|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 28, 2007 21:30:58 GMT -5
Michael - I wanted to see if you had further comments on the footprints at Highfields and St. Raymond's, but did not want to 'hijack' the thread on the ladder. If the prints at both locations are smaller than Hauptmann's, which you said, that is a very important point. It doesn't necessarily exonerate Hauptmann in any way, because it could still arguably put him in a group that did the kidnapping (as opposed to lone wolf). Or it still could put him in a group that did an extortion only plot. He could still be involved, which I can buy, but just not as a lone wolf.
On the other hand, if the police were confident that the print at St. Raymond's was in fact CJ's, then that would exclude Hauptmann as CJ. And it they were confident that the prints near the ladder were by the perpetrators, that would exclude Hauptmann as the one who put the ladder up against the Lindbergh estate.
It also would presumably throw out the theory in "Crime Of The Century" where Lindbergh built and used the ladder as a prank gone horribly wrong. I would assume that since Lindbergh was so tall, his shoe size would be even larger than Hauptmann's.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2007 19:55:31 GMT -5
The main problem with this topic is that the footprint evidence is always a secondary mention within the reports and/or memos. And so while I do have a Footprint/Fingerprint File, important information concerning this subject is scattered throughout my other files and hard to find. Here is my post in the Archives on the important matter of the case made in Hopewell (first brought to our attention by Dr. Gardner): lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1143232895Now I have been doing some digging and it appears I am incorrect about the print in Hopewell being smaller. According to Kennedy the print measured 12 to 12-1/2 inches making it larger then Hauptmann's shoe. I did find a cardboard tracing of a footprint complete with measurements at the NJSP Archives which I believe is of the Hopewell print. For some unknown reason I cannot find it among my papers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2007 21:58:22 GMT -5
For me it does. These are the few real pieces of evidence placing an Actor at the scene of the crime and at the scene of the ransom exchange. Neither match up with Hauptmann. Frankly, I have always hesitated in saying with 100% conviction the footprints identified by Condon as being made by CJ were actually his. It's Condon's word for it AND they didn't get there until 1AM on April 6th. Condon would later lie to Agent Sandberg claiming that NY Detective Bronson made the cast when his son-in-law Ralph Hacker was the one who did. The other thing I wanted to mention was that every time I turn to one of Fisher's books as a reference I find errors. Concerning this subject he really makes a huge one: Agent Sisk and Ralph Hacker made a plaster-of-paris cast of the foot print. (p87 TLC)[/blockquote] Sisk hadn't even entered the case yet. In fact, no representative from the FBI or NJSP was there. There is evidence of (5) photos of these prints being turned over immediately to the NJSP with a note which reads Done - No Report. There's too much preparation for this to be a knee-jerk reaction to any situation such as a prank gone wrong. Their book is good for a lot of things but their overall theory can't possibly be right. Also, if CAL was involved he would never leave his own footprints beneath the window.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 5, 2007 22:41:27 GMT -5
I guess we'll never know now what may have been lost at the crime scene that night. I've started reading Dr. Gardner's book (had it for a while, and somehow thought I'd read it before) and there are lot of interesting pieces of information about the scene. It was interesting to read that a neighbor's dogs apparently heard something coming from Highfields and their barking and/or chasing could be the reason why the ladder got left behind. It's a shame the crime scene got corrupted so early.
This is getting away from the original topic, but Gardner also points out some big discreprencies in Betty Gow's statements about the night of the kidnapping. Although some of them all retold by Rosner, so that needs to be factored in as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2007 8:26:51 GMT -5
While there was a lot of bungling, I am just not sure how much of the crime scene was ruined. Sure, we had some of that AND by the NJSP invitation when they allowed Reporters to assist in combing the area for clues. But, alot of what they found just wasn't recorded in any report - so we are left assuming and drawing conclusions based upon what we don't know rather then what we do.
|
|