|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2012 6:33:41 GMT -5
I don't know whether or not it was an inherited defect. My research tends to show the Charles Jr. wasn't a healthy child despite the testimony to the contrary. Most Investigators stayed away from this subject - far away from it - because they were afraid of, as they said it - "embarrassing" Lindbergh or upsetting the family. They would simply say the child was "healthy" or that it was a personal family matter unrelated to the crime and/or they had no business getting into.
Even certain Investigators assisting Hoffman felt it beneath them to get involved in the subject. They didn't want their names attached to such a line either due to pride or the fear their names would be ruined and wouldn't be able to find work again.
That's how much power the name Lindbergh carried throughout the country back then. (Amazing if you think about it because nowadays there's many High Schoolers who never even heard of him).
Anyway, there is one source that claimed Lindbergh blamed Anne's side of the family for Charles Jr.'s health issues. This supposedly po'd Elizabeth and there was a little rift that developed as a result. The problem is the source was a PI, who did time, and worked as a CI for the Feds. He started to investigate this case on his own right from jump-street with a letter of recommendation presented to Schwarzkopf. Many considered him a dubious source, and although they accepted his information - it was rarely given due consideration.
Once Bill Lewis, (Trooper who was released, PI for Meade Detective Agency, then NJSP Detective again after Kimberling came in) wrote a report concerning a rumor the child had inherited epilepsy from the Morrow side of the family.
I will let Kevin work his map since he's better at it then I am. The Reports say that the Conovers lived on "Wertzville Road" (Hopewell-Amwell Road) which I believe was in a position to observe any Vehicle on Featherbed Lane. The article from the Democrat is a good one and Conover's recollections are sound. But what the article doesn't say was that his wife saw a Dodge in the mid-afternoon drive by that caught her attention which the Police seemed real interested in after Hauptmann's arrest.
The thing of it is there was rarely any activity, and if there was it would be a Local. Other Locals would immediately identify them as such, but they would also take notice to the fact if they didn't know who it was. Someone being on that stretch of Featherbed was unusual. Their headlights went on and off, and they got stuck. Before getting stuck this may have been a signal (and not a bad place to give one). They may have been attempting to turn around. Or they may have been attempting to drive through across to (the real) Hopewell-Wertzville Road so they could make a right, then eventually another right toward Buttonwood Corners, then another right up Hopewell-Amwell Road again - but thought better of it then turned around. They may have thought about parking, waiting, or even approaching the house from there. There's much to consider to include there was probably more then one car involved - which of course is also debatable.
I have never seen any Report, Memo, Note, or account of footprints leading toward Highfields from any direction.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2012 7:15:46 GMT -5
I think Michael pretty much summed up the Featherbed Lane situation. Honestly, I'm not sure it really matters what did or did not occur there. The more important point is the known path to the chicken coops. It is very possible that the kidnappers walked up the main driveway. In any case the most important point is the fact that the footprints went to the road and disappeared. It's pretty hard for me to believe that anyone could or would park a car there. Therefore, I believe that this is clear proof of a pick up which of course requires another.
Amy, the Conover farm still exists. The farm house is about 1/8 mi south of Featherbed and can be seen in both the 30's NJ aerial map and google.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 23, 2012 9:01:14 GMT -5
As some of you know, I am NOT an advocate of “Lindbergh did it,” for eugenics or any other reason. However, I do want to mention that, during the 1930s, there was something of a eugenics craze in America that we’ve pretty much forgotten about. Some states had eugenics laws mandating forced sterilization of people with certain conditions, sometimes including epilepsy. Epilepsy was very much looked down upon then. If you want to get a feel for the eugenics outlook back then, watch the 1934 movie Tomorrow’s Children www.youtube.com/watch?v=bByf9qZXSa0If Charles Jr. had epilepsy, it could mean the child could have a seizure during a public event. It would almost definitely mean he could never become a pilot (co-pilot might be acceptable) because seizing in mid-air could lead to a crash. It WOULD explain how the boy could look so cute and handsome, yet be ill, and it COULD explain why the child would be kept out of the public eye (for fear he might go into a seizure), although the Lindberghs were very private individuals anyway. If you were going to argue eugenics as the motive of the LKC, overlapping toes make no sense—Epilepsy might be a different matter. In reading A. Scott Berg’s biography of Lindbergh, I saw no mention of epilepsy on his side of the family, so IF the baby had it, it probably would have come from Anne’s side. Since all footprints led AWAY from Highfields, if you wanted to do a “Lindbergh did it” scenario, one could argue that the sound Anne heard of a car on gravel was Lindbergh himself, and he himself drove his own hired accomplices up the driveway. Then, after they completed their staged abduction, he tapped the horn to re-establish his arrival time. Then again, I can hardly see Charles telling accomplices, “After you’re done with the staged abduction, kill my son and toss him in a roadside ditch.” Furthermore, it sounds like the epilepsy was only a rumor, not a known fact. Michael, do you have a copy of Lewis's report on the epilepsy rumor? It might be fruitful to know what it said.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 23, 2012 11:05:03 GMT -5
Michael, I'm curious as to what you think was actually wrong with the baby and if it would've had anything to do with the crime. I know there was a sunlamp in his bedroom, but outside of this I've never heard anything other than vague innuendo about the baby supposedly being unhealthy in some way--that is, I've never heard anything but the kind of gossip and rumors which always arise around cases like this. Is there something out there more substantial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2012 14:38:52 GMT -5
As you can see he is mentioning it as a "rumor." Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2012 14:55:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure if you've gotten to the part in Lloyd's book concerning the dosage of Vitamin D CJr. was getting. Rickets is typically a problem in poor children who aren't getting enough of the Vitamin to develop properly. Not a child like CJr. who was getting the best vitamin enriched diet available.
And he was going to one of the best Doctor's around in VanIngen.
VanIngen was going to be called as a Witness for Hauptmann when Fawcett was his Lawyer. One strategy was to place the Prosecution in a "Catch-22" by either admitting he was ill, or that this corpse wasn't him.
What I did was collect all of the various symptoms from all of the sources then researched them. I started with the oversized head. One can assume the dry skin came from the Sun Lamp, which in addition to the Mega-doses of Vitamin D - did not appear to have worked according to the skeletal remains. If it wasn't from that lamp then what caused it? Why did the animals consume certain parts of the body - but leave others completely untouched?
Then there's the unusual hair nodes found as a result of proving CJr's death in the face of the Claimants. These can be indicative of many differing diseases - and there are a laundry list of Autoimmune Diseases to choose from as a cause as well.
The toes, in my opinion, were the least of their worries.
Ellis Parker originally resisted the corpse being the child. I can't prove it now, but I am confident he spoke to Dr. Mitchell who called the remains that of a "subnormal" child. So he would later write the Governor saying it either wasn't him or there was something wrong with him.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 23, 2012 15:14:14 GMT -5
I've read that he had to take something like 14 drops of a drug called Vitosterol (sp?). I don't know if those are the Vitamin D supplements you're referring to, but 14 drops of anything does strike me as a "mega-dose"--and not really for cold symptoms either, as the baby was reported to be suffering from that week. Speaking of which, while a chest cold was perhaps a more serious matter than it is now, it always struck me that the household was excessively worried about it--almost like it wasn't just the cold that was dangerous, but a cold on top of some preexisting condition maybe. I don't know though. I'm no doctor. And it's an interesting question of why some of the body's organs were scavenged and some weren't. But first I think it's a matter of determining how long that body was there and, by way of doing that, determine whether animals either A) didn't have time to consume the whole body, or B) left certain organs alone because they showed signs of disease or drugs. Either way, do you think whatever condition the baby may've had figured into the crime somehow?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 17:05:54 GMT -5
I have wondered too if Charlie's health had anything to do with the crime. The overlapping toes would have nothing to do with it. My reason for bringing up the toes had nothing to do with motive on anyone's part. Back in the 1930's there was no real treatment for Epilepsy. I think most children ended up institutionalized especially if their cases were severe. If Charlie had this wouldn't they have quietly placed him in a private care institution? There have been alot of famous people who have done this. Of course, how would they explain why Charlie wasn't around anymore. A real problem for them. Michael, have you ever come across any information about why the Lindberghs did not come to Highfields the two weekends prior to the final one in February. I have noticed that Anne makes no diary entries after the first weekend in February in her Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead book. She goes from February 7th right to March 2 and the kidnapping. Could Charlie have been too sick to make the trip on those weekends? Also Michael thank you for helping with the Conover location. Kevkon, I used the atlas link that you gave for 1930 and it helped me with finding the Conover Farm. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2012 18:15:05 GMT -5
Viosterol is a highly concentrated form of Vitamin D. The dosage here was equivalent to a bottle of cod liver oil (Gardner p.410) This is an enormous amount when you consider a child is normally prescribed 3 teaspoons of cod liver oil per day. Nothing should be off the table for anyone trying to figure this thing out. I suggest to avoid the pit-fall of evading certain areas simply because its an unsavory angle. The world is full of these things whether we like it or not. It's up to whoever is searching for an answer to decide whether or not there is enough information to place it in the "possible" category. But you cannot get to that point without first considering it. Not saying you are specifically LJ, rather, I am speaking in general terms in an attempt to answer your question. ****Amy, I will look into your question then get back to you....
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 23, 2012 20:50:59 GMT -5
Michael, thank you for posting Lewis’s report. So it’s a rumor only—we have no confirmation of the child being seen having a seizure, something like that. On the other hand, I just found this report confirming links between epilepsy and Vitamin D deficiency www.coping-with-epilepsy.com/forums/f22/news-article-seizures-vitamin-d-deficiency-2016/Because in the 1930s epilepsy could, under some state laws, result in forced sterilization, it “ups the ante” somewhat on Lindbergh’s involvement, which is something I have never agreed with before. Not that anyone would have dared suggest sterilization to a Lindbergh, but the affliction carried an unmerited stigma at the time. I’m going to mention a couple of things that bother me. Somebody else brought it up—Gardner maybe? It’s the Lindberghs keeping the baby at Hopewell because he had a cold. Lindbergh’s other 5 children by Anne seemed to consider him a good father, but he was not a “coddler.” It seems to me that letting the baby take a ride in a warm car up to Next Day Hill would not have been too much of a strain on the child. On the other hand, maybe the kid was running a fever, coughing up mucus, etc. Also, I am a registered nurse, and I can affirm that “staying in bed” was more of general prescription in the old days than it is now. They often used to keep women in bed for days after childbirth—now they typically kick you out of bed within 24 hours. Remember in It’s a Wonderful Life, when Jimmy Stewart goes up to visit Zsu-Zsu? Remember how she was in bed because she had a cold? That was pretty typical back then, so maybe Charlie’s staying at Hopewell WASN’T unusual, but I thought I’d mention it. The other thing that bothers me is Charles staying over at Englewood Monday night. Betty Gow was also there. Is it just possible he met with Betty, and brought her into a plan to remove the child without Anne’s knowledge? You know, the quietest way I can think of to move Charlie out, without him crying, is for Betty to hand him to Charles. It raises a thought: Did Betty tell Anne the baby was asleep as a device to keep Anne away from the nursery? One big factor in the preceding scenario is WHO decided that Betty should come that Tuesday to help Anne? Was it Anne’s idea, or Charles’ suggestion? If it was Anne’s, we can scrap what I just said about Charles meeting with Betty at Englewood. Something else is bothering me. It’s that footprint with the overlapping toe. How much of a coincidence is it that both the child and a kidnapper had an overlapping toe? Did Anne’s side have epilepsy, and Charles’s side overlapping toes? Is this why the casts of the footprints disappeared or were never taken? Ahlgren and Monier posited a thesis I cannot accept. They say Charles decided to play a joke. He himself climbed the ladder and took the baby, intending to enter the front door saying, “Look who was with me in New York.” But, they declare, he accidentally dropped the baby, killing him. Lindbergh, concerned only for his reputation, drove off, dumped the body in the woods four miles away, hurried home and wrote a fake ransom note before the baby’s nurse returned to the nursery. There are real problems with the Ahlgren-Monier thesis. Where did the ladder come from? What were cars doing on Featherbed Lane? Who were the dogs chasing at 9PM, well after Lindbergh arrived home to eat dinner? And since we know the subsequent ransom note came from the same sheet of paper as the first, how could Lindbergh sneak up to NYC to mail himself more ransom notes? BUT if this not a “prank gone wrong,” but a very well-planned event, and Lindbergh had his own accomplices, a lot might get explained. Maybe those footprints leading away from Highfields are “walk, not run,” because Lindbergh has assured his accomplices that no alarm would be sounded for a while. Maybe the baby was handed off not long after 7:30. And maybe one accomplice was still futzing around ouside with the ladder after that, adding confusion to the time of the snatch. Still, even with a eugenics motive, I don’t see Lindbergh going for such an elaborate stunt. The kid could walk, run, talk and was cute as the dickens. You’ve got to be a cruel parent to target that kid for eugenics elimination. Even if he had some neurological deficits, the Lindberghs certainly had the resources to provide him with excellent personal care. It certainly doesn’t explain why the kid turns up dead on the roadside. I realize there has long been debate about the identity of that body, but the evidence that it was little Charlie, starting with the overlapping toes, seems overwhelming. And it certainly doesn’t explain Condon, the ransom negotations, or how the money ended up with Hauptmann. I did start a thread (viewable on the first page of “General Discussion”) called “What Does the Wright Deposition Mean?” Wright, a former intelligence officer with the Army Air Corps in South America, was positive that the real child was spirited into South America (which Lindbergh had helped pioneer air routes to). Wright’s deposition has deficits, however, the worst of which is his impossible description of Isidor Fisch. A couple of other things. Charles Lindbergh WAS a great planner. Did you know that age 25 he designed the Spirit of St. Louis from scratch and oversaw every step of production? So some people say, “Well, then, he could plan a fake kidnapping.” Big difference, though. I don’t see anything in Lindbergh’s history to suggest he was a hoaxster or con artist. You know, after the “Boad Nelly” note, Lindbergh spent two days scouring the Nantucket region with a seaplane. Does anyone think he would do that just for show, as part of a hoax? I don’t. He really didn’t care what people thought of him—pretending to look for his child for show just isn’t Charles Lindbergh, not from what I’ve learned about him. Still, I am bothered by these other issues like the footprints. Tough case!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 21:36:05 GMT -5
Lots of interesting thoughts in your post BR. As much as I dislike the thought that Lindbergh could be involved in the kidnapping, I remind myself that I never knew this man. Only what we are told about him in books and articles. I think everyone needs to be looked at equally and not be given special consideration because of who they are.
I looked up overlapping toes and it is a congenital condition passed from one or both parents to the child. Seems like the kidnapper and the kidnappee share the same condition. Coincidence? What are the odds of that?
I thought the same thing as you. The Lindberghs could afford to have him cared for privately. Why not do that? I watched that movie you gave the link to and it was very interesting and very disturbing at the same time. The Lindberghs would not have needed to worry about sterilization. In that film you see that the "rich" or "well connected" could be spared the procedure by the court. However, there would still be the social stigma that would need to be confronted if it became known that Charlie had serious health problems. The Lindberghs and the Morrows were such private people. I don't know how they would have handled it. As it turns out they never had to.
This is a tough case alright!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 23, 2012 22:34:00 GMT -5
OK, now a point in Lindbergh’s favor. Gardner (p. 31), says Bush thought the stocking footprint was that of a “smallish man.” Gardner, in the associated footnote (footnote 60), references Wayne Jones, p. 36; here it says Bush estimated that the foot would fit a size eight shoe. I don’t know Charles Lindbergh’s shoe size, but his height was 6 foot 3. This may take him off the hook on the footprint.
I’d like to say something else. The ladder was estimated to hold a maximum weight of 125 to 150 pounds. This would likewise suggest a “smallish” man.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 23, 2012 23:35:05 GMT -5
I think it's only natural to consider Lindbergh a suspect because, as I've said before, he was a very cold fish in a lot of ways. At least, that was the public perception--very closed off and something of a blank--and I think it's easy to project onto that whatever you wish, sinister or otherwise. And if you couple that with some suspicious behavior on his part during the case--controlling everything, selectively choosing what the police will do and what they will not--and the fact that parents are often the first suspects in a child's death or disappearance--taken altogether, I think it makes a lot of sense that Lindbergh remains a suspect. I'm just wondering what his motive would've been in getting rid of the baby--whether it was killing him or just spiriting him off somewhere. Even if the baby was sickly or somehow "defective" in Lindbergh's eugenicist view, his disappearance--under any circumstances--would've been page-one headlines all over the world. Doesn't seem to me like something such a privacy-obsessed individual as Lindbergh would even consider.
|
|
|
Post by kjones on May 23, 2012 23:44:49 GMT -5
I know many people believe that Charley had to be either dead or drugged to be taken from his crib. I agree with BR, that Betty could have taken him from the crib without him crying. Didn't she do that every night at 10 when she took him to the potty.
Michael, any truth to the stories of Charley being seen at John Hopkins in Dec1931?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 24, 2012 6:10:11 GMT -5
lindberghs last secretary told me his shoe size since mrs lindbergh gave her a pair, but i have to look it up. i think gardner got that bush stuff from the fbi files
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 24, 2012 7:48:40 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2012 10:12:55 GMT -5
Just a suggestion, but I think everyone would benefit from looking at the totality of the known evidence in conjunction with the known timeline. You could certainly eliminate some of the actions proposed as well as those performing them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2012 10:39:50 GMT -5
BR. I think Lindbergh's feet are too large also. I don't know much about Dwight Jr. but he did cross my mind as a possibility. I think there are reports that put him too far away at the time of the kidnapping. Don't know who the source of the reports is. The toes could be a coincidence too. Who knows. This case is full of all kinds of coincidences and luck.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2012 12:52:02 GMT -5
I thought I remembered having read about this before so I went to the Statements. Unfortunately, I didn't find the answer for you. I am hoping I am remember the source and will find it soon. It's also possible that I am wrong and there isn't one. Regardless, if I find something I will post it.
It's a good question that I just don't have an answer to. It's mentioned in Wayne Jone's book. I don't remember which page and the way its laid out I'd have to go page by page to find it. There aren't any real footnotes but he quotes and paraphrases a lot of stuff I recognize because I have the actual documents - so he can be right about certain stuff. However in other places he regurgitates fiction that other people have gotten wrong in the past.
In any event I usually see this type of stuff then keep my eye out for verification in some form or fashion. I've been wanting to re-read Hysteria just to search for this but since I don't recall reading it there the first time then I keep talking myself out of it.
I did see it mentioned on the bottom of a Reporter's notes but the 2nd page, where it obviously continued, was missing. I also don't know what his source was. Unfortunately Reporters were sometimes given bogus information they would have to verify so an inclusion of this kind didn't mean it was true. But it is another place where it's mentioned nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 24, 2012 19:46:56 GMT -5
heres a excerpt from ingens obit-----philip van ingen 1875-1953----in 1929 president hoover organized the first white house confernce on child health and protection, he appointed van ingem chairman of the committee on the medical care of children. he was the recipient of almost every honor that pediatrics could bestow on a member of the specialty. he was one of the nine members of the original board of directors of the board of pediatrics in 1932 and served on it ofr six years. the last years of his life were devoted to the roosevelt hospital and the new york academy of medicine
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,644
|
Post by Joe on May 25, 2012 8:37:05 GMT -5
Amen to that, Kevin. The possibilities here are infinite when the element of a unified time and space is suspended. And I don’t think one can seriously contemplate this case, and not see a partially completed jigsaw puzzle with the clear image of Hauptmann front and centre, as primary perpetrator. I believe that his relationship to other possible players is the only thing worth pursuing in an attempt to fill in the remainder of the LKC puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 25, 2012 10:22:05 GMT -5
Anyone who seen my published articles on Lindbergh knows how strongly I have argued for his innocence. However, I don’t think the recent discussion on this thread ignored “known evidence” and “known timeline.” Charlie’s overlapping toe and Oscar Bush’s observation of a footprint with an overlapping toe both fall within the realm of “known evidence.” It was reasonable to explore this strange coincidence. After I saw the “size eight shoe” description, and compared that to Lindbergh’s size, Amy and I both acknowledged that Lindbergh was ruled out for that footprint. But it wasn’t unreasonable to look into.
As far as “known timeline” goes, we do know that Lindbergh and Betty were both at Englewood on Monday; and although Lindbergh officially came through the front door of Highfields at 8:25 PM on Tuesday, I don’t think that means we can’t consider the possibility that he actually arrived a bit earlier. As Michael has stated many times, nothing should be off the table.
When considering known evidence, one must try to interpret what that evidence means. The latter almost inevitably requires some speculation, much of which will be admittedly be wrong. But without attempts at interpretation, an investigation will go nowhere. For example, Anne said she thought she heard the sound of a car on gravel a few minutes before Charles arrived. That she said this is a known but what it means is unknown and could lend itself to several interpretations.
While we’re on the subject of “known evidence,” the small footprints and low weight capacity of the ladder (125-150 pounds per Gardner) should both weigh (pardon the pun) in BRH’s favor, since at 180 pounds he was a pretty good-sized man. This doesn’t mean he wasn’t a part of the crime, of course, but it certainly argues against his being there alone.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 25, 2012 10:39:30 GMT -5
Absolutely, Bookrefuge. Personally, I don't think Lindbergh did this, but, as has been said, nothing should be off the table or dismissed without at least being kicked around.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 25, 2012 10:52:03 GMT -5
Recall that there was Vapor Rub on the childs chest. This is gunky stuff which would have stayed for awhile--the smell would have at least stayed for awhile as well. The handmade shirt was holding that in as a barrier and it remained on the body. I'm wondering if this is what repelled the animals from certain areas of the remains. Any thoughts?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 25, 2012 10:58:22 GMT -5
Gow doesn't seem like a good candidate for inside help. I can't see her dragging the child out from the bottom of the blanket. I would see her reflexively unpinning at least one side of the blanket
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2012 11:01:31 GMT -5
This is one of the many problems in this case, researchers find reports and publish them and they in turn become accepted fact. Lloyd is an extremely conscientious historian, however his information is only as good as the source from which it was obtained. In this case the source is absolutely incorrect. I have load tested the ladder and it's breaking point is well beyond 250 pounds. There will be further evidence regarding the capability of the ladder forthcoming, but for now all I will say is that anyone who doubts it's ability to fulfill the mission of getting in or out of the window will be in for a surprise.
Regarding Lindbergh's involvement, it's pretty hard for me to see any evidence of his hand here, but I try to keep all options open. The chief problem I see with this scenario is that no one has even come close to drawing a line from him to the known subject, Richard Hauptmann. I certainly didn't intend my past post to in any way stifle ideas, it was simply a suggestion that any ideas must keep all of the parameters in sight if they are to be of any value. Unfortunately the foot print evidence seems to be so poorly recorded that only some of it can be used with any confidence.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 25, 2012 11:02:24 GMT -5
I wonder if (eugenicist) CAL blocked interviews with the servants in an effort to keep the Rickets from becoming public. One source says that the sun lamp was quickly removed. If this is valid then perhaps it applies(?)
I'll have to re-read, but I think in one of Reeve Lindbergh's books she said all (or some) of the children had overlapping toes.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 25, 2012 12:21:24 GMT -5
Kevin, if the ladder could really hold 250 pounds, that puts things in a much different light. Were your tests performed on the original kidnap ladder? If so, how were the tests done without risking damaging the famous piece of evidence?
Mairi—I think you may have hit on something. Lindbergh’s reluctance to have the servants questioned could have been for a reason other than concealing something about the crime.
One other thought here. We’ve discussed the man in the stocking feet. It seems the most logical reason for stocking feet is to be quiet in the nursery—and perhaps other parts of the house (we discussed the possibility of the man entering through a ground-floor window—which would eliminate the difficulties of passing those locked nursery shutters from the ladder). You certainly don’t want stocking feet on the terrain around Highfields—you want a good pair of boots. But you don’t want those boots clomping inside the house.
Now what occurs to me is this: if the purpose of stocking feet was to be quiet, then perhaps the SIZE OF THE MAN was a consideration as well. A small man walking around the house is less likely to make noise than a big one. Maybe that was part of the original planning. Stealth requires silence. And a smaller man lowers the risk of the ladder breaking, even if its capacity was greater than originally thought. According to Oscar Bush, the stocking footprint outside the house—evidently made before the intruder put his boots back on—was that of a “smallish man,” someone who, he thought, would fit a size 8 shoe.
So I would lean stongly toward the nursery intruder being a small man—but I do not doubt that he had at least one accomplice, whose size could certainly be much larger.
At the risk of being facetious, I am reminded of the crime caper movie Topkapi, in which a small circus acrobat was lowered from a window to steal a priceless museum piece without touching the alarmed floor. The man originally hired to lower him was a circus strong man. I wonder if there might have been a slight parallel at Highfields—a strong man to carry the ladder, with a small man to climb it. If someone wanted to push it, BRH and Fisch could fit the comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2012 12:49:35 GMT -5
Michael, thank you for looking for information on the weekends prior to the kidnapping weekend. I appreciate your willingness to look for things even if they may have no real bearing on this crime.
The timeline is important. If you go by the no inside help or knowledge input from any of the Lindbergh and Morrow staff, choosing the opportune time to enter and remove Charlie from the nursery would be no easy task. There are the shutters, the window possibly being locked, the awkward entry getting in from the ladder, the unknown obstacle course awaiting him once he is on the window sill and then making sure that not one item including the beer stein is at all disturbed. Then going to the crib to remove the sleeping baby which he would have to either render unconscious or kill, put the baby in a burlap bag, wipe down parts of the nursery for whatever reason then climb back out the window without disturbing anything again, get his footing on the ladder, put the ransom note on the window sill and then close the window and climb down. How much time might something like this take? If he waits untill all the lights are off on the second floor where the nursery room is then he would have from 8 p.m. until around 8:20 to do this crime. Lindbergh is coming up the driveway by 8:25 and he might have seen the ladder or the kidnapper removing the ladder at that time. The Lindberghs go upstairs at 8:30 to wash up for dinner then come down to eat and finish by 9 p.m. Perhaps the kidnapper commits the crime between 8:35 and 8:50 and then leaves the scene. We have the dogs barking and interacting with the fleeing kidnapper at 9 p.m. near the entrance to Lindbergh drive. How the prints leading to Featherbed Lane fit into this I just don't know. One kidnapper can't go both ways. How do we know which evidence to disregard and what to accept? Which set of footprints do you we use and what about the dogs barking at 9? Just a coincidence? And most importantly, how does he know when it is safest to enter that nursery?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 25, 2012 12:56:54 GMT -5
As long as I’m making comparisons to Hollywood, I can’t believe how similar this case is to those old Perry Mason episodes—a long list of suspects, and innumerable twists in the evidence. Can’t you just see Perry breaking down someone like Elisabeth Morrow on the stand until she blurts out, “Yes! Yes! I killed him!” Then she looks at Anne in the courtroom, and says: “I hate you! I always hated you! You know I should have married Charles! ” Then she breaks down bawling as the Perry Mason theme music begins to play.
|
|