|
Post by jeanne on Sept 6, 2021 18:41:15 GMT -5
In his statement to the police, Henry Ellersen said that as he left the Lindbergh home the day of the kidnapping, time would be about 3 p.m. he saw a green Ford coupe as he exited Lindbergh Lane. The car was parked on the road with the front end pointing to the Hopewell direction He honked at the car, but the driver would not move. Perhaps a green Ford coupe was involved in the action that day. Michael once posted that Lupica drove a Ford hatchback to the trial, color not mentioned. In Detroit we always ask "what kind of car does he drive?" (sigh) It would have been helpful to know more about the car Lupica was driving on the evening of March 1.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 6, 2021 19:10:54 GMT -5
One more observation: if the driver of the car with ladders left immediately after the sections had been placed on the ground, the obviously the intention would have been to leave them at the site. The second car could not have carried the ladders plus the driver, two passengers, and the baby. The car Lupica saw carried the ladders and the driver. He did not claim to have seen another person in the car.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 6, 2021 21:30:20 GMT -5
One could argue that the getaway car might be a bit crowded, but it's not likely that the group intended to go very far. Kidnappers would rent a place in a remote area (witness Ellis Sanborn) since kidnapped children would make a good deal of noise that would alert the neighbors in a town or well settled area. The group of men, who probably knew little about babies anyway, esp. those with chest colds, would hire a woman to take care of the child for a few days. My guess would be Emily (Edna) Sharp, Violet's sister who was planning to return to England, had not much to do right then, and would not be missed. One of the men would stand guard; perhaps this job would be rotated among the two or three of them, possibly not Hauptmann who would not want to be away from his usual zone and therefore become suspect.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2021 6:17:13 GMT -5
One more observation: if the driver of the car with ladders left immediately after the sections had been placed on the ground, the obviously the intention would have been to leave them at the site. The second car could not have carried the ladders plus the driver, two passengers, and the baby. The car Lupica saw carried the ladders and the driver. He did not claim to have seen another person in the car. An interesting point if indeed there was another car and the "original" driver and vehicle had left the scene. But if the intention had been to leave the ladder behind, why would they have first carried it 75 feet away where it was later discovered?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 7, 2021 7:28:24 GMT -5
The third ladder section might not have been used or moved at all. The kidnappers needed to wipe the ladders clean of all fingerprints before they left and did not want to do this job too close to the house. The child's disappearance would be discovered at about 10 p.m. (Lindbergh's rule about tending to the child after his bedtime), but the kidnappers take the ladders for their wipe-down away from the house to be in the dark and avoid detection.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 7, 2021 11:02:32 GMT -5
The third ladder section might not have been used or moved at all. The kidnappers needed to wipe the ladders clean of all fingerprints before they left and did not want to do this job too close to the house. The child's disappearance would be discovered at about 10 p.m. (Lindbergh's rule about tending to the child after his bedtime), but the kidnappers take the ladders for their wipe-down away from the house to be in the dark and avoid detection. There were no fingerprints found even in the areas where the person who built the ladder would have had to touch, including areas that could not be accessed that ngiht without disassembling the ladder. Did they also wipe down the entire nursery, too?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 7, 2021 11:34:33 GMT -5
Obviously someone wiped the ladder, and someone wiped down the nursery. These were not necessarily the same persons, however. It's quite possible that a confederate on the inside wiped down the nursery. There had to be an individual connected to the Morrow or Lindbergh household who passed information; otherwise, the kidnappers would not have known that the Lindberghs and their baby would be at Hopewell on the evening of Tuesday, March 1. The ladder may have been made for one specific purpose, and the parts may have been wiped down as the ladder was built. The kidnappers, however, would have wiped the ladder also following their exit from the house as two sections had just been used.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 7, 2021 14:28:20 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I agree with you that the ground immediately under the nursery window was not so soft that footprints would be left by anyone standing/moving there. After all, it is undisputed that Anne Lindbergh stood under this window during her afternoon stroll yet no sign of her shoe prints was found. She was a petite woman, light in weight, but wearing uncovered shoes, maybe with a small heel. I would have expected some sign especially as she probably spent a few minutes there waving to Charlie at the window. So it does support your point that much could have happened at the foot of that ladder without much trace being left behind.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 7, 2021 15:21:09 GMT -5
Hi Joe, After all, it is undisputed that Anne Lindbergh stood under this window during her afternoon stroll yet no sign of her shoe prints was found. Sherlock, Something to consider about this. There is not a single account of Anne standing under the nursery and tossing pebbles at the window until Wilentz brought it up at the trial ~2 years after the kidnapping. He brought it up, not Anne. Anne never mentioned it once before the trial in any of her statements. Neither did Betty Gow. If anyone has documentation that Anne talked about tossing pebbles at the window before the trial, please attach it here.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 7, 2021 18:24:18 GMT -5
Wayne,
The most curious account of Betty Gow tossing pebbles at the nursery window comes from Richard Hack's 2004 book called The Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover.
There is a full chapter (Chapter 5) about the Lindbergh case in that book.
The brilliant Truman Capote interviewed Betty Gow, so Hack claims.
Does Richard Hack own the transcripts of the interview between Capote and Gow?
The chapter notes offer additional clues.
The Hoover Library or author Richard Hack may have more information.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 7, 2021 19:17:06 GMT -5
Wayne, The most curious account of Betty Gow tossing pebbles at the nursery window comes from Richard Hack's 2004 book called The Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover. There is a full chapter (Chapter 5) about the Lindbergh case in that book. The brilliant Truman Capote interviewed Betty Gow, so Hack claims. Does Richard Hack own the transcripts of the interview between Capote and Gow? The chapter notes offer additional clues. The Hoover Library or author Richard Hack may have more information. Hi Sue, Good question. I've been trying to get in touch with Richard Hack for quite some time, but so far, no luck. But I'm not giving up. I also checked as much as I could with Truman Capote's estate to see if the transcript of his Betty Gow interview is out there somewhere. So far, no luck with that either. I'm pretty sure that Richard Hack wrote about Anne and the pebble event after reading about it in Waller's book. The problem with that is that Waller got the pebble info from the trial. Again, that's the very first time anyone heard about it. I'm also guessing you're aware of this, but Truman Capote was researching the Lindbergh kidnapping case to write a bio on J. Edgar Hoover. But not long after, he became ill and so he gave all of his Lindbergh notes to Richard Hack to write the book which became Puppetmaster.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 7, 2021 21:57:23 GMT -5
Good luck to you, Wayne.
Do you believe that Capote interviewed Gow?
Note #6 on page 417 says "Author interview of confidential source."
I wonder who that was?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2021 10:33:36 GMT -5
Hi Joe, After all, it is undisputed that Anne Lindbergh stood under this window during her afternoon stroll yet no sign of her shoe prints was found. Sherlock, Something to consider about this. There is not a single account of Anne standing under the nursery and tossing pebbles at the window until Wilentz brought it up at the trial ~2 years after the kidnapping. He brought it up, not Anne. Anne never mentioned it once before the trial in any of her statements. Neither did Betty Gow. If anyone has documentation that Anne talked about tossing pebbles at the window before the trial, please attach it here. If Anne did toss the pebbles up at the window to attract Betty Gow and Charlie's attention, it could only have happened at the south-facing double French-style windows, and Anne would have been standing back far enough on the stone patio to be able to do this. The trail of footprints in the ground attributed to Anne leading to the back of the house in what I believe was an unbroken line are of course, too close to the house for her to have tossed pebbles at the south-east corner window and actually achieve eye contact with Betty and Charlie. During her trial testimony she simply couldn't tell which window it was. My questions are these. What would have been the purpose of fabricating this kind of story and who would it implicate if disproven? Could the footprints attributed to Anne have been made at an earlier date and time, but the prosecution felt the need to somehow tie them in to a fabricated story on the very day of the crime, lest the jury believe an unknown woman was involved in the kidnapping that night and therefore calling into doubt, the Lone Wolf accusation? Could this simply have been an omission on Anne's part and recalled later on, similar to the account of the "orange crate slats" sound heard by Lindbergh but not highlighted until much later, with the exception of his mentioning of it to Charlie Williamson that night?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2021 10:50:35 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I agree with you that the ground immediately under the nursery window was not so soft that footprints would be left by anyone standing/moving there. After all, it is undisputed that Anne Lindbergh stood under this window during her afternoon stroll yet no sign of her shoe prints was found. She was a petite woman, light in weight, but wearing uncovered shoes, maybe with a small heel. I would have expected some sign especially as she probably spent a few minutes there waving to Charlie at the window. So it does support your point that much could have happened at the foot of that ladder without much trace being left behind. As you indicate, and I would highlight, there is a world of difference within the "printability" of a kidnapper(s) wearing on their feet what they would have had to have been wearing to accomplish the needed level of activity at the base of the ladder, and show only one muffled footprint, and the type of footwear which made the trail of footprints attributed to Anne. In light of the fact the ground at the based of the nursery window was impressionable enough to register two ladder rail imprints but very little in the way of soft-covered foot prints, even a slightly-built woman of 100 lbs. could very easily have have impressed the trail attributed to Anne, wearing what would have been normal 1930's style woman's rubbers.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 8, 2021 14:12:28 GMT -5
Good luck to you, Wayne. Do you believe that Capote interviewed Gow? Note #6 on page 417 says "Author interview of confidential source." I wonder who that was? Sue, Yes, I believe that Capote interviewed Gow according to footnote #1. I have not idea who #6 is referring to. That is a rather strange and vague reference, huh? If I ever get the Truman Capote/Betty Gow interview I will post it here if permitted. I have not idea what
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 8, 2021 14:49:27 GMT -5
Hi Joe, In the hours, days, and weeks after the child's abduction Anne Lindbergh was understandably distressed and emotional. She was expecting her second child later that year. CAL controlled all access to the servants by investigators and was especially careful not to expose Anne in her delicate condition to even gentle questioning. Accordingly there is indeed very little, if anything, in the pre-trial written records and statements about Anne and the pebble-throwing incident. I don't see anything sinister in this. I just think that with more important things to think about, if it was mentioned, nobody wrote it down. Wilentz brings it up at the trial so someone (pre-trial) had mentioned it to him. There could have been an agreement between CAL and Wilentz on the questions and their duration so as not to distress the poor woman further. It was introduced to tug at the heart strings of the jury of course. So I don't think the pebble story was a fabrication because (a) it would involve Anne and Betty Gow giving perjured testimony (b) like you, I can't see who benefits. Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 8, 2021 17:38:19 GMT -5
Hi Joe, In the hours, days, and weeks after the child's abduction Anne Lindbergh was understandably distressed and emotional. She was expecting her second child later that year. CAL controlled all access to the servants by investigators and was especially careful not to expose Anne in her delicate condition to even gentle questioning. Accordingly there is indeed very little, if anything, in the pre-trial written records and statements about Anne and the pebble-throwing incident. I don't see anything sinister in this. I just think that with more important things to think about, if it was mentioned, nobody wrote it down. Wilentz brings it up at the trial so someone (pre-trial) had mentioned it to him. There could have been an agreement between CAL and Wilentz on the questions and their duration so as not to distress the poor woman further. It was introduced to tug at the heart strings of the jury of course. So I don't think the pebble story was a fabrication because (a) it would involve Anne and Betty Gow giving perjured testimony (b) like you, I can't see who benefits. Sherlock. I can't find it now but I know Michael had a really good post kind of debunking the pebble throwing incident. Hi Joe, I agree with you that the ground immediately under the nursery window was not so soft that footprints would be left by anyone standing/moving there. After all, it is undisputed that Anne Lindbergh stood under this window during her afternoon stroll yet no sign of her shoe prints was found. She was a petite woman, light in weight, but wearing uncovered shoes, maybe with a small heel. I would have expected some sign especially as she probably spent a few minutes there waving to Charlie at the window. So it does support your point that much could have happened at the foot of that ladder without much trace being left behind. I'd argue that 1) the veracity of the pebble incident is in question and 2) even if it is true, why would she stand that close to the house (eg inside the boardwalk) to do this? Obviously she would stand a few feet back from the house so the baby could look the window to see her. Standing inside the boardwalk would force Betty Gow to nearly dangle him out the window to look straight down.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 8, 2021 19:21:27 GMT -5
Hi Wayne,
Maybe Betty told Truman about the pebble incident in the interview?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 9, 2021 5:20:52 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, If indeed the pebble incident never happened then either (a) Wilentz suggested this tale be told at the trial to gain sympathy or (b) Anne and Betty lied about it from the start. (a) I can't see both Anne and Betty perjuring themselves on request. Mind you, Anne did downplay the child's health problems on the stand. (b) If A and B lied about the whole incident they must have had a good reason and would have made sure their account was recorded in their early statements. Apparently it wasn't. If they did lie then it can only have been to give the false impression that the child was alive on the Tuesday afternoon. This of course opens up a whole new ball game and I prefer not to go there. Otherwise I just do not see the need for inventing this story. I agree that returning from a stroll around the grounds, Anne would be several feet from the house and not on the boardwalk. The absence of her footprints means either she had never been there, or the ground didn't register clear footprints . Only the jump/fall down print near the ladder was found. I tend to think she was there that afternoon but left no discernible trace. If you do track down Michael's de-bunking of the pebble incident I would very much like to know where it is. Best regards, Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 9, 2021 7:35:14 GMT -5
If you do track down Michael's de-bunking of the pebble incident I would very much like to know where it is. Sherlock, Mark Falzini, former archivist at the NJSP Museum, was the first to make this observation - that there is no record of Anne or Betty in the NJSP Museum archives relating to the pebble throwing incident until the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 9, 2021 7:36:09 GMT -5
Hi Wayne, Maybe Betty told Truman about the pebble incident in the interview? Sue, I'm contacting Hack's agent today. I'll keep you posted.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 9, 2021 17:03:01 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, If indeed the pebble incident never happened then either (a) Wilentz suggested this tale be told at the trial to gain sympathy or (b) Anne and Betty lied about it from the start. (a) I can't see both Anne and Betty perjuring themselves on request. Mind you, Anne did downplay the child's health problems on the stand. (b) If A and B lied about the whole incident they must have had a good reason and would have made sure their account was recorded in their early statements. Apparently it wasn't. If they did lie then it can only have been to give the false impression that the child was alive on the Tuesday afternoon. This of course opens up a whole new ball game and I prefer not to go there. Otherwise I just do not see the need for inventing this story. I agree that returning from a stroll around the grounds, Anne would be several feet from the house and not on the boardwalk. The absence of her footprints means either she had never been there, or the ground didn't register clear footprints . Only the jump/fall down print near the ladder was found. I tend to think she was there that afternoon but left no discernible trace. If you do track down Michael's de-bunking of the pebble incident I would very much like to know where it is. Best regards, Sherlock. The issue is the pebble throwing incident was never mentioned really until the trial. They had to explain away why there were female footprints out there. It makes an awful lot more sense of Anne to be out there throwing pebbles than it does for Betty Gow. Also, as mentioned, she would have to stand quite a few feet back from the house for the baby to be able to see her. We know this area (outside the boardwalk) was muddy and footprints were easily made, yet none were made facing the house. It's questionable, at best. I can't find Michael's post but Gardner breaks it down pretty well here: caseneverdies.blogspot.com/2011/12/pebbles-and-mud.html
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 9, 2021 18:39:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 10, 2021 21:57:53 GMT -5
Sherlock, Something to consider about this. There is not a single account of Anne standing under the nursery and tossing pebbles at the window until Wilentz brought it up at the trial ~2 years after the kidnapping. He brought it up, not Anne. Anne never mentioned it once before the trial in any of her statements. Neither did Betty Gow. If anyone has documentation that Anne talked about tossing pebbles at the window before the trial, please attach it here. If Anne did toss the pebbles up at the window to attract Betty Gow and Charlie's attention, it could only have happened at the south-facing double French-style windows, and Anne would have been standing back far enough on the stone patio to be able to do this. The trail of footprints in the ground attributed to Anne leading to the back of the house in what I believe was an unbroken line are of course, too close to the house for her to have tossed pebbles at the south-east corner window and actually achieve eye contact with Betty and Charlie. During her trial testimony she simply couldn't tell which window it was. My questions are these. What would have been the purpose of fabricating this kind of story and who would it implicate if disproven? Could the footprints attributed to Anne have been made at an earlier date and time, but the prosecution felt the need to somehow tie them in to a fabricated story on the very day of the crime, lest the jury believe an unknown woman was involved in the kidnapping that night and therefore calling into doubt, the Lone Wolf accusation? Could this simply have been an omission on Anne's part and recalled later on, similar to the account of the "orange crate slats" sound heard by Lindbergh but not highlighted until much later, with the exception of his mentioning of it to Charlie Williamson that night? I would agree with Joe here on his comments regarding Anne's pebble throwing incident. I think there is a much less sinister explanation than assuming Anne would commit perjury as a witness in a criminal trial where a man's life was at stake (I have recently read Berg's excellent biography on Lindbergh and I can not believe Anne was involved in any criminal aspect of the LKC). At the trial, I believe Anne stated that she "walked from the driveway along by the side of the house where it was quite muddy and on to the flagstones, flagstone porch at the back." Although she could not be certain as to which window she tossed the pebbles at, she certainly seems to say that she was on the back flagstone porch, not standing directly under the SE window. Obviously it would have been easier for her to toss the pebbles up at the South facing double french-style windows, but as the below photos illustrate, I think one could stand on the extreme right side edge of the flagstone porch and hit the SE nursery window with a pebble. Anne wasn't certain which window was involved as it had now been about 3 years since the incident. She appeared to be honest and say she didn't know which window. Of course it would have been much "cleaner" if this had been in her statements of 1932, but as with many things in this investigation, the NJSP displayed a lack of investigative experience in their 3 year old Criminal Investigative Division. Trooper DeGaetano mentions the female prints in his written statement, and dismisses them as belonging to Anne Lindbergh. It appears that he (DeGaetano) received this information from Hopewell Police Chief Harry Wolfe. Wolfe had been inside the house with Anne Lindbergh, and both inside and outside the house with Charles Lindbergh prior to the arrival of either Trooper DeGaetano or Trooper Wolf, so it is only logical that Chief Wolfe was told by either Charles or Anne that these female footprints were those of Anne's. Chief Wolfe passed this information along to Trooper DeGaetano as they examined the scene that night. At this point, no one was going to question the veracity of the Lindberghs. Of course it should have been followed up in a statement by Anne, and her shoes compared to the footprints, but it wasn't done out of the respect everyone had for the Lindberghs. It was dismissed as being her footprints and that was the end of it until Hauptmann was arrested and Wilentz went with the "lone wolf" prosecution theory. I'm sure that as Wilentz was preparing for the trial by reading all of the police reports he immediately recognized that Trooper DeGaetano's written statement referring to female footprints was going to be something that the defense was going to jump on in order to negate any lone wolf theory. Believe me, prosecutors when doing trial preperation absolutely PANIC when they read any written statement that they know will assist the defense. Wilentz simply got with Anne and at this point she explained the cicumstances of her walk to the back flagstone porch, which she had never been quissed about back in 1932. I see no reason to jump to any sinister explanation that Anne would blatantly commit perjury about these female footprints. As Sherlock has stated in a recent post, real life investigations and criminal trials usually have FAR MORE simple explanations than all the authors, movie/TV writers can create for public consumption. Sometimes just plain sloppy investigations have to be cleaned up prior to trial, and it doesn't involve perjury. Good Investigators always conduct their cases with a future jury trial in mind. Failure to do this can be disastrous at trial time. Just my two cents on this.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 11, 2021 0:34:05 GMT -5
If Anne did toss the pebbles up at the window to attract Betty Gow and Charlie's attention, it could only have happened at the south-facing double French-style windows, and Anne would have been standing back far enough on the stone patio to be able to do this. The trail of footprints in the ground attributed to Anne leading to the back of the house in what I believe was an unbroken line are of course, too close to the house for her to have tossed pebbles at the south-east corner window and actually achieve eye contact with Betty and Charlie. During her trial testimony she simply couldn't tell which window it was. My questions are these. What would have been the purpose of fabricating this kind of story and who would it implicate if disproven? Could the footprints attributed to Anne have been made at an earlier date and time, but the prosecution felt the need to somehow tie them in to a fabricated story on the very day of the crime, lest the jury believe an unknown woman was involved in the kidnapping that night and therefore calling into doubt, the Lone Wolf accusation? Could this simply have been an omission on Anne's part and recalled later on, similar to the account of the "orange crate slats" sound heard by Lindbergh but not highlighted until much later, with the exception of his mentioning of it to Charlie Williamson that night? I would agree with Joe here on his comments regarding Anne's pebble throwing incident. I think there is a much less sinister explanation than assuming Anne would commit perjury as a witness in a criminal trial where a man's life was at stake (I have recently read Berg's excellent biography on Lindbergh and I can not believe Anne was involved in any criminal aspect of the LKC). At the trial, I believe Anne stated that she "walked from the driveway along by the side of the house where it was quite muddy and on to the flagstones, flagstone porch at the back." Although she could not be certain as to which window she tossed the pebbles at, she certainly seems to say that she was on the back flagstone porch, not standing directly under the SE window. Obviously it would have been easier for her to toss the pebbles up at the South facing double french-style windows, but as the below photos illustrate, I think one could stand on the extreme right side edge of the flagstone porch and hit the SE nursery window with a pebble. Anne wasn't certain which window was involved as it had now been about 3 years since the incident. She appeared to be honest and say she didn't know which window. Of course it would have been much "cleaner" if this had been in her statements of 1932, but as with many things in this investigation, the NJSP displayed a lack of investigative experience in their 3 year old Criminal Investigative Division. Trooper DeGaetano mentions the female prints in his written statement, and dismisses them as belonging to Anne Lindbergh. It appears that he (DeGaetano) received this information from Hopewell Police Chief Harry Wolfe. Wolfe had been inside the house with Anne Lindbergh, and both inside and outside the house with Charles Lindbergh prior to the arrival of either Trooper DeGaetano or Trooper Wolf, so it is only logical that Chief Wolfe was told by either Charles or Anne that these female footprints were those of Anne's. Chief Wolfe passed this information along to Trooper DeGaetano as they examined the scene that night. At this point, no one was going to question the veracity of the Lindberghs. Of course it should have been followed up in a statement by Anne, and her shoes compared to the footprints, but it wasn't done out of the respect everyone had for the Lindberghs. It was dismissed as being her footprints and that was the end of it until Hauptmann was arrested and Wilentz went with the "lone wolf" prosecution theory. I'm sure that as Wilentz was preparing for the trial by reading all of the police reports he immediately recognized that Trooper DeGaetano's written statement referring to female footprints was going to be something that the defense was going to jump on in order to negate any lone wolf theory. Believe me, prosecutors when doing trial preperation absolutely PANIC when they read any written statement that they know will assist the defense. Wilentz simply got with Anne and at this point she explained the cicumstances of her walk to the back flagstone porch, which she had never been quissed about back in 1932. I see no reason to jump to any sinister explanation that Anne would blatantly commit perjury about these female footprints. As Sherlock has stated in a recent post, real life investigations and criminal trials usually have FAR MORE simple explanations than all the authors, movie/TV writers can create for public consumption. Sometimes just plain sloppy investigations have to be cleaned up prior to trial, and it doesn't involve perjury. Good Investigators always conduct their cases with a future jury trial in mind. Failure to do this can be disastrous at trial time. Just my two cents on this. View AttachmentIf you haven't read through the above thread and Dr. Gardner's excellent blog post not he subject, I'd definitely suggest it. The pathway of her footprints makes little sense if she's throwing pebbles at the window.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2021 6:40:47 GMT -5
The pathway of Anne's footprints makes little sense if she's throwing pebbles at what window?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2021 7:15:44 GMT -5
When it comes to the testimony, there’s so much evidence of people “adjusting” their narratives to fit the States theory that’s it’s sometimes hard to even consider any of it.
The question here is whether or not Anne would have gotten in on the act? Well, what did Lindbergh want her to do? Find that out and you’ll have your answer.
Ive read her testimony. Lurp calls her honest but my opinion is that’s she’s uncomfortable. Fact is we could both be right. The two may go hand in hand in more ways than one. Next, she’s treated with kid gloves and it’s still revealed that she doesn’t remember which window she tossed pebbles at. Aside from being impossible for me to believe, thats pretty important if the idea is to blame these footprints on that event. If she was anyone else a good defense attorney would have chewed her up and quickly disposed of this part of her testimony.
The bottom line is that those prints do not face the house and are too close to the wall to be there for that purpose. And so it doesn’t make any sense. This debate over whether to believe her or not doesn't change this vital information.
Fact is, the state believed three people were involved. I believe it’s based on the footprint evidence. The September “John Doe” indictments (V2 p18-19) support this in my opinion.
In the end, did Anne toss pebbles at a window Again, it hardly matters considering where these prints were located. All it does is destroy Joe’s theory about the condition of the ground where they were made. My conclusion is that if Anne did make these prints it had nothing to do with throwing pebbles. Perhaps she just walked in the mud but adding this little story to it, by design, would impress the jury as more believable as to “why” while also simultaneously pulling on their heart strings. And of course it conveniently eliminates these prints and the idea of multiple participants with it. Think about Wolf’s testimony about the footprint evidence. A lot is different compared to what’s in his report. It’s no accident and he’s not forgetting.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 11, 2021 9:48:31 GMT -5
Thanks to Trojanusc for highlighting Dr Gardner’s blog about “Pebbles and Mud.”
“It has long been an axiom of mine, Watson, that the closer one examines a problem, the less one sees.”
“Returning from her stroll ….Anne Lindbergh picked up a few pebbles…..and tossed them against the corner windowpane. Betty Gow appeared. Smiling she turned away…came back with the little boy. She pointed to his mother and he smiled in recognition. Anne waved…….Betty raised the baby’s hand and waved it back” From “Kidnap” by George Waller (1971).
“I attracted the attention of Miss Betty Gow by throwing a pebble up to the window and she then held the baby up to the window to let him see me.” Anne Lindbergh trial testimony
“My attention was drawn to Mrs Lindbergh out of doors. She was throwing pebbles up to the window and as I recall…” Interrupted trial testimony of Betty Gow
Pretty consistent huh? Not for Dr Gardner it would seem. He mentions that after the interruption to Betty’s statement (by noise outside the courtroom) there is no further account of the pebble incident or of Betty holding the child up to the window. Why should there be? And he writes: “There is absolutely no confirmation in either woman’s testimony of the scene as Waller described it, with mother and child exchanging smiles.
So they didn’t mention the smiles, not having Waller’s text to hand as it was to be written 35 years later. This really is barrel-scraping.
March 13,1932: Mrs Lindbergh describes her afternoon stroll, not mentioning the pebble incident, but stating that she “found” Betty, Elsie Whatley and Charlie together in the nursery. Dr Gardner finds that “found” is a curious word to use if she had only minutes before stood outside throwing pebbles up to the window. I don’t find it curious. “Found” indicates a degree of discovery or surprise. Anne's surprise in this case was that whereas the pebble incident involved only herself, Betty, and the child, she now to her mild surprise saw that Elsie Whatley had joined them. If she had said “I found that Mrs Whatley was now helping Betty with the baby” nobody would have found it to be at all “curious.”
So for me Dr Gardner’s doubts about the pebble incident have little solid foundation. There are more important doubts in this case than those pesky pebbles.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2021 11:30:36 GMT -5
When it comes to the testimony, there’s so much evidence of people “adjusting” their narratives to fit the States theory that’s it’s sometimes hard to even consider any of it. The question here is whether or not Anne would have gotten in on the act? Well, what did Lindbergh want her to do? Find that out and you’ll have your answer. Ive read her testimony. Lurp calls her honest but my opinion is that’s she’s uncomfortable. Fact is we could both be right. The two may go hand in hand in more ways than one. Next, she’s treated with kid gloves and it’s still revealed that she doesn’t remember which window she tossed pebbles at. Aside from being impossible for me to believe, thats pretty important if the idea is to blame these footprints on that event. If she was anyone else a good defense attorney would have chewed her up and quickly disposed of this part of her testimony. The bottom line is that those prints do not face the house and are too close to the wall to be there for that purpose. And so it doesn’t make any sense. This debate over whether to believe her or not doesn't change this vital information. Fact is, the state believed three people were involved. I believe it’s based on the footprint evidence. The September “John Doe” indictments (V2 p18-19) support this in my opinion. In the end, did Anne toss pebbles at a window Again, it hardly matters considering where these prints were located. All it does is destroy Joe’s theory about the condition of the ground where they were made. My conclusion is that if Anne did make these prints it had nothing to do with throwing pebbles. Perhaps she just walked in the mud but adding this little story to it, by design, would impress the jury as more believable as to “why” while also simultaneously pulling on their heart strings. And of course it conveniently eliminates these prints and the idea of multiple participants with it. Think about Wolf’s testimony about the footprint evidence. A lot is different compared to what’s in his report. It’s no accident and he’s not forgetting. I would invite anyone who has not actually read the trial evidence transcript of Anne Lindbergh’s testimony to consider these pages dealing with the pebble throwing incident. And as I’ve probably read it a half dozen times while still find something of value each and every time, I’d also recommend that anyone whose read it even a dozen times, have yet another close scrutiny. My apologies for the small file size here, but the next largest one available was just over the 1MB limit for this site. I’d submit that one of the greatest pitfalls in this case, is through a tendency to fall lockstep at any given time, behind published accounts of evidence interpretations from perceived case authorities which quite often omit key statements and at times simple logic, for the express purpose of fortressing theories with already-shaky foundations. Within the statements below and other reasons previously stated relative to the positioning of the footprints attributed to Anne Lindbergh, I believe it to be highly probable she could only have been standing under the south-facing French Windows when she purportedly threw the pebbles up to attract the attention of Betty Gow and Charlie. This also appears to have been confirmed by David Wilentz. I don’t conclude anything unequivocally here as we lack the benefit of seeing exactly what was being referred to in the courtroom diagrams, but here is my reasoning for the above. As always, I invite any and all comments and questions. • Page 61 – Lines 9 to 17 – Wilentz asks Anne if she walked along the walkway at the east side of the house after she returned from her walk for the purpose of attracting the attention of Betty and Charlie. In response, she states that she walked all the way around to the flagstone patio at the rear of the house, ie. it’s southern exposure. • Page 60 – Lines 9 to 19 – Wilentz establishes that Anne attempted to play with Charlie “from the downstairs to the window.” Anne affirms this by clarifying that this incident occurred following her return from a mid-afternoon walk down the driveway, and that she attracted the attention of Betty and Charlie by throwing a pebble up to the nursery window from the ground level. • Page 60 – Lines 20 to 27 – Wilentz asks Anne if it was the “east window” under which she was standing when she threw the pebble. Anne does not answer the question but simply states that she “stood under both windows,” while still not clarifying under which window she actually threw the pebble. • Page 60 – Lines 28 to 30 – Wilentz then seeks to clarify exactly which window it was that Anne threw the pebble at. Here, while referring to “both windows,” he seems to momentarily forget there are actually two nursery windows along the east side of the house. Question: Is he then referring to the south-east corner window and the French Window? Anne then states correctly there are in fact two nursery windows along the east side of the house. • Page 60 – Lines 31 to 32 – Wilentz asks Anne if she stood under each of the two windows on the east side. Anne replies “No, I stood under this one furthest down.” Question: Is she talking about the south-east corner window or saying in effect, no and that it was neither one? • Page 60 – Lines 33 to 36 – Wilentz now seems to believe there could be a misunderstanding as to exactly which window it was that Anne threw the pebble at and asks Anne to clarify by means of the courtroom diagram of the house layout. Anne takes the pointer and identifies the two windows she stood beneath during the incident. • Page 60 – Lines 37 to 40 – Wilentz clarifes for the trial record, that Anne is pointing to first the “easterly” window and then the “southerly” window. He then asks Anne which of these two, presumably the south-east corner window and the south-facing French Windows, it was she was standing under when she threw the pebble. Anne tops it off in the interests of frustration, by replying she “can’t remember.” (!) From the trial transcript relating to the pebble-throwing incident, I tend to support the scenario that Anne did indeed walk alongside the house on the afternoon of March 1, and that she first stopped at the base of the south-east corner nursery window, where she realized it would have not been possible to attract the attention of Betty and Charlie without stepping further out into the yard and what was probably muddier ground, so she simply continued further on to the flagstone patio as she stated, where it’s hard and larger surface area would then allow her to stand further back to throw the pebble at the window. By the time of the trial she simply couldn’t remember which one she threw the pebble at, quite possibly due to her having stopped at both of them for the very same purpose.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 11, 2021 13:05:40 GMT -5
Women today have much larger feet than they did 100 years ago, so the sizes of shoes that apply today would not apply to a woman in the 1930s. Anne Lindbergh was a petite woman, hardly 5'1" tall and weighing about 100 pounds. it is not likely that she would have such a big foot as a woman's size 8, more likely a size 5 (in women's) at that time. Also, women usually require larger sizes as they grow older, so a younger woman would wear a smaller size than she would at age 65. We simply cannot assume that the size 8 footprint was made by Anne. It could have been the print of a man not very tall and weighing under 135 pounds. Those who espouse the Lone Wolf theory would like very much to prove that the size 8 footprints were made by a woman, namely Anne. The reality was most likely quite a different story. The defense should have examined and disproven this claim--which could have been done quite easily if anyone knew what size shoe Anne wore or thought to ask her at her time of testimony.
|
|