|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 10, 2012 18:47:52 GMT -5
I’d like to throw out an idea for consideration.
Some people believe that Lindbergh’s failure to show up at the NYU Alumni dinner on the night of March 1, 1932, means that he was implicated in his son’s death. I personally don’t have too much of a problem with the explanation that Lindbergh had been given the wrong date for the event—I know there’s controversy about this, but it’s not a subject I’m seeking to debate in this post. However, I do believe that Lindbergh’s anticipated presence at the dinner was probably a major reason why the kidnapper(s) chose to strike on the night they did. Lindbergh was a crack shot, and the last person you’d want around if you were going after his kid. Perhaps the plan was to strike AFTER dark but BEFORE Lindbergh’s return.
This raises a question in my mind. Is it possible that Lindbergh came home after elements of the kidnapping had already been set in motion at Highfields, yet before it was completed, causing some spur-of-the-moment change on the part the kidnapper(s)?
Generally, we are used to figuring out the kidnapping as being a planned event in its totality. But I wonder if part of the mystery could be that it was a COMBINATION of planning, plus impromptu changes resulting from an unexpected arrival by Lindbergh. I’m not saying what the changes might have been—there are dozens of possibilities, I suppose. Perhaps if panic set in, it might have hastened the way they handled the child, or the decision to abandon the ladder, etc. Perhaps even one cohort fled while another finished the job.
I’m definitely NOT insisting that Lindbergh’s arrival caused a disruption. But perhaps if it did, someone else on this board can come up with a new insight that might shed some light on the crime. Anyone can weigh in on the possibility regardless of their opinions about BRH, because it doesn’t really directly relate to his guilt or innocence.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 14, 2012 10:44:46 GMT -5
A couple of years ago, I put forth a timeline based on my own understanding and beliefs about what happened in Hopewell on the night of the kidnapping. Sorry, I’m just not sure where it is in the Home menu.
I think it’s entirely conceivable that Lindbergh and the kidnapper came very close to crossing paths as he arrived home from the NYU Alumni dinner at about 8:25 pm. Just fifteen minutes or so prior to that, Anne had noted what she believed was the sound of car tires outside the window, as she anticipated his arrival. It’s my belief that the kidnapper in his car, could have been dropping off the ladder and any other required items close to the house, so that he would not have to then carry them over half a mile from Featherbed Lane, where his car would be parked later.
The observation by the Conover family of the car which was having difficulty getting through Featherbed Lane at about 6:45 pm I think is telling, in the possibility that the kidnapper had wanted to make sure of his parking location prior to driving to the house for the purpose of dropping off his supplies. Following the dropff, he would have then driven back to the parking spot on Featherbed Lane. It’s interesting that during the investigation, it was noted by Oscar Bush that there appeared to be signs of two cars having recently been on Featherbed Lane, but I’m not sure if it was ever established whether or not they were from one and the same vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 14, 2012 11:33:45 GMT -5
hi joe, thats a great scenerio. lindbergh never went to the dinner. remember sue campbell gave me a copy of the dinners guests and program. alot of people said lindbergh was there to speak, but on the program hes not listed as a speaker. great question about bush were they the same vehicles? if lindbergh disrupted the plan, then to me the front door handoff is a stupid theory
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 14, 2012 17:11:58 GMT -5
Thanks Steve, and of course you're right that Lindbergh never attended the dinner. I had meant to mention his announced presence at the dinner as a possible incentive for the kidnapper to strike that evening, but didn't spell out that train of thought before I moved on to the next one.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 14, 2012 17:25:44 GMT -5
I located my 2007 post entitled Kidnapping Timeline from Page 4 of the General Discussion. I believe there may be a few issues around the time of actual eyewitness sightings, but for what it's worth, here it is:
Here's my own current read on the timeline for the kidnapping of CALjr. I've recognized the existence of only one kidnapper here, although I believe it more likely an accomplice was present. The times I've suggested are approximate. I hope this is able to provide some food for thought and as always, look forward to any comments and questions that might help to determine what really took place..
5:30 pm Kidnapper's car is seen by Mrs. Henry Wendling as it proceeds from Zion towards Hopewell. Essential description matches that of Ben Lupica's.
5:50 pm Ben Lupica observes the kidnapper in a dark coloured Dodge sedan containing ladder, driving south on Hopewell-Amwell Road (then called Hopewell-Wertsville Road) a few hundred yards north of Lindbergh estate driveway.
6:10 pm The kidnapper, having driven past the east entrance of Featherbed Lane, proceeds south on Hopewell-Amwell Road and into Hopewell, west along East Broad Street, north on Hopewell-Wertsville Road (as it is called today) and enters the west entrance of Featherbed Lane.
6:30 pm The Conover family, having just come home, notice the lights of a vehicle coming along Featherbed Lane, just west of their property. The driver turns out his lights upon seeing a lamp lighted within the Conover house. Henry Conover, sharpening a pencil by the window after dinner, sees the lights of the vehicle again as it appears to be struggling along the lane.
8:10 pm The kidnapper, having waited for the past hour and a half near the east entrance of Featherbed Lane, drives north on Hopewell-Amwell Road and enters the Lindbergh's private cinder drive. He slowly drives the 6/10 mile distance to the house with lights out and parks just off the drive. He then unloads the kidnap ladder and other equipment required for the kidnapping, placing them at a point east of the house. Anne Lindbergh actually hears the the sound of his tires' approach on the cinder drive, but dismisses the noise as insignificant.
8:15 pm Kidnapper exits the Lindberghs' private drive and heads south on Hopewell-Amwell Road.
8:25 pm Lindbergh arrives home from NYC. Sheer luck has allowed the kidnapper to exit the property before he otherwise would have been boxed in and confronted in the private drive by Lindbergh. At the same time, the kidnapper has no idea Lindbergh has just arrived home.
8:40 pm The kidnapper, driving along his previous route through Hopewell and north along Hopewell-Wertsville Road, again enters the west entrance of Featherbed Lane. He drives along until he is familiar with his positioning, turns out his lights and parks his vehicle south of the Lindbergh house. (The observation by Oscar Bush that two cars were present in the lane may be supportive to this theory, in that it was actually the kidnapper's car being there twice)
9:00 pm The kidnapper has walked the 6/10 of a mile distance between Featherbed Lane and his staging point for the abduction and is ready to strike. He observes the upper level of the house for any sign of light or activity, especially the location of the corner nursery for at least 5 minutes.
9:05 pm Satisfied that it is safe to proceed, the kidnapper begins his assault from the staging area, the point at which he had previously placed the ladder and equipment.
9:15 pm The kidnapper has entered the nursery and exited with the child, who is now dead, leaving behind the nursery ransom note. He has removed the ladder to a point approximately 75 feet south-east of the corner nursery, where he abandons it. At the same time, he inadvertantly drops the chisel at the same location.
9:20 pm The kidnapper, with the dead child in tow, has completed part of his journey back to Featherbed Lane, when he is interrupted by two dogs who have picked up his scent. They run towards the source and there is a brief confrontation of man and beast. The kidnapper stands his ground and the dogs retreat.
9:40 pm The kidnapper has now arrived back at his vehicle. He exits Featherbed Lane with a minimum of engine noise and with lights out. The Conovers have gone to bed and do not hear the vehicle driving out of the lane.
10:20 pm The child has now been buried a few miles south of Franklin Park, NJ, at a point just north of Interstate 1.
11:30 pm Kidnapper arrives at his home in the Bronx, quickly changes clothes and washes up.
12:00 pm Kidnapper arrives at Frederickson's Bakery to pick up his wife from work.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 15, 2012 11:04:19 GMT -5
Very interesting, Joe. I have a problem with that 1 1/2hr wait at Featherbed and then a drive up to the house. Perhaps you could explain your views on this. About Anne's recollection of the gravel noise, I believe she was hard of hearing but the noise one should have heard had a car been present was the unmistakable grind of the car transmission in low or reverse gear. They were pretty loud back then, especially the cheaper cars.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 15, 2012 12:13:39 GMT -5
Kevin, I agree that for most people, an hour and a half wait, give or take some time, under these circumstances, would have been excrutiating.
I guess I would also have to balance the possibility of a potential witness, even after dark, taking notice of the kidnapper and his vehicle in an open space or just driving around the area and killing time before he struck. If we have to put someone in that role, and for me it is clearly Hauptmann, there is little I would consider him incapable of conceiving and executing towards his goal of kidnapping the child, even if it meant cooling his heels in hiding.. and by his basic nature, I'm sure he even would have congratulated himself on the gas money saved. ;D
Yes, there would always be the risk of him being noticed anywhere during the total time he was in the Hopewell area, but I feel that his spending time in hiding before he struck would have best suited his instincts. After all, this is a guy whose grim determination to hide away in a ship's coal bin for almost a week, allowed him to successfully find his way to America.
Those journies, two attempted and one successful, present a very telling picture of this man and the lengths he was willing to go for a personal cause, up to and including his obstinate refusal to acknowledge even one iota of involvement in this case.
ps.. I think it was Michael who also pointed out correctly that the sighting by Mrs. Henry Wendling of what has been accepted by most, as the kidnapper's car, was actually in the mid-afternoon.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 15, 2012 12:48:31 GMT -5
I guess what I'm getting at is why wait in the car for so long then proceed on an extremely risky drive down Lindbergh's driveway in which there is little opportunity to turn around when you have a ladder specifically built to be lightweight? Why not start toward the house? The driveway is like the front door, imho. If I have made a ladder that compromises so much for the sake of lightness, am I not negating that single advantage by driving up to the house to deliver it? Then there is the issue of an accomplice. I take it you are open to this. Where is he in all of this? Is he ( or she) in the car with the ladder?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 15, 2012 14:09:25 GMT -5
I should add that although I think it's a very good possibility, I'm not stuck on the belief that the kidnapper drove down the Lindbergh driveway to drop off the ladder and any other needed supplies. If I were him though, I would certainly have wanted to be in the best possible shape for the assault on the nursery, given the aproximately 6/10 mile round trip between Featherbed Lane and the house.
I would also have had a number of supplies including the presumed shoe covers, the chisel or similar implement, flashlight, large bag for the child and a length of rope to lower the "child in bag" from the window sill. (removal method posited by Allen on Lindy Kidnap) All in all, I would think about 45 pounds, which includes the ladder.
Considering the fact that I knew I would soon be standing in the Lindbergh baby nursery, where the possibility of detection was extremely high and I knew my strength would be needed for the long walk back to Featherbed Lane with the child in tow, I would have opted for what I would consider the relatively low risk of a dropoff, before parking my car on Featherbed Lane and hiking to the house.
As far as an accomplice at the scene, I'm open to it but really haven't seen anything to suggest with absolute certainty that this crime could not have been carried off by one very determined, creative and diabolical individual.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 15, 2012 14:33:24 GMT -5
Do you know the access drive that goes from the driveway entrance to the back of the house behind the tree line?
What proof would be sufficient?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 15, 2012 15:49:55 GMT -5
Kevin, I'm trying to picture the access drive you're referring to. Can you describe it from an aerial perspective and the direction(s) it took relative to the main driveway? I know there were a number of access routes on the property but thought they generally emanated from the main driveway. Was this one traversable by car in 1932? And when you talk about the back of the house, are you referring to a point south of the house?
As far as proof of more than one individual being involved, I believe you are referring to the kidnapper being able to negotiate the climbing and descending of the ladder, right?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 15, 2012 19:17:24 GMT -5
Hi joe, I saw your timeline on here a few months back and liked it a lot. Makes a good deal of sense. In terms of incorporating an accomplice into things (and it does seem possible that there at least may have been one), how about this alternative version (I'm copy-pasting from a previous post of mine): After spending the afternoon driving around to familiar themselves with the various routes in and out of the Hopewell area (being seen by several people from 5:30pm on), the kidnapper(s) park at the end of Featherbed Ln. They then drive to the house at around 8:10 and leave the ladder somewhere on the grounds, near the house. Even if anyone notices it, the house is still partially under construction, so there's nothing odd about seeing a ladder lying around. The ladder is lightweight, but it's still cumbersome, so leaving it there ahead of time also solves the problem of having to carry it any distance. Even more, an early dropoff of the ladder would explain why Anne Lindbergh thought she heard tires on the driveway 15-20 minutes or so before Charles Lindbergh got home at 8:25ish. Anyway, the kidnapper(s) want to wait a little while, until the house quiets down, but they don't want to press their luck and have their car be heard on a second approach, so they go back to Featherbed and park. At that point, one of them (not needing a flashlight because he's using the fully illuminated and clearly visible house as a guide) cuts north on foot across the open country to Highfields (it's dark in a sparsely populated area, so he shouldn't be seen). Meanwhile, the other kidnapper drives back toward Highfields and parks somewhere on the shoulder of what is today Lindbergh Rd., near the mouth of the Lindberghs' driveway, as the other kidnapper won't be able to find his way back to Featherbed in the dark (they don't want to use flashlights to avoid being seen). The kidnapper on foot reaches the house, waits in a nearby clump of trees or bushes until he's pretty sure the nursery's quiet. He then picks up the ladder, sets it to the side of the nursery window so no one will see it in front of the lower library window, gets into the nursery, gets out, but the ladder breaks under the added weight. The kidnapper then drags the ladder to one end of the backyard and discards it (the breaking wood sound Lindbergh said he heard) to make it look like his escape route was in the opposite direction (accidentally dropping his chisel), then walks down the unfrequented driveway to meet the second kidnapper in the car (if the headlights of any arriving/departing cars appear, he'll spot them quickly and can just duck into the surrounding trees). Somewhere along the driveway, he strips the sleeping suit off the body, losing the thumbguard in the process. He then hooks up with the other kidnapper in the car. I'm not sure, in all this, how the thumbguard later gets into the middle of the drive, though. Maybe it wasn't lost, but was kept and dropped off later to hurry the ransom payment as has been suggested. Also, I was wondering how you arrived at Franklin Park as an initial burial site, and (this has been asked many times by various contributors) why would the baby have been dead (as opposed to drugged) on leaving the nursery? If it was a kidnapping (rather than a murder made to look like a kidnapping), I'm still having trouble with the idea of willfully killing such a high-profile hostage that could never identify his abductor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2012 7:27:01 GMT -5
This is something that needs to be answered doesn't it? I think the first thing to do is to formulate a theory as to where he died. If not one place then map out a series of possibilities.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2012 8:45:47 GMT -5
Not to mention that in 1932 kidnapping is not on the books as murder is. Ok, this is from my own collection and it's the best scene of the crime photo around; Joe, the access drive is not exactly parallel to the drive as the drive has an extreme curve to the North. If you turn into Lindbergh's driveway you would go about 100ft then bear left onto the access road which goes straight West across the fields about 1/4 mi. It then turns North up to the tree line and then West to the back of Highfields. Interestingly, if you stopped just where the trees are the densest and drew a line to the Nursery, the spot where the ladder was found is almost exactly 1/2 way. If you look closely you will see what is now Lindbergh Lane with cars parked up and down the street. As far as proof of an accomplice, I was just trying to see what in the whole abduction process might make you feel help was needed. I respect your opinion on these issues.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 16, 2012 10:11:16 GMT -5
This is off the top of my head, (shingles covering half of my head and one eye! : . It may be the same as Kevkon mentions. I believe it may have been the local cabdriver telling a reporter about a different way Cal went out to the main road. It seems to me that it was referred to as thru the barnyard - tho I haven't heard of a barn at Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 16, 2012 11:16:37 GMT -5
Amazing photo. I think I can actually see some of these access roads, or, at least, lines of tire tracks cutting through the fields around the house. Now, maybe these were made by construction vehicles and/or reporters, but, at the very least, it shows it was possible to approach the house from multiple angles by car--not just by the driveway or on foot from Featherbed Ln. As to a list of possibilities of places where the baby could've died, we have the nursery, in a fall just outside the nursery, or in the kidnap car (maybe he wouldn't stop crying or something). I've heard too of some mysterious shack in the nearby woods where he was kept, and his cold turned to pneumonia... I suppose there are any number of possible locations for the baby's death. Much may depend on where the kidnappers were headed/headquartered, and I don't know how that can be conclusively determined one way or the other. When you get right down to it though, I suppose my problem with the whole case is this: If the baby's death wasn't the result of a kidnapping gone wrong--that is, if the death wasn't accidental, then it was intentional, and what would be the point of willfully murdering some little kid? Of course, CALjr. wasn't just any little kid, but even that sort of compounds the problem--since the baby was a celebrity, the entire country would never stop hunting for his killer and calling for that person's blood. By contrast, kidnapping--meh, at the time, you'd go away for a few years if you were caught. Of course, there are plenty of psychos out there--John Wilkes Booth types who just want to kill an important person to make some sort of statement--but those kinds of people tend to get caught and pretty convincingly exposed eventually, the victims of their own impulsive and disorganized thinking. That leaves methodical planning--either way, I think the crime suggests this. Now, there are of course methodically planned murders--I'm just having difficulty coming up with a believable motive for that here. Some sort of grudge against Lindbergh maybe...? That was suggested from the beginning, but I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for it. Either way, as Michael says, this kidnap-or-murder question is something that needs to be answered once and for all.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 16, 2012 13:48:09 GMT -5
LJ, Evidently the perp didn't realize the baby's blanket was safty-pinned to the bedding, hence dragging the child out from the bottom of the blanket. Does this suggest the child was murdered in it's crib (or was drugged)? Also, have you come across the "Dear Chief" letter? Recognizing there were numerous cranks, somehow this letter stays with me. Note that the writer refers to an earlier letter he had written to him. Refers to the child being alive after the kidnap. Such a good picture, Kevkon!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2012 14:36:01 GMT -5
This may make it clearer; This is the gatehouse/ entry; Mairi, what do you think about the baby in a bag? I keep being told that the kidnapper stuck the child in that bag, but I have a real hard time seeing this manouver working with one person in a dark room. Even if the child is dead ( then why bother) it does not seem like something easily and quickly done.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 16, 2012 14:50:40 GMT -5
To me, the safety pinning of the blanket (and therefore the baby being dragged out from under it) could equally suggest either one--that he was either dead or drugged. If dead, well, obviously, who cares about rough handling at that point, and, if drugged, I can see how the kidnapper wouldn't have wanted to waste time fumbling with pins in the dark, so he just quietly slid the baby out from under the blanket after he'd been chloroformed or whatever. Maybe something that could tell us more about this is the location of the skull fracture. Was it to the front or back of the head? I can't remember. If we assume that this injury is what killed the baby and also that it happened in the crib, then I would expect the wound to be somewhere around the front or sides of the head. Conversely, if the wound was somewhere on the back of the head, then it would seem unlikely that he was killed in the crib. As most people do when putting a baby down, he was probably laid on his back and the pins were then fastened to the bedding to hold him relatively in that position, making the back of his head inaccessible for the kind of injury he suffered (unless of course the injury occurred after he was lifted out of the crib). Additionally, I've never heard of any blood or anything being found in the crib (or nursery), although I suppose he could've been killed in the crib in some other way (smothering, strangulation), and the head trauma could've been post mortem. But again, I'm still stuck on this question of why murder the baby at all, get the whole country after you and set yourself up for the chair. And no, I'm not familiar with the 'Dear Chief' letter. What is that?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2012 19:49:02 GMT -5
There's people who have studied this Case for years who didn't know where these roads were. Now, does a Bronx Carpenter who drives down because "his job didn't pan out" know? If so how? And not only know but quickly incorporates them into his plans? I think the burlap bag was used and for two purposes: To both carry & conceal. The Toddler in the bag over One's shoulder is an easier carry even if the benefit is not that great - it still exists. Next, there were people seen carrying bags around that night by various Witnesses. They were investigated, and it proved they didn't have a child in them. So this, at least to me, shows back then people were carrying bags around like this. So I learned that nowasdays that would be a weird thing but back then - not so much. Next, if the car is pulled over there's a sack of "powdered milk" in the backseat - not a dead baby. Let's say the child was meant to be killed. The Note is left behind, everyone thinks its a kidnapping, the child is found dead which explains why they didn't collect the ransom. The World mourns and the Kidnappers are never found. But that doesn't happen does it? They kill the kid, continue to collect the money, THEN leave the child where he would be found as if he'd been there the whole time. Not only doesn't it make any sense - its not happening in a rational sequence. It's similiar to the Crime Scene itself. Detective Briest of the Trenton Police Department gave the original to Sgt. Gardiner of the NJSP to turn over to Schwarzkopf. It had been sent to Chief Walters and he was curious to see what Schwarzkopf thought of it. Unfortunately Schwarzkopf never got to see it because the NJSP lost it then Clerk Petty couldn't find any record of it when Walters began asking for it back. Fortunately Walters kept a copy and at one point it was turned to Ellis Parker in 1935. I assume it was Walters because he would assist Gov. Hoffman during his "re-investigation" of the Case although Parker was respected and on friendly terms with just about everyone on the Trenton PD and the Mercer County Prosecutors Office so it could have been just about anyone who provided it to him.... lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=source&action=display&thread=344
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 16, 2012 23:46:46 GMT -5
I agree. The sequence you describe of what played out makes no sense. Unless the child was killed and the ransom extorted to make it seem like he was still alive (after all, his death can't be admitted if the kidnapper/murderer wants the ransom). The only thing that doesn't make sense to me in that sequence is the dump site: Why dump the body, announcing that the child was dead at all (as opposed to just burying him), especially in a place where it might not even be discovered? To me that looks like panic, but there's also the theory that the body was planted there later, which is pretty well supported. I guess my question is why in that spot and, really, why do it all? As for Hauptmann (or anyone else) knowing about the access roads, I can see how a reconnaissance trip could've been made earlier, for the kidnapper(s) to get to know the layout, the access roads being discovered then. I'd like to know more about the head trauma though. Where exactly was it, and do you think it was inflicted in the crib/nursery?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 17, 2012 6:46:18 GMT -5
Regarding the burlap bag, I wasn't questioning the use of a bag as much as the process of putting a living child into it in a dark Nursery with time of the essence. Why would you do this in the Nursery? It doesn't really aid in going out the window or down the ladder.
As for the dump site, I still don't see how the location is in any way a place meant for discovery, especially if you consider it was done at night. Another thing, I wouldn't be so confident that the kidnappers dumped the body from the Mt Rose road. Take a look at a 1930's map or aerial photo and you will see what I mean.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 17, 2012 8:17:03 GMT -5
LJ, we seem to be on a similar wavelength in terms of the kidnapping timeline and process.
In terms of kidnapper intent, from the time I first became interested in this case, I'd always been a bit hopeful that this was a plan gone bad, that it was originally intended to be a quick “snatch and return” of the child for the ransom, and that Caljr, most likely was killed accidentally during the removal from the nursery. I have never believed the kidnapper anticipated that Lindbergh, who was well known to be a very private person in family matters, would immediately notify the police, thus effectively bringing the world to his front doorstep and he chastises Lindbergh repeatedly for doing so in follow up notes.
If the kidnapper intended to kill the child from the outset, which I tend to see now as a distinct probablity, the most likely route east from Hopewell to the Bronx in 1932, would have taken in the towns of Stoutsburg, Blawenburg, Rocky Hill and Franklin Park, (about 14 miles from Hopewell) before connecting with Interstate 1. As it seems that the kidnapper eventually returned the body to the area between Hopewell and Mt. Rose, I would think anywhere along this route would have been suitable for a the original burial but that it would have been done just before hitting Interstate 1, ie. Franklin Park.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 17, 2012 8:20:49 GMT -5
Kevin, thanks for pointing out the access routes on the Lindbergh property. I wasn’t familiar with the yellow highlighted one and if this one was actually traversable by car on March 1, 1932, I would have thought much more would be known about it and that it would have been a high point of interest to investigators.
If a “dropoff of supplies” did occur though, I have a bit of a problem considering this access road might have been the route taken by the kidnapper, if that is what you’re proposing. If the kidnapper was aware of this route and where it would take him, why not just use it to base all of his operations, including parking the car and walking to the house under cover of darkness? Based on the footprints leading from the house to Featherbed Lane, and the observation of a car in Featherbed Lane by the Conovers, this appears to have been the most suitable spot, at least within the kidnapper's mind. While I’m sure that some surveillance of the Lindbergh property by the kidnapper was involved prior to this crime, I wonder just how much surveillance could reasonably have been carried out without him fearing he would be noticed, and more importantly how he would actually have known about this private access route.
Within the abduction process alone and not including the ransom negotiations, I would say that an accomplice would certainly have made the job easier. Personally I haven’t recognized any specific aspect of the abduction process that would absolutely have required the participation of another person. Is there one that can be recognized conclusively here?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 17, 2012 9:00:47 GMT -5
Maybe a few years back that would have meant something to me, but I could now fill a book with all of the things that were not pursued, ignored, or lost somewhere in time. For example, could you draw on that photo I provided the exact tail of the footprints? Could you tell me the exact location of the ladder marks both on the ground and the wall? There is just so much that was not adequately documented in this crime.
I don't really buy into the "dropoff" scenario, though I will readily admit it's possible. As for the Conover sighting, who knows. There could have been multiple cars involved, at least that must be considered. I really have no problem with the pre-crime knowledge of the Lindbergh estate. This was a new construction and it stuck out like a sore thumb. There's no telling how many people visited it both during and after construction. That access road was probably in use before the main driveway was done, it certainly shows up on an aerial photo taken while the house was under construction. Interestingly, a road was constructed from the West to bring in power and telephone lines. This would have been another possible means to get to the house, though turning around would be a real issue just as it was for the main driveway. The bottom line is that Highfields was a very inviting target.
I guess the $50,000 question here is whether or not the child was meant to be taken alive. If the plan was to abduct him and keep him, then the one person ladder entry and exit is virtually impossible. If, on the other hand, murder in the Nursery was the intent then the one person ladder entry and exit is just nearly impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 17, 2012 20:39:02 GMT -5
Right. So what we have is a set of facts some of us accept to be true. And if they are then what occurred does not make sense. The child was killed during the commission of the crime. The Kidnappers pretend he's still alive. The ransom is paid. The dead child is later brought to the spot where he is found which makes it look like he's been there the whole time....left behind in a state of panic no less AND found about a month after the ransom drop thereby effectively ending further attempts by others to collect even more ransom. So we are to believe there's risk, panic, lies, ice cold calm, lies, risk, and then even more risk but this time to ensure Lindbergh isn't extorted further.
Like the crime scene, to me it spells out that something has been staged.
I don't believe you have a live child going into the bag. If he isn't dead already, and I think he was, then he's out cold. You place him in the bag to carry him over your shoulder or hand him out to someone else. I just think it makes it easier all the while concealing the child.
Are you talking about the road behind the site? Anyway, the bag along the road marks the spot. It's a red flag to any Investigator who was aware of the bags in the car. They noticed it when they pulled up on scene and I believe that's why it was there.
Actually this was much more into the investigations. The problem is it didn't make it into the books, and not much was said during the trial - which might be why.
This is all true too. And its important to note. As with Joe's comment I believe it was just lost in time or misunderstood. By trial, none of it helps to prosecute Hauptmann and may even assist the Defense so they certainly wouldn't bring this into the picture in a way that highlights those points.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 17, 2012 22:33:00 GMT -5
Staged, yes. But the who and the why (and where Hauptmann fits in) are the elements I'm having trouble with, since I don't have access to the kinds of evidence others do.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 18, 2012 7:23:24 GMT -5
It's only "staged" if you choose to view it that way.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 18, 2012 10:43:39 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, is that gatehouse still there at the driveway entrance? It looks like a pretty solid structure--like something someone could've lived in--not just some little tollbooth-type thing that could've been removed later.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2012 11:57:26 GMT -5
Kevin, I believe it was a double trail of footprints that led from a point about 75 feet southeast of the nursery window corner of the house and where the ladder was found, to a point ending approximately 6/10 of a mile pretty much directly south at Featherbed Lane. I don’t know if it was ever accurately determined whether the footprints represented the advance and retreat of someone or a double set going in the same direction, although I think Oscar Bush was of the belief it represented a round trip.
You make a very valid point in that there would have been lots of drive-by gawkers taking in the sights around the Lindbergh estate during and after its construction. If that were the case, I wonder how the actions of someone with untoward intentions toward the Lindberghs might have differed from someone there for curiosity only. Would they not be as brazen about approaching the house or would they just hope to blend in with the rest of the rubberneckers, counting on most peoples’ inability to accurately describe someone later?
I recall you posted previously that the ladder climb in itself, not to mention the entrance and exit of the nursery window, would have been very difficult for one person, without the help of a footman. Can you explain this?
|
|