ladder rail imprints taken that night demonstrates this point quite clearly. Michael, if you're reading this, please don’t simply chime in without a second thought in order to summarily toss out everything I’ve mentioned above, by blithely referring to “light as a feather” (your term) Anne Lindbergh, in her 1930’s style of women’s galoshes or rubbers with their distinctive sole and heel, as being the only reason for which to demonstrate why the kidnappers should have made similar tracks if they had stepped on the ground as much as they would have had to.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 2, 2021 13:18:18 GMT -5
The kidnappers never stepped in the mud on the approach, as there were no prints approaching the house. Yet somehow there was mud on the top of the shutter and a bit in the nursery. This does not make sense. Therefore the only footprint which could have transferred the mud onto the shoe is the one by the ladder. I agree that the little fleck or glob of mud on the top of the shutter could have been dislodged from the foot of the ascending ladder climber. I’d venture it was simply picked up by this individual at some random point during his approach along the side of the house due to the knitted or ribbed nature of the soft foot coverings. Joe, FYI - remarkably, that glob of mud from the top of the bottom shutter is in a box at the NJSP Museum!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2021 20:22:42 GMT -5
I agree that the little fleck or glob of mud on the top of the shutter could have been dislodged from the foot of the ascending ladder climber. I’d venture it was simply picked up by this individual at some random point during his approach along the side of the house due to the knitted or ribbed nature of the soft foot coverings. Joe, FYI - remarkably, that glob of mud from the top of the bottom shutter is in a box at the NJSP Museum! Yes Wayne, I believe Michael mentioned that in a previous post. That is absolutely remarkable. Have you seen it and can you offer some idea of size? My understanding is about the size of a green pea.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 3, 2021 0:01:35 GMT -5
The kidnappers never stepped in the mud on the approach, as there were no prints approaching the house. Yet somehow there was mud on the top of the shutter and a bit in the nursery. This does not make sense. Therefore the only footprint which could have transferred the mud onto the shoe is the one by the ladder. Trojan USC, can you please then explain to me, under the very challenging conditions of that dark and windy night: • How one or perhaps two kidnappers managed to approach the ground under the nursery window along that very narrow walkway, made up of one or two widths of hardwood strip flooring, without stepping off the walkway even once? • How one or two kidnappers managed to handle, raise and put in place a very finicky two or three section ladder, without stepping off the walkway even once doing this? • For what reason the kidnapper(s) would have felt oddly compelled to remain precipitously on that walkway anyway, during their approach and set up of the ladder? • How one kidnapper managed to step in an easterly direction from his position on one width of hardwood strip flooring at the base of the window, and was able to swing around 180 degrees, planting his left foot only on the ground without swiveling it the required 180 degrees, now facing in a westerly direction? I agree that the little fleck or glob of mud on the top of the shutter could have been dislodged from the foot of the ascending ladder climber. I’d venture it was simply picked up by this individual at some random point during his approach along the side of the house due to the knitted or ribbed nature of the soft foot coverings. I believe that other traces of mud were also picked on the soles of the cloth-covered feet during the general approach and deposited where they were observed in the nursery, ie. the edge of the suitcase swiped by the kidnapper’s cloth-covered foot and the rug’s fabric which also allowed for some of the mud traces to be transferred. It’s important to remember here there were very few traces of mud, if at all on the ladder rungs, or anywhere else, and this is a strong indicator that the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house’s east wall, was far from being the wet, highly-impressionable mud you seem to imagine, but of a much firmer nature. The crime scene photo of the ladder rail imprints taken that night demonstrates this point quite clearly. Michael, if you're reading this, please don’t simply chime in without a second thought in order to summarily toss out everything I’ve mentioned above, by blithely referring to “light as a feather” (your term) Anne Lindbergh, in her 1930’s style of women’s galoshes or rubbers with their distinctive sole and heel, as being the only reason for which to demonstrate why the kidnappers should have made similar tracks if they had stepped on the ground as much as they would have had to. To answer your questions: 1) I believe the kidnappers likely did not want it to be clear they came from the driveway, so they followed the boardwalk around. It had likely been practiced and/or was navigated by those familiar. There is no other explanation for footprints being found on the entire escape from the yard, but none on the approach. 2) Again, if you believe they had inside help, it is quite possible they assembled the ladder elsewhere (the driveway, etc) and then navigated the walkway with it already assembled. Again, we see footprint evidence all over the place. What are the odds that all of the places these kidnappers would step on the approach would not yield a footprint, yet miraculously every place they stepped on the exit would? The odds are astronomical, so therefore we must look at how one could get to that window without creating footprints and there is only one way to do this. 3) Again, if you are trying to leave a breadcrumb trail, while also hiding that you were aided by those in the house, you'd probably want to cover what would be a very public entry route and lead to even more questions about inside help. 4) Is it one strip width or two? You keep changing your mind. Either way, if the footprint facing the house was made on the ascent, then the footprint facing away was on the exit, it is not difficult.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2021 8:02:54 GMT -5
Trojan USC, can you please then explain to me, under the very challenging conditions of that dark and windy night: • How one or perhaps two kidnappers managed to approach the ground under the nursery window along that very narrow walkway, made up of one or two widths of hardwood strip flooring, without stepping off the walkway even once? • How one or two kidnappers managed to handle, raise and put in place a very finicky two or three section ladder, without stepping off the walkway even once doing this? • For what reason the kidnapper(s) would have felt oddly compelled to remain precipitously on that walkway anyway, during their approach and set up of the ladder? • How one kidnapper managed to step in an easterly direction from his position on one width of hardwood strip flooring at the base of the window, and was able to swing around 180 degrees, planting his left foot only on the ground without swiveling it the required 180 degrees, now facing in a westerly direction? I agree that the little fleck or glob of mud on the top of the shutter could have been dislodged from the foot of the ascending ladder climber. I’d venture it was simply picked up by this individual at some random point during his approach along the side of the house due to the knitted or ribbed nature of the soft foot coverings. I believe that other traces of mud were also picked on the soles of the cloth-covered feet during the general approach and deposited where they were observed in the nursery, ie. the edge of the suitcase swiped by the kidnapper’s cloth-covered foot and the rug’s fabric which also allowed for some of the mud traces to be transferred. It’s important to remember here there were very few traces of mud, if at all on the ladder rungs, or anywhere else, and this is a strong indicator that the ground in the immediate vicinity of the house’s east wall, was far from being the wet, highly-impressionable mud you seem to imagine, but of a much firmer nature. The crime scene photo of the ladder rail imprints taken that night demonstrates this point quite clearly. Michael, if you're reading this, please don’t simply chime in without a second thought in order to summarily toss out everything I’ve mentioned above, by blithely referring to “light as a feather” (your term) Anne Lindbergh, in her 1930’s style of women’s galoshes or rubbers with their distinctive sole and heel, as being the only reason for which to demonstrate why the kidnappers should have made similar tracks if they had stepped on the ground as much as they would have had to. To answer your questions: 1) I believe the kidnappers likely did not want it to be clear they came from the driveway, so they followed the boardwalk around. It had likely been practiced and/or was navigated by those familiar. There is no other explanation for footprints being found on the entire escape from the yard, but none on the approach. It's clear there's no other location the kidnapper(s) could have come from but from the driveway area. Who would you have them trying to fool here? (Joe) 2) Again, if you believe they had inside help, it is quite possible they assembled the ladder elsewhere (the driveway, etc) and then navigated the walkway with it already assembled. Again, we see footprint evidence all over the place. What are the odds that all of the places these kidnappers would step on the approach would not yield a footprint, yet miraculously every place they stepped on the exit would? The odds are astronomical, so therefore we must look at how one could get to that window without creating footprints and there is only one way to do this. Regardless of having had inside help, the only reasonable place to have assembled the ladder would have been away from the house before making the final assault to the ground under the nursery window. Where do we see footprint evidence all over the place? Only where the impressionability of the ground allows for it, essentially in the ground further east of the house where the muffled footprints trail begins. The kidnapper(s) soft cloth-covered foot coverings would not allow for visible footprints to have been made around the walkway and base of the ladder given If you are stuck (no pun) on believing the kidnapper(s) actually stayed on that narrow walkway, because you can't consider the ground nearest the house was of a different type, texture and moisture content than that of the ground further east of the house, then I believe you're in a very restrictive paradigm here. (Joe)
3) Again, if you are trying to leave a breadcrumb trail, while also hiding that you were aided by those in the house, you'd probably want to cover what would be a very public entry route and lead to even more questions about inside help. Again, I believe you're stuck on this pre-conceived notion that they were trying to leave a breadcrumb trail and had inside help. By doing this, you're restricting you assessment of all of the related circumstantial physical evidence, pulling out only the bits and pieces that support your conclusion. (Joe)
4) Is it one strip width or two? You keep changing your mind. Either way, if the footprint facing the house was made on the ascent, then the footprint facing away was on the exit, it is not difficult. It was both. Some areas of the walkway were made up of one equivalent width of hardwood flooring and some areas were made up of two widths. At the base of the ladder, it was one width. And again, you assume here that the forward facing muffled footprint was made on ascent and the other muffled impression was an exiting footprint. Why is this? (Joe)
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 3, 2021 10:36:57 GMT -5
Joe, FYI - remarkably, that glob of mud from the top of the bottom shutter is in a box at the NJSP Museum! Yes Wayne, I believe Michael mentioned that in a previous post. That is absolutely remarkable. Have you seen it and can you offer some idea of size? My understanding is about the size of a green pea. Joe, To the best of my recollection, it's bigger than the size of a green pea. I would say it's about the size of a large marble, maybe a little over an inch in diameter with the bottom flattened where is came to rest of the top of the shutter. I wish I had taken a photo of it way back when, but did not think of it. It was very strange to see a dollop of mud in a box at the NJSP Museum in the first place. I had no idea what to make of it until Mark Falzini told me what it was. Michael, have you seen the ball of mud? Do you agree with me on the size? You don't happen to have a photo, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2021 14:57:52 GMT -5
Id say it was the size of a superball (for those who remember what that is). If you make an “okay” sign with your thumb and forefinger it’s about that size. There’s pictures of it in the binders in addition to the actual chunk of it which still exists.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 3, 2021 22:09:14 GMT -5
To answer your questions: 1) I believe the kidnappers likely did not want it to be clear they came from the driveway, so they followed the boardwalk around. It had likely been practiced and/or was navigated by those familiar. There is no other explanation for footprints being found on the entire escape from the yard, but none on the approach. It's clear there's no other location the kidnapper(s) could have come from but from the driveway area. Who would you have them trying to fool here? (Joe) Why do you think they didn't exit from the way they came then? Or enter from where they exited?2) Again, if you believe they had inside help, it is quite possible they assembled the ladder elsewhere (the driveway, etc) and then navigated the walkway with it already assembled. Again, we see footprint evidence all over the place. What are the odds that all of the places these kidnappers would step on the approach would not yield a footprint, yet miraculously every place they stepped on the exit would? The odds are astronomical, so therefore we must look at how one could get to that window without creating footprints and there is only one way to do this. Regardless of having had inside help, the only reasonable place to have assembled the ladder would have been away from the house before making the final assault to the ground under the nursery window. Where do we see footprint evidence all over the place? Only where the impressionability of the ground allows for it, essentially in the ground further east of the house where the muffled footprints trail begins. The kidnapper(s) soft cloth-covered foot coverings would not allow for visible footprints to have been made around the walkway and base of the ladder given If you are stuck (no pun) on believing the kidnapper(s) actually stayed on that narrow walkway, because you can't consider the ground nearest the house was of a different type, texture and moisture content than that of the ground further east of the house, then I believe you're in a very restrictive paradigm here. (Joe) That's just not true. We have a footprint next to the house. You are the one leaping through hoops because you have to explain away why there's one perfect footprint by the ladder, but no others. 3) Again, if you are trying to leave a breadcrumb trail, while also hiding that you were aided by those in the house, you'd probably want to cover what would be a very public entry route and lead to even more questions about inside help. Again, I believe you're stuck on this pre-conceived notion that they were trying to leave a breadcrumb trail and had inside help. By doing this, you're restricting you assessment of all of the related circumstantial physical evidence, pulling out only the bits and pieces that support your conclusion. (Joe) I am looking at the totality of the evidence, which includes: the fact the Lindberghs were staying on a weeknight at a house they typically do not stay at, a dog which was conveniently left home, CAL missing an NYU event without a satisfactory explanation, his car seen far earlier than he claimed to be in the area, the lack of footprints on the approach, the near total lack of forensic evidence in the nursery (including zero fingerprints of any sort), the one open window (which somehow the kidnappers knew was the nurse and would be both unlocked and empty), a ransom note left on a windowsill for no reason, etc.
4) Is it one strip width or two? You keep changing your mind. Either way, if the footprint facing the house was made on the ascent, then the footprint facing away was on the exit, it is not difficult. It was both. Some areas of the walkway were made up of one equivalent width of hardwood flooring and some areas were made up of two widths. At the base of the ladder, it was one width. And again, you assume here that the forward facing muffled footprint was made on ascent and the other muffled impression was an exiting footprint. Why is this? (Joe) Because it is what makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 4, 2021 14:46:00 GMT -5
The tire tracks of two cars were found in Featherbed Lane. Unfortunately no casts were made of the tracks. One car carrying ladder sections was witnessed by Ben Lupica about 5 p.m. The driver appeared to be looking for a confederate and so followed Lupica by mistake in order to get his attention. Anne Lindbergh heard a car driving on the gravel driveway before his husband came home. This was most likely the car with the ladder sections; instead of driving to Featherbed Lane and then carrying the sections to the house, he stopped, removed the sections from the car and left them on the ground. Anne heard him driving his car away. I suggest that the second car followed and may have carried passengers (probably two) and left them also at the scene. These two would put the sections together and carrying out the kidnapping. The two drivers would then take their cars to Featherbed Lane and wait for their confederates to return with the child. If the kidnapping happened in this way, the only footsteps would lead away from the house, first to the chicken coop and then to Featherbed Lane where the two drivers would be waiting for them and the kidnappers could make their getaway.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2021 16:40:16 GMT -5
The tire tracks of two cars were found in Featherbed Lane. Unfortunately no casts were made of the tracks. One car carrying ladder sections was witnessed by Ben Lupica about 5 p.m. The driver appeared to be looking for a confederate and so followed Lupica by mistake in order to get his attention. Anne Lindbergh heard a car driving on the gravel driveway before his husband came home. This was most likely the car with the ladder sections; instead of driving to Featherbed Lane and then carrying the sections to the house, he stopped, removed the sections from the car and left them on the ground. Anne heard him driving his car away. I suggest that the second car followed and may have carried passengers (probably two) and left them also at the scene. These two would put the sections together and carrying out the kidnapping. The two drivers would then take their cars to Featherbed Lane and wait for their confederates to return with the child. If the kidnapping happened in this way, the only footsteps would lead away from the house, first to the chicken coop and then to Featherbed Lane where the two drivers would be waiting for them and the kidnappers could make their getaway. Aaron, the tire tracks of two vehicles that Oscar Bush claimed were the destination point of the footprints trail originating from the house, were actually located on Hopewell-Wertsville Road. Featherbed Lane was well south of this point and was the seldom-used access route that ran east-west but was accessible by Hopewell-Wertsville Road. It was on this road after dusk on the evening of March 1, that the Conovers witnessed the headlights of a vehicle making its way along its course. We'll probably never know for certain who it was and just what this vehicle was doing on that road at the time, but I do believe it could well have been the driver of the Dodge vehicle possibly looking to turn around or a bit lost in the dark, the same one seen earlier Ben Lupica. I believe that any confusion emanating from the various accounts relating to Featherbed Lane or Road, were sourced in the fact that the kidnapper(s) footprints trail led pretty much along an old work and access (local terminology being a "featherbed") road on the Lindbergh property running perpendicular to and east of the house, before they headed due north-east across the main gravel drive and past the chicken coops close to Hopewell-Wertsville Road, where the dog prints were also found. It seems this old access road on the property was at times also mistakenly referred to as Featherbed Lane. I believe Anne's recollection of the sound of tires on the gravel drive, was in fact the kidnapper(s) driving boldly to the house for the purpose of dropping off the ladder and required supplies just after 8:00 pm. The kidnapper(s) would have then walked back up the 6/10 mile driveway to perform the kidnapping itself.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 4, 2021 20:56:16 GMT -5
Another factor to be considered is the state of the ground in winter. In the northern states the ground is frozen quite solidly, and the thawing is gradual. The thawing may vary in duration from state to state and from zone to zone, but on March 1 in New Jersey it would have been still the winter season. The thawing may have begun, depending on the temperatures of the days prior, but the ground would not have been completely thawed. The mud would have been on the surface and not present in all locations. The areas directly in the path of the sun would, of course, have thawed first. I would also comment that while wearing socks as covering on the shoes might disguise the tread, it would also have made a climb up the ladder quite risky if mud were clinging to the cloth. I realize that my suggestions are not going to fit all the theories made concerning details of the kidnapping but have attempted to stick to the facts as these were reported am not here claiming guilt on the part of any person or persons. The comments made about thawing are well known to farmers who do not plant until the ground can be plowed and planting can be done safely.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 5, 2021 2:28:11 GMT -5
Continuing, in "New Jersey's Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial" by Mark Falzini and James Davidson, there appears a photo of Featherbed Lane (p. 32). Oscar Bush did follow two sets of footprints "through a field to Featherbed Lane." He did infer that the kidnappers left the scene through a getaway car parked there.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 5, 2021 2:37:33 GMT -5
However, I just found in my files an email to me from Mark Falzini in which, in responding to my inquiry, he did confirm that the footprints that led to the chicken coop were in an opposite direction from Featherbed Lane.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 5, 2021 5:58:41 GMT -5
1) I believe the kidnappers likely did not want it to be clear they came from the driveway, so they followed the boardwalk around. It had likely been practiced and/or was navigated by those familiar. There is no other explanation for footprints being found on the entire escape from the yard, but none on the approach. (trojanusc) It's clear there's no other location the kidnapper(s) could have come from but from the driveway area. Who would you have them trying to fool here? (Joe) Why do you think they didn't exit from the way they came then? Or enter from where they exited? (trojanusc) I believe the kidnapper(s) would have preferred to have left by the same way they approached the house, from the driveway, but the unexpected breakage of the ladder and possibly dropping the child in a way that was considered to be serious, in effect changed these plans. At this point their flight response would have directed them to just get away from the house.
2) Again, if you believe they had inside help, it is quite possible they assembled the ladder elsewhere (the driveway, etc) and then navigated the walkway with it already assembled. Again, we see footprint evidence all over the place. What are the odds that all of the places these kidnappers would step on the approach would not yield a footprint, yet miraculously every place they stepped on the exit would? The odds are astronomical, so therefore we must look at how one could get to that window without creating footprints and there is only one way to do this. (trojanusc) Regardless of having had inside help, the only reasonable place to have assembled the ladder would have been away from the house before making the final assault to the ground under the nursery window. Where do we see footprint evidence all over the place? Only where the impressionability of the ground allows for it, essentially in the ground further east of the house where the muffled footprints trail begins. The kidnapper(s) soft cloth-covered foot coverings would not allow for visible footprints to have been made around the walkway and base of the ladder given If you are stuck (no pun) on believing the kidnapper(s) actually stayed on that narrow walkway, because you can't consider the ground nearest the house was of a different type, texture and moisture content than that of the ground further east of the house, then I believe you're in a very restrictive paradigm here. (Joe) That's just not true. We have a footprint next to the house. You are the one leaping through hoops because you have to explain away why there's one perfect footprint by the ladder, but no others. (trojanusc) It's far from being a perfect footprint and demonstrates clearly the relationship between what the kidnapper(s) were wearing on their feet and their ability to approach the ground under the nursery window without leaving footprints. The force of their steps was spread out over a larger surface area, therefore their steps did not show, but for the one to the left of the ladder's left rail, where the descending kidnapper came down relatively hard at that spot. (Joe)
3) Again, if you are trying to leave a breadcrumb trail, while also hiding that you were aided by those in the house, you'd probably want to cover what would be a very public entry route and lead to even more questions about inside help. (trojanusc) Again, I believe you're stuck on this pre-conceived notion that they were trying to leave a breadcrumb trail and had inside help. By doing this, you're restricting you assessment of all of the related circumstantial physical evidence, pulling out only the bits and pieces that support your conclusion. (Joe) I am looking at the totality of the evidence, which includes: the fact the Lindberghs were staying on a weeknight at a house they typically do not stay at, a dog which was conveniently left home, CAL missing an NYU event without a satisfactory explanation, his car seen far earlier than he claimed to be in the area, the lack of footprints on the approach, the near total lack of forensic evidence in the nursery (including zero fingerprints of any sort), the one open window (which somehow the kidnappers knew was the nurse and would be both unlocked and empty), a ransom note left on a windowsill for no reason, etc. (trojanusc) All of the examples you've now added in an attempt to augment your argument, are not conclusive factors. The kidnappers may well have believed the Lindberghs were now full time residents of Hopewell, there is no conclusive proof that: Skean was left behind so he would not be in the nursery to bark at an intruder, that Lindbergh intentionally missed the NYU dinner so he could be in Hopewell to "supervise" the kidnapping because he was a "control freak", or that Whited's claim was even accurate. I've already offered my own explanation as to why there were no visible footprints on the approach or around the base of the nursery window. Regarding the lack of fingerprints, that one remains a question, as does the knowledge of which window to enter, although I tend to believe in the case of the latter, the kidnapper acquired this information somehow through a source that did not realize its importance. One thing I do know for sure, any person (or persons), who would have attempted to stage a kidnapping of the most famous child on the planet by intentionally doing all of the above to aid and abet the act itself, would have been a complete half-wit in my books, and only asking for trouble. This was not a staged kidnapping.
4) Is it one strip width or two? You keep changing your mind. Either way, if the footprint facing the house was made on the ascent, then the footprint facing away was on the exit, it is not difficult. (trojanusc) It was both. Some areas of the walkway were made up of one equivalent width of hardwood flooring and some areas were made up of two widths. At the base of the ladder, it was one width. And again, you assume here that the forward facing muffled footprint was made on ascent and the other muffled impression was an exiting footprint. Why is this? (Joe) Because it is what makes the most sense. (trojanusc) What makes no sense to me is the notion that the kidnapper(s) would have strangely felt compelled to, and did, remain on that very narrow walkway. There is no way they could have done that during their approach and while raising that ladder against the wall of the house. And how did the ladder climber whom you presume made the one muffled footprint, ergonomically manage to do this facing the house while at the same time leaving no other prints within the immediate area around the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 5, 2021 13:47:38 GMT -5
I am wondering if anyone has an opinion on the information DeLong reveals in his interview with Schwartzkopf as it pertains to footprints at the crime scene. DeLong refers to this interview as an "off the record chat" with Schwartzkopf at his Trenton Headquarters. It took place in June of 1932 just months after the crime occurred, and major Schoeffell was present for part of the interview. Schwartzkopf revealed alot of specifics about the crime scene, and it would appear that he (Schwartzkopf) was comfortable with DeLong's assurances that everything was off the record until the investigation was concluded. It appears to me that according to DeLong, Schwartzkopf revealed many more perpetrators' footprints (both ingress and egress) than what is normally discussed in regards to this topic. Since this interview occurred just months after the crime was committed, one would assume that Schwartzkopf would know exactly what his Troopers and Investigators had discovered at the crime scene in regards to footprints. I am attempting to attach two small sections of this interview that pertain to footprints. DeLong certainly appears to be saying that the NJSP believed the "small clump of scrub oaks" near the house was a staging point for both ingress and egress, and that three individuals were leaving footprints that night. In addition, there were also footprints that appeared to be 2 or 3 days old that indicated prior surveillance of the house. This small clump of scrub oaks that is referenced by Schwartzkopf seems to be the spot where Wolfe, Williamson and Lindbergh discovered the 3 sections of the ladder. Officer Williamson, in his statement of March 9th, indicated that 2 sections of the ladder were lying close together and 1 section was "8 to 10 feet" away. If, as Schwartzkopf seems to be indicating, an ingress to the house was made from this location, did 2 suspects decide to use only 2 sections of the ladder, thus leaving the one section at this staging point? Upon their return to this spot with the 2 sections of the ladder and the child, did they just drop those two sections and immediately make their escape via the old wagon trail to the vehicle parked just north of the Lindbergh driveway entrance? Could this explain why the 3 sections of the ladder were not lying next to each other, and that this was the staging area to perpetrate this crime? Of course once Hauptmann was arrested and subsequently refused to confess or implicate others, all of this footprint evidence at the crime scene was detrimental to Wilentz's "lone wolf" case. Although Wilentz did not have alot of trial experience (I stand to be corrected on this), he was nobody's fool. Wilentz wanted two things from this jury--a guilty verdict and the death penalty. Like all prosecutors Wilentz knew that he could not give the jurors ANY reasonable doubt on either issue. If the jurors had reason to believe the Hauptmann was not alone that night of March 1st, then possibly some jurors might think that someone other than Hauptmann actually killed the child. This kind of doubt by any juror could result in a guilty verdict against Hauptmann but with a recommendation for mercy. Under N.J. law that would mean a life sentence and not execution. I think Wilentz would have taken that verdict as a failure on his part, hence all specific footprint evidence as described by Schwartzkopf to DeLong in June of 1932 had to be avoided at all cost in Flemington in 1935. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 5, 2021 14:21:03 GMT -5
I am wondering if anyone has an opinion on the information DeLong reveals in his interview with Schwartzkopf as it pertains to footprints at the crime scene. DeLong refers to this interview as an "off the record chat" with Schwartzkopf at his Trenton Headquarters. It took place in June of 1932 just months after the crime occurred, and major Schoeffell was present for part of the interview. Schwartzkopf revealed alot of specifics about the crime scene, and it would appear that he (Schwartzkopf) was comfortable with DeLong's assurances that everything was off the record until the investigation was concluded. It appears to me that according to DeLong, Schwartzkopf revealed many more perpetrators' footprints (both ingress and egress) than what is normally discussed in regards to this topic. Since this interview occurred just months after the crime was committed, one would assume that Schwartzkopf would know exactly what his Troopers and Investigators had discovered at the crime scene in regards to footprints. I am attempting to attach two small sections of this interview that pertain to footprints. DeLong certainly appears to be saying that the NJSP believed the "small clump of scrub oaks" near the house was a staging point for both ingress and egress, and that three individuals were leaving footprints that night. In addition, there were also footprints that appeared to be 2 or 3 days old that indicated prior surveillance of the house. This small clump of scrub oaks that is referenced by Schwartzkopf seems to be the spot where Wolfe, Williamson and Lindbergh discovered the 3 sections of the ladder. Officer Williamson, in his statement of March 9th, indicated that 2 sections of the ladder were lying close together and 1 section was "8 to 10 feet" away. If, as Schwartzkopf seems to be indicating, an ingress to the house was made from this location, did 2 suspects decide to use only 2 sections of the ladder, thus leaving the one section at this staging point? Upon their return to this spot with the 2 sections of the ladder and the child, did they just drop those two sections and immediately make their escape via the old wagon trail to the vehicle parked just north of the Lindbergh driveway entrance? Could this explain why the 3 sections of the ladder were not lying next to each other, and that this was the staging area to perpetrate this crime? Of course once Hauptmann was arrested and subsequently refused to confess or implicate others, all of this footprint evidence at the crime scene was detrimental to Wilentz's "lone wolf" case. Although Wilentz did not have alot of trial experience (I stand to be corrected on this), he was nobody's fool. Wilentz wanted two things from this jury--a guilty verdict and the death penalty. Like all prosecutors Wilentz knew that he could not give the jurors ANY reasonable doubt on either issue. If the jurors had reason to believe the Hauptmann was not alone that night of March 1st, then possibly some jurors might think that someone other than Hauptmann actually killed the child. This kind of doubt by any juror could result in a guilty verdict against Hauptmann but with a recommendation for mercy. Under N.J. law that would mean a life sentence and not execution. I think Wilentz would have taken that verdict as a failure on his part, hence all specific footprint evidence as described by Schwartzkopf to DeLong in June of 1932 had to be avoided at all cost in Flemington in 1935. View AttachmentView AttachmentThis is an excellent find Lurp, and much to digest here if the information as recorded by DeLong is accurate, or even partially so. As Hauptmann would not have been known for another twenty-seven months from the time of the the interview, it really makes you wonder what other accounts of this specificity might have been out there at one point and if these were pulled back or even destroyed when Hauptmann's ultimate refusal to confess set in motion, the Lone Wolf agenda. I do believe the kidnapper(s) could well have made a previous attempt based on the perceived need for the third section, possibly the evening before. I've considered that the wood markings on the wall, corresponding to two assembled sections of the ladder, could have been made on this previous attempt, at which it was subsequently decided they needed additional length, ie. the third section.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 5, 2021 15:04:47 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc and Joe, The notion that wearing a knitted sock covering of your shoes would enable you to walk over muddy ground without leaving any footprints is fanciful. The reasoning that the downward force of the person's step would be spread over a larger area-hence no footprints, doesn't stand up. A sock would increase the area of a potential footprint by only a tiny amount. So, sock or no sock, the downward force (related to the weight of the person), is the same. It is true that the sock-print would be less well-defined than that of an uncovered shoe and any tell-tale cleating pattern on the shoe sole would be masked, but the ill-defined prints would be there on the ground if anyone had passed that way in my opinion. Does anyone have an idea why only two "holes" corresponding to the feet of the ladder were found? Whenever I have used a ladder I never get it in the right position on my first try. The position of the ladder's feet determines where it ends, in this case the nursery window, so I would have expected traces of several attempts to get it just right, not just the two "holes." Of course kidnappers are not going to hang around for longer than needed but I find it strange.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 5, 2021 16:46:43 GMT -5
Thank you so much for sharing this information. Obviously more than one car would be needed to transport the ladder sections and three men. The sections Ben Lupica saw were situated within the car and lying cross-wise from the back of the interior to the front on the passenger side. This would not leave enough room for the other two men, and Lupica saw only one man in the Dodge with the ladders. It's possible that the driver of the Dodge with the ladders left the scene immediately after the others arrived and took the sections out of the car.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 5, 2021 23:16:24 GMT -5
1) I believe the kidnappers likely did not want it to be clear they came from the driveway, so they followed the boardwalk around. It had likely been practiced and/or was navigated by those familiar. There is no other explanation for footprints being found on the entire escape from the yard, but none on the approach. (trojanusc) It's clear there's no other location the kidnapper(s) could have come from but from the driveway area. Who would you have them trying to fool here? (Joe) Why do you think they didn't exit from the way they came then? Or enter from where they exited? (trojanusc) I believe the kidnapper(s) would have preferred to have left by the same way they approached the house, from the driveway, but the unexpected breakage of the ladder and possibly dropping the child in a way that was considered to be serious, in effect changed these plans. At this point their flight response would have directed them to just get away from the house. Unless their intent was to misdirect police.2) Again, if you believe they had inside help, it is quite possible they assembled the ladder elsewhere (the driveway, etc) and then navigated the walkway with it already assembled. Again, we see footprint evidence all over the place. What are the odds that all of the places these kidnappers would step on the approach would not yield a footprint, yet miraculously every place they stepped on the exit would? The odds are astronomical, so therefore we must look at how one could get to that window without creating footprints and there is only one way to do this. (trojanusc) Regardless of having had inside help, the only reasonable place to have assembled the ladder would have been away from the house before making the final assault to the ground under the nursery window. Where do we see footprint evidence all over the place? Only where the impressionability of the ground allows for it, essentially in the ground further east of the house where the muffled footprints trail begins. The kidnapper(s) soft cloth-covered foot coverings would not allow for visible footprints to have been made around the walkway and base of the ladder given If you are stuck (no pun) on believing the kidnapper(s) actually stayed on that narrow walkway, because you can't consider the ground nearest the house was of a different type, texture and moisture content than that of the ground further east of the house, then I believe you're in a very restrictive paradigm here. (Joe) That's just not true. We have a footprint next to the house. You are the one leaping through hoops because you have to explain away why there's one perfect footprint by the ladder, but no others. (trojanusc) It's far from being a perfect footprint and demonstrates clearly the relationship between what the kidnapper(s) were wearing on their feet and their ability to approach the ground under the nursery window without leaving footprints. The force of their steps was spread out over a larger surface area, therefore their steps did not show, but for the one to the left of the ladder's left rail, where the descending kidnapper came down relatively hard at that spot. (Joe) Again, that is your opinion. I also see little evidence the kidnappers left via the ladder. 3) Again, if you are trying to leave a breadcrumb trail, while also hiding that you were aided by those in the house, you'd probably want to cover what would be a very public entry route and lead to even more questions about inside help. (trojanusc) Again, I believe you're stuck on this pre-conceived notion that they were trying to leave a breadcrumb trail and had inside help. By doing this, you're restricting you assessment of all of the related circumstantial physical evidence, pulling out only the bits and pieces that support your conclusion. (Joe) I am looking at the totality of the evidence, which includes: the fact the Lindberghs were staying on a weeknight at a house they typically do not stay at, a dog which was conveniently left home, CAL missing an NYU event without a satisfactory explanation, his car seen far earlier than he claimed to be in the area, the lack of footprints on the approach, the near total lack of forensic evidence in the nursery (including zero fingerprints of any sort), the one open window (which somehow the kidnappers knew was the nurse and would be both unlocked and empty), a ransom note left on a windowsill for no reason, etc. (trojanusc) All of the examples you've now added in an attempt to augment your argument, are not conclusive factors. The kidnappers may well have believed the Lindberghs were now full time residents of Hopewell, there is no conclusive proof that: Skean was left behind so he would not be in the nursery to bark at an intruder, that Lindbergh intentionally missed the NYU dinner so he could be in Hopewell to "supervise" the kidnapping because he was a "control freak", or that Whited's claim was even accurate. I've already offered my own explanation as to why there were no visible footprints on the approach or around the base of the nursery window. Regarding the lack of fingerprints, that one remains a question, as does the knowledge of which window to enter, although I tend to believe in the case of the latter, the kidnapper acquired this information somehow through a source that did not realize its importance. One thing I do know for sure, any person (or persons), who would have attempted to stage a kidnapping of the most famous child on the planet by intentionally doing all of the above to aid and abet the act itself, would have been a complete half-wit in my books, and only asking for trouble. This was not a staged kidnapping. Any one or two of these coincidences would be one thing, but there are far too many, in my opinion, to simply explain away. Lindbergh's once-in-a-lifetime forgetfulness over a major event in which he was an honored guest, Lindbergh leaving the dog at home, the total lack of fingerprints, the very odd footprint evidence, the family staying at Hopewell, etc. If this kidnapping happened today, with the same set of facts, the entire household would be hauled in as suspects. It only all makes sense if you realize it's an inside job and, perhaps, quite staged, too.4) Is it one strip width or two? You keep changing your mind. Either way, if the footprint facing the house was made on the ascent, then the footprint facing away was on the exit, it is not difficult. (trojanusc) It was both. Some areas of the walkway were made up of one equivalent width of hardwood flooring and some areas were made up of two widths. At the base of the ladder, it was one width. And again, you assume here that the forward facing muffled footprint was made on ascent and the other muffled impression was an exiting footprint. Why is this? (Joe) Because it is what makes the most sense. (trojanusc) What makes no sense to me is the notion that the kidnapper(s) would have strangely felt compelled to, and did, remain on that very narrow walkway. There is no way they could have done that during their approach and while raising that ladder against the wall of the house. And how did the ladder climber whom you presume made the one muffled footprint, ergonomically manage to do this facing the house while at the same time leaving no other prints within the immediate area around the ladder? They also only needed one attempt at raising the ladder. This was a well rehearsed event.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 5, 2021 23:17:02 GMT -5
Thank you so much for sharing this information. Obviously more than one car would be needed to transport the ladder sections and three men. The sections Ben Lupica saw were situated within the car and lying cross-wise from the back of the interior to the front on the passenger side. This would not leave enough room for the other two men, and Lupica saw only one man in the Dodge with the ladders. It's possible that the driver of the Dodge with the ladders left the scene immediately after the others arrived and took the sections out of the car. Other cars were seen, including Lindbergh's around far earlier than he claimed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2021 8:23:28 GMT -5
1) I believe the kidnappers likely did not want it to be clear they came from the driveway, so they followed the boardwalk around. It had likely been practiced and/or was navigated by those familiar. There is no other explanation for footprints being found on the entire escape from the yard, but none on the approach. (trojanusc) It's clear there's no other location the kidnapper(s) could have come from but from the driveway area. Who would you have them trying to fool here? (Joe) Why do you think they didn't exit from the way they came then? Or enter from where they exited? (trojanusc) I believe the kidnapper(s) would have preferred to have left by the same way they approached the house, from the driveway, but the unexpected breakage of the ladder and possibly dropping the child in a way that was considered to be serious, in effect changed these plans. At this point their flight response would have directed them to just get away from the house. Unless their intent was to misdirect police. Please explain.2) Again, if you believe they had inside help, it is quite possible they assembled the ladder elsewhere (the driveway, etc) and then navigated the walkway with it already assembled. Again, we see footprint evidence all over the place. What are the odds that all of the places these kidnappers would step on the approach would not yield a footprint, yet miraculously every place they stepped on the exit would? The odds are astronomical, so therefore we must look at how one could get to that window without creating footprints and there is only one way to do this. (trojanusc) Regardless of having had inside help, the only reasonable place to have assembled the ladder would have been away from the house before making the final assault to the ground under the nursery window. Where do we see footprint evidence all over the place? Only where the impressionability of the ground allows for it, essentially in the ground further east of the house where the muffled footprints trail begins. The kidnapper(s) soft cloth-covered foot coverings would not allow for visible footprints to have been made around the walkway and base of the ladder given If you are stuck (no pun) on believing the kidnapper(s) actually stayed on that narrow walkway, because you can't consider the ground nearest the house was of a different type, texture and moisture content than that of the ground further east of the house, then I believe you're in a very restrictive paradigm here. (Joe) That's just not true. We have a footprint next to the house. You are the one leaping through hoops because you have to explain away why there's one perfect footprint by the ladder, but no others. (trojanusc) It's far from being a perfect footprint and demonstrates clearly the relationship between what the kidnapper(s) were wearing on their feet and their ability to approach the ground under the nursery window without leaving footprints. The force of their steps was spread out over a larger surface area, therefore their steps did not show, but for the one to the left of the ladder's left rail, where the descending kidnapper came down relatively hard at that spot. Again, that is your opinion. I also see little evidence the kidnappers left via the ladder. Ask yourself how an ascending kidnapper could have made that one forward-facing print without others around it if the ground at that specific location was as impressionable as you believe it was. Did he first levitate himself from that narrow walkway or from a location east of the house, into position for his ascent?3) Again, if you are trying to leave a breadcrumb trail, while also hiding that you were aided by those in the house, you'd probably want to cover what would be a very public entry route and lead to even more questions about inside help. (trojanusc) Again, I believe you're stuck on this pre-conceived notion that they were trying to leave a breadcrumb trail and had inside help. By doing this, you're restricting you assessment of all of the related circumstantial physical evidence, pulling out only the bits and pieces that support your conclusion. (Joe) I am looking at the totality of the evidence, which includes: the fact the Lindberghs were staying on a weeknight at a house they typically do not stay at, a dog which was conveniently left home, CAL missing an NYU event without a satisfactory explanation, his car seen far earlier than he claimed to be in the area, the lack of footprints on the approach, the near total lack of forensic evidence in the nursery (including zero fingerprints of any sort), the one open window (which somehow the kidnappers knew was the nurse and would be both unlocked and empty), a ransom note left on a windowsill for no reason, etc. (trojanusc) All of the examples you've now added in an attempt to augment your argument, are not conclusive factors. The kidnappers may well have believed the Lindberghs were now full time residents of Hopewell, there is no conclusive proof that: Skean was left behind so he would not be in the nursery to bark at an intruder, that Lindbergh intentionally missed the NYU dinner so he could be in Hopewell to "supervise" the kidnapping because he was a "control freak", or that Whited's claim was even accurate. I've already offered my own explanation as to why there were no visible footprints on the approach or around the base of the nursery window. Regarding the lack of fingerprints, that one remains a question, as does the knowledge of which window to enter, although I tend to believe in the case of the latter, the kidnapper acquired this information somehow through a source that did not realize its importance. One thing I do know for sure, any person (or persons), who would have attempted to stage a kidnapping of the most famous child on the planet by intentionally doing all of the above to aid and abet the act itself, would have been a complete half-wit in my books, and only asking for trouble. This was not a staged kidnapping. Any one or two of these coincidences would be one thing, but there are far too many, in my opinion, to simply explain away. Lindbergh's once-in-a-lifetime forgetfulness over a major event in which he was an honored guest, Lindbergh leaving the dog at home, the total lack of fingerprints, the very odd footprint evidence, the family staying at Hopewell, etc. If this kidnapping happened today, with the same set of facts, the entire household would be hauled in as suspects. It only all makes sense if you realize it's an inside job and, perhaps, quite staged, too. History is absolutely littered with events and crimes which took place as a result of a multiplicity of apparently-innocent but highly contributive factors. Viewed in the often pale light of conspiracy, they would probably have damned countless innocent individuals, who nonetheless would still have had future cause to recognize their unwitting and unintentional roles towards the final result. Take a quick look at the Balvano Train Tunnel Disaster of 1944, or the Coconut Grove Fire of 1942 (Wikipedia versions are fine) and consider just how easy it would have been to establish a conspiracy of sorts here, with each of the above disasters based upon over a dozen major factors that conspired together to create a deadly result.4) Is it one strip width or two? You keep changing your mind. Either way, if the footprint facing the house was made on the ascent, then the footprint facing away was on the exit, it is not difficult. (trojanusc) It was both. Some areas of the walkway were made up of one equivalent width of hardwood flooring and some areas were made up of two widths. At the base of the ladder, it was one width. And again, you assume here that the forward facing muffled footprint was made on ascent and the other muffled impression was an exiting footprint. Why is this? (Joe) Because it is what makes the most sense. (trojanusc) What makes no sense to me is the notion that the kidnapper(s) would have strangely felt compelled to, and did, remain on that very narrow walkway. There is no way they could have done that during their approach and while raising that ladder against the wall of the house. And how did the ladder climber whom you presume made the one muffled footprint, ergonomically manage to do this facing the house while at the same time leaving no other prints within the immediate area around the ladder? They also only needed one attempt at raising the ladder. This was a well rehearsed event. Yeah, that would be one one surefire way to misdirect the police alright.. show them that it was well rehearsed!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2021 10:23:59 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc and Joe, The notion that wearing a knitted sock covering of your shoes would enable you to walk over muddy ground without leaving any footprints is fanciful. The reasoning that the downward force of the person's step would be spread over a larger area-hence no footprints, doesn't stand up. A sock would increase the area of a potential footprint by only a tiny amount. So, sock or no sock, the downward force (related to the weight of the person), is the same. It is true that the sock-print would be less well-defined than that of an uncovered shoe and any tell-tale cleating pattern on the shoe sole would be masked, but the ill-defined prints would be there on the ground if anyone had passed that way in my opinion. Does anyone have an idea why only two "holes" corresponding to the feet of the ladder were found? Whenever I have used a ladder I never get it in the right position on my first try. The position of the ladder's feet determines where it ends, in this case the nursery window, so I would have expected traces of several attempts to get it just right, not just the two "holes." Of course kidnappers are not going to hang around for longer than needed but I find it strange. Sherlock, I believe the actual “printability” of any step in ground would be dependent on the relationship between precisely what the kidnapper(s) were wearing beneath the apparent ribbed or woven foot coverings, (shoe.. boot.. slipper.. moccasin..?) the downward force exerted on surface area, and the exact nature of the ground (type, texture, porosity, compaction and moisture content) at any specific location upon which they were treading, given that these conditions may vary widely from location to location. Temperature could also have played a significant role here as it was close to freezing on the night of the kidnapping. I also believe that a forensic podiatrist would have asked some very good questions here, having noted that the one muffled forward-facing footprint was the only one in the immediate area and that for the kidnapper to have gotten there, additional steps would have had to have been taken within the immediately-adjacent ground. Leeward protection afforded the ground it affected directly would also play a role. I'm not seeing anything within the appearance of the ground directly alongside the house that would have easily registered footprints based on what the kidnapper(s) appear to have been wearing, as seen once the trail of footprints became visible further east of the house.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 6, 2021 13:12:47 GMT -5
Jeanne,
Your post concerning the possibility that the driver of the Dodge with the ladder sections was delivering the ladder and then immediately left the scene is an interesting one. In attempting to examine Hauptmann's exact role in this kidnapping/extortion plot, I have wondered if Hauptmann delivered the ladder to his 3 accomplices who then perpetrated the actual snatch of the child. If Hauptmann left the area immediately after this delivery he could have been back in the Bronx in time to pick-up Anna at the Bakery by 9 P.M. I have always believed that the evidence in this case clearly implicates Hauptmann in this crime, however there are many questions as to his exact role. I believe that Hauptmann:
** built the ladder ** was the individual that Lupica observed near the Lindbergh residence with the ladder sections on the evening of March 1st ** wrote the ransom notes ** was "Cemetery John" in the 2 cemetery meetings with Condon ** received the $50,000 ransom payment from Condon
I've considered that perhaps 3 Hauptmann co-conspirators were the actual individuals on the ground that night of March 1st, and that they were the ones to actually make the snatch of the Lindbergh child. Hauptmann's "role" was to build the ladder and delivery it to Hopewell, as well as write the first ransom note (and all others as necessary as the extortion part of the crime unfolded). Is it possible that the accidental death of the child during the snatch changed everything? Did the 3 accomplices who were at the scene that night of March 1st panic now that this snatch attempt to make some quick and easy money had quickly desolved into a murder case? Did these 3 accomplices return to the Bronx and tell Hauptmann that the child had been accidentally killed and that everything was now finished? Did they tell Hauptmann that they had disposed of the child's body in a secluded wooded area where it would not be found, and that they were not going to hang around to be apprehended and executed for the death of the Lindbergh baby? Is it possible that Hauptmann decided that since he was not involved in the child's death that night then he did not have as much to fear as the others? Did Hauptmann make the decision that he was not going to walk away from $50,000 when he had the ability to go ahead with the extortion piece of the crime? If one of Hauptmann's "job" in this conspiracy had been to write the original ramsom note and all subsequent ones as needed, then he would have had access to the note paper with pre-applied holes. He would have known the secret symbol and that was all that he needed to continue on his own. If a lookout was needed at his cemetery meetings with Condon, he could have used a close friend for this.
It is interesting to note that Condon had always maintained that one of the things C.J. (Hauptmann) asked him at the first Woodlawn Cemetery meeting was "would I burn if the baby is dead". When Condon replied "I don't know the facts", C.J. responded "would I burn if I did not kill it". Hauptmann would have know that Condon was an experienced and well educated professor, and perhaps he (Hauptmann) was attempting to reassure himself that under American law he could not be executed if he did not actually kill the child. In a way, Hauptmann would have been asking for Condon's advice, as Hauptmann had no one else to pose the question to.
I have read Hauptmann's autobiography and if nothing else he was a very determined individual. He wanted money and a high social status among his acquaintances and he was determined to have both. Hauptmann did not intend to spend the rest of his life as a "common laborer". At the time of this kidnapping/extortion crime, Hauptmann's finances were so bad that he was about to lose electricity at his residence due to failed payments. In the Spring of 1932 I can not see Hauptmann walking away from $50,000 when he was so close to getting it. He would have had the arrogance and ability to believe that he could pull off the extortion on his own.
I believe it was Forum moderator Rab who layed out a very thorough examination of Hauptmann's income/spending patterns after the ransom payment was made. I believe it provided good evidence that Hauptmann could have received the entire $50,000 which obviously would exclude anyone else participating in the extortion angle of the crime.
The evidence shows that Hauptmann did not snatch the child on March 1st by himself, yet he is "tied" to the crime scene by the evidence relating to the ladder and the original ransom note left in the nursery. In contrast, I do not see alot of definitive evidence that the extortion of the $50.000 was perpetrated by anyone other than Hauptmann (Rab's financial examinations adding additional weight to this). For me, this incongruency is in need of some fact based explanation.
I'm obviously speculating here and not saying this is what happened, but there are some facts in this case that can't be denied. Hauptmann did go to his grave ademantly proclaiming that he was innocent in the death of the child. Was this one point when he was actually telling the truth? My apologies for the long post.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 6, 2021 14:51:32 GMT -5
Jeanne, Your post concerning the possibility that the driver of the Dodge with the ladder sections was delivering the ladder and then immediately left the scene is an interesting one. In attempting to examine Hauptmann's exact role in this kidnapping/extortion plot, I have wondered if Hauptmann delivered the ladder to his 3 accomplices who then perpetrated the actual snatch of the child. If Hauptmann left the area immediately after this delivery he could have been back in the Bronx in time to pick-up Anna at the Bakery by 9 P.M. I have always believed that the evidence in this case clearly implicates Hauptmann in this crime, however there are many questions as to his exact role. I believe that Hauptmann: ** built the ladder ** was the individual that Lupica observed near the Lindbergh residence with the ladder sections on the evening of March 1st ** wrote the ransom notes ** was "Cemetery John" in the 2 cemetery meetings with Condon ** received the $50,000 ransom payment from Condon I've considered that perhaps 3 Hauptmann co-conspirators were the actual individuals on the ground that night of March 1st, and that they were the ones to actually make the snatch of the Lindbergh child. Hauptmann's "role" was to build the ladder and delivery it to Hopewell, as well as write the first ransom note (and all others as necessary as the extortion part of the crime unfolded). Is it possible that the accidental death of the child during the snatch changed everything? Did the 3 accomplices who were at the scene that night of March 1st panic now that this snatch attempt to make some quick and easy money had quickly desolved into a murder case? Did these 3 accomplices return to the Bronx and tell Hauptmann that the child had been accidentally killed and that everything was now finished? Did they tell Hauptmann that they had disposed of the child's body in a secluded wooded area where it would not be found, and that they were not going to hang around to be apprehended and executed for the death of the Lindbergh baby? Is it possible that Hauptmann decided that since he was not involved in the child's death that night then he did not have as much to fear as the others? Did Hauptmann make the decision that he was not going to walk away from $50,000 when he had the ability to go ahead with the extortion piece of the crime? If one of Hauptmann's "job" in this conspiracy had been to write the original ramsom note and all subsequent ones as needed, then he would have had access to the note paper with pre-applied holes. He would have known the secret symbol and that was all that he needed to continue on his own. If a lookout was needed at his cemetery meetings with Condon, he could have used a close friend for this. It is interesting to note that Condon had always maintained that one of the things C.J. (Hauptmann) asked him at the first Woodlawn Cemetery meeting was "would I burn if the baby is dead". When Condon replied "I don't know the facts", C.J. responded "would I burn if I did not kill it". Hauptmann would have know that Condon was an experienced and well educated professor, and perhaps he (Hauptmann) was attempting to reassure himself that under American law he could not be executed if he did not actually kill the child. In a way, Hauptmann would have been asking for Condon's advice, as Hauptmann had no one else to pose the question to. I have read Hauptmann's autobiography and if nothing else he was a very determined individual. He wanted money and a high social status among his acquaintances and he was determined to have both. Hauptmann did not intend to spend the rest of his life as a "common laborer". At the time of this kidnapping/extortion crime, Hauptmann's finances were so bad that he was about to lose electricity at his residence due to failed payments. In the Spring of 1932 I can not see Hauptmann walking away from $50,000 when he was so close to getting it. He would have had the arrogance and ability to believe that he could pull off the extortion on his own. I believe it was Forum moderator Rab who layed out a very thorough examination of Hauptmann's income/spending patterns after the ransom payment was made. I believe it provided good evidence that Hauptmann could have received the entire $50,000 which obviously would exclude anyone else participating in the extortion angle of the crime. The evidence shows that Hauptmann did not snatch the child on March 1st by himself, yet he is "tied" to the crime scene by the evidence relating to the ladder and the original ransom note left in the nursery. In contrast, I do not see alot of definitive evidence that the extortion of the $50.000 was perpetrated by anyone other than Hauptmann (Rab's financial examinations adding additional weight to this). For me, this incongruency is in need of some fact based explanation. I'm obviously speculating here and not saying this is what happened, but there are some facts in this case that can't be denied. Hauptmann did go to his grave ademantly proclaiming that he was innocent in the death of the child. Was this one point when he was actually telling the truth? My apologies for the long post. We know others were spending the ransom money beyond Hauptmann, plus when you factor in the lookout at both locations, it’s tough for me to believe Hauptmann had the whole $50K.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2021 16:06:18 GMT -5
Jeanne, Your post concerning the possibility that the driver of the Dodge with the ladder sections was delivering the ladder and then immediately left the scene is an interesting one. In attempting to examine Hauptmann's exact role in this kidnapping/extortion plot, I have wondered if Hauptmann delivered the ladder to his 3 accomplices who then perpetrated the actual snatch of the child. If Hauptmann left the area immediately after this delivery he could have been back in the Bronx in time to pick-up Anna at the Bakery by 9 P.M. I have always believed that the evidence in this case clearly implicates Hauptmann in this crime, however there are many questions as to his exact role. I believe that Hauptmann: ** built the ladder ** was the individual that Lupica observed near the Lindbergh residence with the ladder sections on the evening of March 1st ** wrote the ransom notes ** was "Cemetery John" in the 2 cemetery meetings with Condon ** received the $50,000 ransom payment from Condon I've considered that perhaps 3 Hauptmann co-conspirators were the actual individuals on the ground that night of March 1st, and that they were the ones to actually make the snatch of the Lindbergh child. Hauptmann's "role" was to build the ladder and delivery it to Hopewell, as well as write the first ransom note (and all others as necessary as the extortion part of the crime unfolded). Is it possible that the accidental death of the child during the snatch changed everything? Did the 3 accomplices who were at the scene that night of March 1st panic now that this snatch attempt to make some quick and easy money had quickly desolved into a murder case? Did these 3 accomplices return to the Bronx and tell Hauptmann that the child had been accidentally killed and that everything was now finished? Did they tell Hauptmann that they had disposed of the child's body in a secluded wooded area where it would not be found, and that they were not going to hang around to be apprehended and executed for the death of the Lindbergh baby? Is it possible that Hauptmann decided that since he was not involved in the child's death that night then he did not have as much to fear as the others? Did Hauptmann make the decision that he was not going to walk away from $50,000 when he had the ability to go ahead with the extortion piece of the crime? If one of Hauptmann's "job" in this conspiracy had been to write the original ramsom note and all subsequent ones as needed, then he would have had access to the note paper with pre-applied holes. He would have known the secret symbol and that was all that he needed to continue on his own. If a lookout was needed at his cemetery meetings with Condon, he could have used a close friend for this. It is interesting to note that Condon had always maintained that one of the things C.J. (Hauptmann) asked him at the first Woodlawn Cemetery meeting was "would I burn if the baby is dead". When Condon replied "I don't know the facts", C.J. responded "would I burn if I did not kill it". Hauptmann would have know that Condon was an experienced and well educated professor, and perhaps he (Hauptmann) was attempting to reassure himself that under American law he could not be executed if he did not actually kill the child. In a way, Hauptmann would have been asking for Condon's advice, as Hauptmann had no one else to pose the question to. I have read Hauptmann's autobiography and if nothing else he was a very determined individual. He wanted money and a high social status among his acquaintances and he was determined to have both. Hauptmann did not intend to spend the rest of his life as a "common laborer". At the time of this kidnapping/extortion crime, Hauptmann's finances were so bad that he was about to lose electricity at his residence due to failed payments. In the Spring of 1932 I can not see Hauptmann walking away from $50,000 when he was so close to getting it. He would have had the arrogance and ability to believe that he could pull off the extortion on his own. I believe it was Forum moderator Rab who layed out a very thorough examination of Hauptmann's income/spending patterns after the ransom payment was made. I believe it provided good evidence that Hauptmann could have received the entire $50,000 which obviously would exclude anyone else participating in the extortion angle of the crime. The evidence shows that Hauptmann did not snatch the child on March 1st by himself, yet he is "tied" to the crime scene by the evidence relating to the ladder and the original ransom note left in the nursery. In contrast, I do not see alot of definitive evidence that the extortion of the $50.000 was perpetrated by anyone other than Hauptmann (Rab's financial examinations adding additional weight to this). For me, this incongruency is in need of some fact based explanation. I'm obviously speculating here and not saying this is what happened, but there are some facts in this case that can't be denied. Hauptmann did go to his grave ademantly proclaiming that he was innocent in the death of the child. Was this one point when he was actually telling the truth? My apologies for the long post. Thanks Lurp, and I’m right with you on many of your excellent points, in addition to how Hauptmann is directly connected via the circumstantial physical evidence and possession of ransom money. They address much of the theorizing I've also expressed relative to Hauptmann's and the involvement of others in the kidnapping. The sighting of the Dodge with ladders earlier in the day by Mrs. Conover and her daughter-in-law, and later by Ben Lupica, suggests to me this was a reconnoiter and placement mission by Hauptmann, with the advantage of some daylight hours for full effectiveness and a timely exit before the actual objective. I believe it was Wilmer Moore who witnessed the vehicle with mud on its fenders that drove past his house at 8:23 pm, an event which would have lined up with Anne Lindbergh’s account of her having heard the sound of tires on the gravel drive in what I would venture was an exit, a little past 8:10 am. Perhaps this muddy vehicle observed by Moore could have picked up its mud dressing in Featherbed lane, in light of the Conovers’ 7:00 pm sighting of the vehicle moving slowly along that seldom-used route that had recently become somewhat of a quagmire. I would also point to the banging sound heard by Charles around 9:00 pm and the sound of barking dogs belonging to neighbours Kristofeck and Kutcher closer to 9:30 pm, pointing to the time of the crime to be about 9:00 pm. Meaning the driver of the Dodge could have had the better part of an hour ahead of the actual assault on the nursery. The claim by Oscar Bush that two cars were previously parked on Hopewell-Wertsville Road where the footprints trail ended, also suggests a previously-established location determined by individual parties connected to the same plan. I am also of the belief there were others involved within the original scheme but that Hauptmann essentially took the reins within the extortion following the death of the child, when the others basically scattered like roaches into the woodwork. And of course, it was Hauptmann who benefited from the lion’s share of the ransom proceeds. Images of other accomplices I’ve considered along the way tend to pop up more often than not in my mind during discussions that attempt to fully rationalize the events of that night. Duane Baker remains one of those individuals. Hauptmann’s refusal to confess tells me he would only have had to implicate himself, and didn’t he lament in his jail cell, “Well, I won’t be going alone”? Ultimately, he chose to die rather than have to confess his role, name others, capitulate to his prosecutors, and he also spared his wife and child a lifetime of shame from an entire planet. Life in prison for a full confession would definitely not have appealed to him and I believe he knew full well that solitary confinement would have been the only method of incarceration that would have adequately protected him in prison. Anyway, just some additional thoughts here, but I can’t help but feel the solution trail has become much warmer of late.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 6, 2021 18:25:28 GMT -5
Our discussion is making good progress, and we are asking some very good questions. The report concerning three individuals on site at the time of the kidnapping with one being a lookout makes excellent sense. This was a planned crime, with the site thoroughly examined, including the surrounding roads, the chicken coops, the landscape. The child's death was probably a serious error on the part of someone, and the use of an inappropriate ladder was another case of misjudgment. I have no theory to add to what has already been commented, but the thinking and suggestions appear to be realistic and completely in the range of possibility. What is needed now is some proof, hard evidence to support our thinking. It appears evident to me that Ben Lupica saw one of the kidnappers who mistook him for someone else in the gang. Perhaps Lupica's car resembled the one he was to meet, or perhaps Lupica himself resembled in some way the man who was a confederate. So it appears that there were three men on site with the possibility of a fourth who brought the ladder sections but did not remain. The darkness and cold air were assets to their actions, and they very well had some help from inside. Hauptmann might well have feared some retaliation (his own child) if he told all he knew. His way of solving problems was escape, and the only way he could do this was to persuade the governor, his lawyers, and his spiritual advisors who were persuaded that he was religious; not any action previous to the crime indicated a strong religious belief. Did he go to church? Did he persuade his friends that he had strong faith in God? I find no reference to any faith or church going to the kidnapping. This posturing was an attempt to escape. If he could influence the right people, perhaps he could find some way out. Yes, he was determined, to a point of obstinacy. The prospect of being imprisoned all his life could not have been endurable for such a man. Lindbergh commented that he "had the eyes of a wild boar." That likeness rings true. No boar could have endured living in a pen. I appreciate all the posts recently made here and hope you will progress with your thoughts. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
|
|