|
Post by bookrefuge on May 25, 2012 14:40:41 GMT -5
Amy, we know that Lupica saw the laddered vehicle at about 6PM. We know that Lupica was driving slowly as he was reading his mail, and that the laddered vehicle pulled over for a moment—perhaps briefly wondering if Lupica’s car was “the one he was looking for.”
We also know that both Kuchta and Kristofek saw a rather suspicious curtained touring car on that same road twice that day, once about 6PM (same time as Lupica), that there were at least two occupants, and that they gestured toward Lindbergh’s driveway.
It sounds as if the man in the laddered car was very possibly headed for a rendezvous with the touring car. Featherbed Lane, where the Conovers spotted a car turning its lights on and off, might have been a good place for a clandestine rendezvous. It was dark, quiet, and the next street up from Lindbergh’s driveway.
Oscar Bush said there was evidence of two cars on Featherbed Lane. The on-off on-off headlights seen by the Conovers may have been one car signaling its arrival to the other.
Since one set of footprints leaving Highfields went to Featherbed Lane, and the other went to the abandoned house/chicken coop at the entrance to Lindbergh’s driveway, it sounds as if one car was left on Featherbed Lane, I’m guessing the ladder car. The large touring car—which was probably the getaway car—moved out, possibly with everyone inside including the ladder. This car may have made its way up to near Highfields—either via the driveway or access roads, and dropped off the kidnappers as well as the ladder. This would explain no footprints leading TOWARD Highfields.
I’m guessing the touring car then waited down near the abandoned house, off the Amwell-Hopewell Road where the footprints ended. Sounds like after the snatch, one kidnapper brought the kid down to this car—encountering Kuchta’s dog at this point—while the other kidnapper (the one seen by Lupica who brought the ladder) made his way back to his car on Featherbed Lane. There’s no way he takes the ladder with him, because a car with a ladder will automatically be suspect once the police are alerted.
There are endless possible scenarios, but right now it’s the one I like best.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 25, 2012 15:32:39 GMT -5
Nicely done, Bookrefuge! I like this a lot. If, in fact, there were two diverging sets of footprints (one leading down the access road, the other to Featherbed), rather than two sets both leading down the access road (which has maybe gotten conflated with Featherbed), this is an excellent working hypothesis. I especially like your explanation for why they wouldn't have taken the ladder with them--who wants to be seen with a ladder in their car after word of the kidnapping breaks? Rather embarrassed this didn't occur to me sooner. Now we just need to figure out exactly how they got into the house and nursery...
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 25, 2012 16:52:29 GMT -5
The theory I personally favor is the one discussed earlier in this long thread—one kidnapper enters the house through a ground-floor window, possibly left unlocked by the very same insider (in my opinion—it’s just an opinion--Whateley), who (1) tipped the kidnappers right over the Highfields telephone; (2) doped the baby’s food so he wouldn’t waken and cry, and (3) restrained Wahgoosh during the snatch. The kidnapper made his way upstairs to the nursery in his stocking feet. He then opened the window and shutter for his partner with the ladder outside, eliminating all guesswork and difficulty of getting through the window. Since there’s the mud near the window, it looks like the partner had to be pulled inside for a moment to assist with the kid. They then made their way back out, and down the ladder, probably causing the “crack” Lindbergh heard. They carried the ladder a few feet away so it wouldn’t tip over and crash in the gale, attracting premature attention. The stocking-foot kidnapper then puts his boots back on. He takes off with the kid for the touring car waiting near the abandoned house, and his partner, ladderman, returns to his car on Featherbed Lane. Maybe things got accelerated or altered by the arrival of Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 25, 2012 23:02:17 GMT -5
I think this is good. It's a basic framework of events which I tend to favor now as well. But while he's always been something of a mysterious figure, I'm curious as to why you think Whateley tipped the kidnappers. Does anyone know anything about his life or associations?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 26, 2012 7:38:32 GMT -5
I’ll add a couple of things to this suggested scenario. Betty Gow said she finished in the nursery at 7:50 PM. I don’t know if you could see Highfields from Featherbed Lane, but I’m guessing that they had a vantage point where they could, probably aided by binoculars. The nursery faced Featherbed. I’m guessing that when they saw the light go out in the nursery at 7:50 and stay out, they pulled out of Featherbed, and drove around and up Lindbergh’s driveway, accounting for the sound of a car on gravel that Anne heard between 8:05 and 8:10.
Now one thing that’s been bugging me is this. If they thought Lindbergh wouldn’t be home until late, why didn’t the car just wait right there? If they had a quick snatch, they could have thrown the kid in the car and driven with him right back down Lindbergh’s driveway—this would be much easier than carrying him on foot down to the abandoned house. I think the answer to this is Anne Lindbergh—she was in the library directly below the nursery from 7:30 until Lindbergh arrived at 8:25. There is NO WAY they could make any move, sounds in the nursery, or put up that ladder, until she left the library. Since they didn’t know how long she’d be in the library, the driver probably wasn’t willing to wait indefinitely, and the decision was made for him to go back down and wait on the Hopewell-Amwell Road near the abandoned house. He was probably glad he did, as he wouldn’t have missed running into Lindbergh by much.
Of course, this is all theory, I don’t mean to state it as fact.
LJ, as to Whateley’s motives, I don’t want to go there just yet. What I would say would be highly controversial and unprovable; let me just suggest there might have been a connection to British intelligence (now called MI6), which Jacob Nosovitsky worked for, and which has long been considered—by some who study it—to be more concerned with carrying out the dirty work of the “Establishment” than Britain’s national security.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2012 8:30:47 GMT -5
I think the Parents are the "natural" Suspects for this type of event especially with all that has happened over the years concerning similar situations. I would say they should be the first to get looked at, then cleared, so there would be no distractions as to the search. Here we have the Police completely eliminating them. They did this not only without any investigation, but by making excuses themselves if and when something arose that should have (at least) been looked at. Then they allowed Lindbergh himself to run the Investigation. An example of this Law Enforcement "catastrophe" is this (for one): He prevents the lie detector from being used with the Servant interviews for both the Morrow & Lindbergh Families claiming it was, in essence, undignified and embarrassing. He would support this decision by claiming the utmost faith in their innocence, but yet, at other times say while its hard for him to accept - that it's possible one may have been involved. You know, stuff like that. Whether or not you consider the Parents to be suspects, this would be the ideal situation for any Parent who WAS involved. So the justification for taking a look-see is there. Questions like this help me, and I am sure others, to learn certain facts. I would say any fact helps us to get closer to the truth. By bringing up they hadn't been there the last two weekends in a row - it shows all the more reason for us to consider inside help, or information (in the least). I still want to mention, as an alternative, that Kevin at one time suggested the possibility they struck not knowing the child was there and their original intent was something else. Finding the child there they altered their plans..... Anyway Amy, I've had this (perhaps false) sense that I had read the answer to your question. But the more I look the less I find. There are so many sources that I could be right but not find it, or in the alternative, I could be mistakenly associating it with something else I've read somewhere. I called on the big guns by asking Mark Falzini for help. He didn't know off the top of his head and went to the Statements like I had. I went to the Trial Transcripts and there really wasn't an answer there either. On p.397 Betty says, in essence, the previous weekend they (Lindbergh's) stayed " in the Morrow home with the the baby". Gow also says in her testimony that the child was not sick when he left Englewood for the weekend to go to Hopewell. That he must have gotten the "slight cold" while there. In case you haven't seen his Statement I linked it up from Ronelle's site. If you have read this already - what else are you looking for?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2012 9:21:23 GMT -5
I still believe it's a possibility. We assume too many things in this case and from those assumptions grow theories. Sometimes it's best to start with a simple explanation. The funny thing is that often the simple explanations get dismissed offhand ( it can't be that simple) while the complicated theories involving infanticide, eugenics, organized crime and conspiracy, international espionage, etc, take on a life of their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2012 10:24:48 GMT -5
Michael, I have read that when Betty was called to come to Highfields on Tuesday morning she did lament about the baby getting sick again. So perhaps Charlie was not feeling well during a portion of those two weekends. Could some of his bouts of illness have actually been caused by the large dosage of Vitamin D he was taking? Too much in his system could cause physical illness. I don't know if it would cause death though. Maybe BR could expound on this a bit.
OK Kevkon. I want to know what your theory is about the perpetrators entering for another reason but then finding the child changed there game plan. Please share what you can. I am always willing to look at other angles!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 26, 2012 11:57:44 GMT -5
Very interesting, Bookrefuge. Again, I like your timeline and explanations. I think a good reason for using the on foot/access road escape route (as opposed to a driver just waiting in the car by the house) would also be that they didn't want to risk having their car spotted by anyone in the house, let alone potentially getting boxed in by any new arrivals (it was risky enough driving up to the house for the dropoff; keeping the car there for however long it took the kidnappers to get in and out would leave it way too exposed). And yeah, Kevkon, please share. While, right now, I'm primarily interested in nailing down the nuts and bolts of the actual execution of the crime (which can admittedly get complex), I'm all about keeping it simple. I think in the first post I put up on this board I said something about the simplest explanation usually being the best one, that I tend to shy away from elaborate conspiracy theories, so why would the kidnappers have broken in if not to grab the baby? And Michael, thanks for Whateley's statement.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 26, 2012 12:17:55 GMT -5
Thanks, LJ.
Here continuing the scenario begun in my last few posts. (I’m using Falzini’s timeline.)
With Anne in the library, directly beneath the nursery, the kidnappers could not contemplate entering the nursery or placing the ladder. They could not safely strike before she left the library to greet her husband at 8:25. Lindbergh went upstairs to wash his hands, so they had to wait still a bit longer. The Lindberghs sat down to dine at 8:35 PM. At approximately 9PM Lindbergh heard the “crack” and Kuchta’s dog started barking. So it looks like the snatch very probably occurred between 8:35 and 9PM. This was the safest time, because it was not likely the Lindberghs would interrupt their dinner, and the dining room was a fair distance from nursery.
This means Red Johnsen placed his 8:45 call to Betty at just about the time the snatch was getting underway. It’s very coincidental; enough to arouse suspicion. Was he pinning Betty to the phone while the Lindberghs were pinned to dinner?
Of course, the question could be asked—How could Red know just what time to call? Easily enough, if by prearrangement Whateley dialed the number where Red was staying, let it ring once as a signal and then hung up. Then Red calls right back, Whateley answers the phone, and gets Betty.
I have never liked Red’s explanation that he called Betty from a drugstore, supposedly because he didn’t want the Junges to have to pay for a toll call. If he wanted to save the Junges money, he could have paid them for the call just as easily as he could insert coins at a drugstore phone booth. Now if Red had called from the Junges, there’d be a record of the toll call on the phone bill, wouldn’t there? And that would support Red’s being there. Is his story about the “drugstore” because he was nowhere near the Junges’ residence at the time—but was instead near Hopewell?
Michael, you recently mentioned the police finding mud on Red’s car. Was there any eyewitness who testified to seeing Red in the drugstore? I know the Junges backed his alibi, but this could have been a case of mutually supporting alibis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2012 13:45:47 GMT -5
BR, I like how you are laying this crime out. Red Johnsen had, through Betty, access to Highfields and the Lindbergh schedule. He also knew with Betty there that the normal 8 to 10 pm. don't disturb the baby would be in place for sure. That we definitely aid in knowing when to get into the nursery. Looking at Mark Falzini's time, Anne's statement and court testimony put her in the livingroom at her desk between 7:30 and 8:25 when Lindbergh arrives home. I believe the door between the livingroom and library was closed so she would not have seen or heard any activity on the southeast side of the house. Perhaps the kidnappers were dropped off from the driveway and used the boardwalk to approach the nursery windows. They would not have left footprints in their approach to that side of the house. I, too, have thought that the call could have been made by Red from Hopewell. The whole driving around for several hours on a very cold night in March in New York for no apparent reason bothers me too. Why do you think the Junges would provide Red an alibi for anything? I really don't think any of these people were BFF's. So why do that? LJ, perhaps there is a simple explanation for this whole crime. Trying to account for everything we come across makes it more and more difficult to figure out. When you read through Mark Falzini's timeline of the statements and testimony of the primary players in all of this makes, it is hard to get a concise picture of the events of that night. Trying not to overthink everything in this case is quite a challenge!
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 26, 2012 13:49:57 GMT -5
amy they grilled red johnson in hartford and in new jersey. i dont think he was involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2012 14:41:01 GMT -5
Hey Wolf2. If not Red then who was the person who would have tipped off Hauptmann or anyone else who may have been involved in this crime. Someone had to tell the people in New York that the Lindberghs were there that Tuesday night with the baby. I know there is always Violet Sharp but she is a harder sell for me. Another board member told me that she sold info to the newpaper people. That is not the same as passing information to kidnappers.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2012 15:27:32 GMT -5
Why is that absolutely necessary? And if it's so, why must it be someone within the Lindbergh circle? Is it not possible that like so many crimes and events the kidnappers were lucky? It may be hard to believe but fate is like that. Is it also not possible that in an area like Hopewell that many would know of the Lindberghs stay? Would there not be interaction between the staff and the locals such as buying additional food or going to the pharmacy? I'm not saying that the kidnappers were not aided by an insider, but on the other hand I really believe that this assumption should not be taken as fact because it's not. If for example, I surveyed the house on a weekend or even a weeknight and saw it ablaze with lights, might it not be possible to assume that they were living there full time? Obviously, everyone is free to make whatever assumptions they wish, but I think it's wise to always keep in mind that they are just assumptions less you end up with a house of cards.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 26, 2012 16:08:51 GMT -5
Amy, Red Johnsen would be a prime suspect for me too, except for the fact that, some odd behavior aside (which you quite rightly point out), they just never found anything on him. As Wolf says, he was grilled, and he didn't seem like some sort of hardened criminal pro, so if there was anything to shake loose, my guess is it would have. Just a guess though. And as to this idea of inside help, I go back and forth. For a long time I didn't think it would've been necessary, that these guys just lucked into finding the baby at Highfields that night. But, then again, those would be pretty long odds and people keep saying they have other information that someone tipped or hired the kidnappers, so I still don't know for sure which camp I'm in on this...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2012 17:02:24 GMT -5
Why do I think it is necessary that they would have to be tipped off? Well, if the baby was their objective in this crime they would have needed to know for sure that the baby was there that night. The Lindberghs were not there for the two weekends before that like they usually would be. If they were tipped that the Lindberghs were once again at Highfields, they decided to go for it. Otherwise, Hauptmann and whoever else was involved would have to make trips regularly to inquire if the Lindberghs were there with the baby or look to see if the nursery was in use at the house.
On the other hand if they weren't after the baby but interested in the family silverware or something then I guess any night would have been good. The Lindberghs didn't need to be there at all. And why even bother with a ladder and the shuttered room? Any room on ground level would have worked and been much easier to do.
So what am I missing here, Kevkon???
LJ, I know how you feel. I can't imagine any of the people at Highfields giving up info that would allow Charlie to be kidnapped. Maybe the intruders did get lucky that night but why use the nursery window then. Why not an easier entry point if it wasn't about Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 26, 2012 22:23:54 GMT -5
It's not that I'd like to believe none of the household staff would do this, so much as I don't know why anyone would. Seems crazy: You have a good job at a time when countless are unemployed, working for one of the finest families in the country, the head of which is the most famous man in the world. Why mess with that? And why take a chance on being found out in the media frenzy and high level of scrutiny to follow? I can see how the kidnappers wouldn't have necessarily needed an insider: It was common knowledge where the Lindbergh house was, and the kidnappers could've quite reasonably assumed that they lived there full-time and just got lucky. Pretty long odds, but real life is full of them. On the other hand, there are scraps of information and red flags (which have been pored over here) to suggest an insider, but, at the same time, there's no definite proof of that, so, again, I bounce back and forth on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 27, 2012 7:27:53 GMT -5
There is no definitive proof against Red and wolf2 is right about the police shaking nothing loose from him. The timing of his phone call, which appears to be right during the crime, is annoying. In fact, it is conceivable that the sound of the phone ringing was a signal to the kidnappers to commence the snatch.
As I think about it, however, 8:45 would probably be a reasonable time for Red to call his girlfriend, since he must have known Betty would be tied up with the baby until about 8. Still, isn’t a little nervy to tie up Charles Lindbergh’s private phone line with a call to your girl?
I will say that if I was planning this crime, I would not only want information about the Highfields layout, I’d want information about the baby—his routine, was he apt to cry, etc. I can think of no better way to do that than by getting someone to romance the baby’s nurse. You obviously aren’t going to romance Anne Lindbergh.
Hm—just thinking out loud here. I believe Kevkon mentioned the servants stairs as a possible means of access for an intruder. Looking at the house floor plan, isn’t that the stairs next to the servants sitting room, where Betty was hanging out? I wonder if Red’s phone call didn’t pull Betty away from a place where she could see those stairs. I’ve asked Michael about the location of the phone before, and I think we drew a blank. Just wondering aloud here if Red’s phone call might have diverted Betty while the stocking-footed intruder made his way up those stairs to commence the crime.
Amy, you were wondering about the Red Johnsen-Junge link. I’ve mentioned the interesting circle (Marguerite Junge is the sister of the governess in the E. 70th street home of Lindbergh’s adversary James Warburg; a block away from Warburg on E. 70th is Warburg’s ally Thomas Lamont, who employs…Red Johnsen.)
There’s one other item that just might relate. If you check out the Mersman table, which some consider to be the actual template for the ransom note signatures, it bears a confession that begins “In Hamburg I wore velvet and silk…” For whatever it’s worth—and that may be nothing—Marguerite Junge and her sister were, like Warburg, from Hamburg.
Of course, so were countless other immigrants from Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 27, 2012 8:23:30 GMT -5
I haven't been able to find a drugstore eyewitness yet and there may not be one but I am not ready to say so at this point. However, you'll remember Red made the claim that he and the Jung's went out for a ride afterwards and at some point stopped at a Confectionery Store next the to Plaza Theater in Englewood at about 9:45PM. An Employee working there (Jenny Thiessen) identified both Mr. Jung and Red as having been there that night sometime between 8:30PM & 9:30PM.
He was even beaten at some point. It's funny because Red had a lot of unlikely friends during his detention: Condon, Mrs. Morrow, the NJSP, and Cemetery John.
I am all for Luck ocurring, because it does from time to time happen. But I have a hard time believing each and every step was successful due to luck. There's too much luck needed. If you break it down one at a time you will see that. One place - yes - everywhere - no.
There's even certain things we don't consider, for example, Keaten, while briefing Sisk made the following statement: "There are numerous unimproved country roads going in every direction and it is a very easy matter for a stranger to become lost."
And so, with just this one point of fact, if this is Hauptmann without any help whatsoever, here is his first lucky break by not getting lost. If it isn't "luck" then what is it? Well its evidence of serious planning. And so its one or the other if you ask me. Therefore we certainly can factor in one, maybe two lucky breaks involved in this crime as a possibility, but we cannot say it was luck everywhere we need it to be, but planning everywhere we need that too.
I am not saying you are saying that Kevin, but I needed to voice my opinion about the subject of luck and think we need to apply common sense to its application to the crime.
I do get your point about the pit-falls of tunnel vision and that everyone should consider differing possibilities. Holding onto something with a death grip while ignoring other answers is a big fear of mine when it comes to researching this Case. However, another one of my biggest fears is that the luck card can be played anywhere, anytime - even all of the time - when attempting to explain events. Like a Joker, there should only be one, maybe two in the deck.
This is a good point. I read in a report that while standing where the child had been found, they could see Highfields lit up like a Lantern. So if you know that's the home, then you must know someone is there when the lights are on.
By the same argument, why would Sharp kill herself? She had a great job, had saved around $2K, and would have to know that by killing herself at that time - everyone would believe she was involved in some way.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 27, 2012 8:31:40 GMT -5
I'll play this scenario again. The guard who had worked at Highfields, who CAL let go. Can't find his name. #1 knew the house and grounds layout, access roads, etc #2 Had housesat during the week before the crime. may have retained a key (locked pantry door) #3 Lindberghs plans changed #4 Whateleys may have been planning another excursion that week so had to cancel and let the housesitter know. #5 Guard alerts other perp(s) #6 enters front door. feet would not have left mud on stairway because front area is paved/graveled over. #7 opens nursery window and shutters which signals ladder perp. #8 kills or drugs baby #9 hands bundle out the window. #10 maybe wipes fingerprints #11 puts ransom note on windowsill #12 leaves the way he came in
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 10:38:16 GMT -5
Mairi, That is a really good scenario for the crime. It would make it easier and faster to accomplish. Was the guard ever investigated as a potential accomplice? He could have entered in stocking feet too and then used the board walk to go around to the window side of the house. This would also clear all the servants of involvement too.
From what everyone is saying, it would be safe to cross off Red Johnsen from the suspect list. I still wonder why Betty and Red made several visits to Highfields? I thought the Whateleys didn't like Betty very much so why would they want to socialize like that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 27, 2012 12:04:41 GMT -5
To be clear, my position is not that intelligence and advance planning was not employed in this case. What I am saying is that, like it or not, it was not needed to the degree many believe. Just like the ladder, I know it can be used to get in and out of the Nursery without help. That doesn't mean I believe that was the case. Highfields was an extremely inviting target. It stood out and was easily re conned, it was not secure, it had many entry points, and due to the location in such a small town area, it would be pretty easy for someone to find out what the status was regarding the Lindbergh's. Think about the interaction between the household and the local town and what that would reveal. The Whatelys could inadvertently give out all the information a kidnapper would need during a simple visit to the grocer. That's how simple it can be. Another point, we really don't know if this was a one shot deal. It's very possible that the kidnappers had made a prior attempt(s).
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 27, 2012 13:54:53 GMT -5
A couple of passing thoughts that occur to me about items mentioned in this thread.
First—regarding the idea that the kidnappers assumed the Lindberghs always lived at Highfields, and were lucky in finding the baby there that Tuesday.
I don’t think so. The kidnappers seemed to know where the nursery was located, right? If that’s the case, anyone doing recon during the week would see the nursery was always dark. I can’t think of any reason why the Whateleys would keep the lights on in the nursery. Therefore, I assume that anyone doing recon knew the baby wasn’t there. In fact, it was recently stated in this thread that the Lindberghs hadn’t even been at Highfields the two weekends before the snatch, so that nursery would have been dark for about three weeks running. I can’t see anyone thinking the baby always lived there.
Second—I acknowledge that Red Johnsen was probably innocent in all this. But I just want to point out something. There seems to be a feeling that, because Red stood up to police grilling for a few days, and never cracked, that he was innocent. Yet look at BRH: he stood up to much longer grillings, was beaten with hammers, and even walked to the electric chair—yet he never cracked either. Still, some people say something like, “Well, that’s because Hauptmann was a tough customer who wouldn’t talk.” Now granted, the cops had goods on BRH that they didn’t have on Red (the ransom money), but it seems to me that maybe Red gets “benefit of the doubt” unduly here. In other words, if we apply the same standard to him as BRH, we could consider the possibility that Red was also a “tough customer who wouldn’t talk.”
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 27, 2012 15:36:00 GMT -5
Hi Amy, Hope you're having a nice Holiday weekend.
I don't know if this guard was investigated. I'm guessing he would have been. The trouble for me is that I've managed to read so little about him. The A&M book refers to him. If memory serves I believe that's where it was said he had housesat. Somewhere else I've seen passsing reference to him, but can't recall where. Maybe someone can point us to a little more about him. I don't know that he would need to be in stocking feet or that he went around to the ladder side of the house. I rather wonder if he had done his part by getting in and passing the baby out the window and maybe leaving the ransom note. To my mind he may fill the bill in a number of respects. ex: so many suspected that a "local" was involved.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 27, 2012 16:39:33 GMT -5
Mairi, I believe the "guard" or watchman lived in the house at the driveway entrance later to be used as a gatehouse by the NJSP.
I believe that there may very well have been a local connection to this crime as well, but no one in the Lindbergh employ at the time of the crime.
I know it's difficult for many of you who have never visited the site. The house is really not that large and believe me it is an open book as far as viewing from the exterior. From just one or two positions on the outside you could tell what was going on anywhere in the house. Also, due to a policy of not locking everything up, there were many avenues of entry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 16:49:43 GMT -5
Hi Mari
Enjoying the long weekend. Have a cookout to go to tomorrow. Hope it doesn't rain. I hope that your weekend is going great.
The reason I thought he might be in stocking feet is because of the footprint impressions found at the scene in the mud. Trying to link things up. Not at all easy with this case! I think Michael might have posted something about a guard that Lindbergh employed for awhile but then let him go because he thought he didn't need him. I am going to look around at some of the other threads to see if I can find it. I really want to take another look at this fellow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 17:20:19 GMT -5
So that house really was used at some point when the Lindberghs sort of lived at Highfields. I thought it was empty for a long time.
Kevkon, you really do have an advantage since you are able to go to Highfields. You can really look at the scene and imagine how it might have played out.
Where did the Lindberghs get this false sense of security from? I really don't understand that at all. Did they really think that they were so untouchable? With all the kidnappings that were taking place, I am blown away when you say they were not consistent in locking down that house. Someone could very well have walked in there as Mairi said in her post.
BR, those thoughts crossed my mine too. Some people just don't talk no matter what. If Red was involved in some way, he knows he would have to keep quiet. Its like dominos, if one falls they all go down. He wasn't going to let that happen. But Michael says that there is a witness that shows Red was not in Hopewell at the time the crime was committed. Guess I need to move on to someone else.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 27, 2012 18:59:14 GMT -5
Kevkon, Thank you for that piece of info about the guard. I will tuck that in my bonnet Amy, One other little scrap. When Cal let the watchman go, Morrow Sr urged him not to because of possible kidnappers. (Of course he had reason to fear that) One source said Cal let him go so no one would think he/they were afraid. Think of all the sightseers cruising the great Lindbergh's place!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 27, 2012 19:35:07 GMT -5
Mairi,
The Watchman's name you are thinking about is Hurley and he was investigated by the NJSP. They made an attempt to investigate everyone who was employed at Highfields in any capacity.
Kevin, while I am positive they kept the tools, gear, and supplies in that house, I do not believe anyone lived there. Hurley definitely lived in Hopewell. They just made use of it to secure things. (Of course you might know something I don't) There was one occasion where things were stolen - but I don't know when or if using this house was a reaction to that or not.
I am satisfied that he was in Englewood at the time. However, there could be involvement without actually being present in Hopewell during the actual commission of the crime. Additionally, even if someone was investigated, and cleared - I personally don't write that person off. I will give you a couple of reasons why.....
Arthur Barry was cleared when Condon looked at his hands to determine he didn't have the unique identifying "lump." The fact he didn't look like Cemetery John was secondary to this. And so Barry, who was being accused of involvement well into the 1950s was immediately cleared. Yet, Hauptmann had no such lump, AND Condon said he wasn't Cemetery John. So basing anything on Condon in the past makes me think it should all be re-opened or at least reviewed.
Another point is they had Suspects write then compared it to the Ransom Letters. If it didn't compare they were "cleared." I was always baffled by that especially when the Police were proceeding on the theory that multiple Parties were involved in the crime. Next, once the "J. J. Faulkner" deposit slip became evidence, they were having Suspects write that and comparing their handwriting to that slip.
The Experts were all saying that slip didn't match the Ransom Notes handwriting.
So doesn't common sense say no one should have been cleared based upon their earlier comparisons to the Ransom Notes only? That's why this case is so hard. We have stuff, but the circumstances that exist which surround it could change it, challenge it, or ruin it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 28, 2012 9:47:13 GMT -5
You are correct Michael, I was referring to where he stayed during work. Amy, I don't know if it was a sense of security or what. The area was so rural, perhaps Lindbergh just felt he was away from the bad elements.
|
|