kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 18, 2012 15:30:43 GMT -5
Joe, directly due South brings one pretty far in on Featherbed. That would be out of vision for the Conovers as there was a stand of trees.
Good point about a surreptitious visit. I don't know if they would have stood out or not. I have the deepest suspicion that we should be looking for someone who worked there.
Joe, the ladder can be climbed without help. It's the getting off and back on that is the problem. Because it's so light and flimsy coupled with the non-locking first joint it wants to kick out or fold out whenever a force is exerted laterally or away from the wall. In fact, even a moderate wind can knock it over. Now add to this that you must work the shutters and window 30" above and to the left of the very top rung, enter, exit with a passenger, leave a note, and shut the window and it just doesn't work without assistance. If you go to the three section configuration you absolutely need help in erecting it while leaving only the marks found on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2012 16:38:42 GMT -5
I've never found a smoking gun - yet. It's just a million puzzle pieces that need to find a place to fit together. I considered several theories to see what worked better then the others under the circumstances. Nothing is written in stone - and shouldn't be.
True. But I think if you have an irrational situation then its needs to be thought out until one reaches a logical conclusion. If these Kidnappers have ice water running through their veins then its kinda hard to think they "panicked" over any situation. It's also hard to think they "cared" about anything except themselves. And finally, it's hard to accept they'd risk their lives to bring the corpse to where it was found for no (on the surface) benefit to themselves for doing so.
Long gone. Honestly, if there weren't pictures of it then it would be hard to visualize it ever being there.
If you stumble on the source that says it was a round trip could you post it? I don't believe I've ever seen it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2012 16:59:46 GMT -5
Kevin, if I recall correctly, there is actually a north-south laneway that ran south off what is generally known today as Featherbed Lane. I have seen references to this north-south laneway as Featherbed Lane with the main east-west route called Featherbed Road. Anyway, I believe the Conovers lived close to the corner where these two routes met. And yes, I would think the Conovers probably saw the car struggling in the mud at a point due east of where the car, thought to have belonged to the kidnapper, was parked for his hike to the Lindbergh house. What is your understanding of the route taken by the kidnapper(s) and the significance of the Conover sighting?
I agree that crucial information could well have been provided by a workman at the site, one who was ultimately able to play the role of someone who didn’t have a clue, when plied by investigators. I believe that stoic ability ran fairly deep within the Hauptmann household and among their circle of friends and acquaintances.
When I look at the possibility of a one-man abduction and that same person climbing and descending that ladder, a number of things strike me. The climb wouldn't be that bad, (and never seems to be for anyone including me) because you’re starting from a height that can’t hurt you. Descending from a height that can kill you though, in the dark and weighted down with an awkward package, makes this pretty much an impossibility, as far as I’m concerned.
If the kidnapper had the planning insight to lower the child in a bag from the window sill, much of the problem is eliminated and now only leaves the danger of getting back safely onto the ladder. Because of its flimsiness, could he not have tied off the top of the ladder through the shutter vanes (I’m not sure if they would have to be dogged or secured to the wall first, as there would be good footing in the soft ground) with a short length of stiff wire prior to entering the nursery and then removing it on the way down? I’ve mentioned these points previously but can’t remember the response.
Now I realize there is a lot happening in this scenario, but if this was a one-man job, which I am now more inclined to believe, this part of the operation would absolutely have demanded the most thorough and thought-out plan of attack along with an automatic troubleshooting guide. There is no room for oversight or error here.. at least that should have been the intent, even if this wasn't ultimately acted upon 100%, the dowel joint flaw being a good example.
I do believe three sections of the ladder were used to gain access to the nursery and that this was preceded by two sections (ladder marks on the wall) being used to ensure the inside of the right shutter was swung into a position to provide a resting point for the tips of the third section.
The point you make about the third section requiring help based on the marks found on the ground is interesting, but I would think that for any ladder marks to be visible on the ground, if that's what you mean, the scene would also have clearly revealed the foot prints of that one additional person providing assistance. I may have missed something here, so can you explain this statement more fully?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2012 17:10:29 GMT -5
BTW, I do tend to bore in on particular aspects in the time I allot myself for this case, so sorry if I don't respond right away to others' points! And Mairi, thanks for your previous greeting that I just saw recently. I'm doing well and glad to see you are still enjoying this crazy case!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 19, 2012 9:19:41 GMT -5
The problem is what logic do you employ? Do you use the logic of a law abiding honest and intelligent person like yourself or that of some criminals with a dead baby on their hands and a need to get out of Dodge asap?
Joe, I believe the Conover farmhouse is right on Lindbergh Rd just South of Featherbed. I was going by your response to the question of where exactly the footprint trail was. I have never seen anything that exactly maps it, but if you are correct and it went directly South from the staging area then it would intersect Featherbed quite a distance in from the road and would be out of the line of vision from the Conovers.
I don't think that a workman just gave information out, I believe there is a strong possibility that someone who worked there was involved in the crime. Most criminals strike within a comfort zone. The knowledge of the house and the lay of the land strongly suggests to me that at least one participant had that comfort from first hand experience. I doubt that even the Lindberghs were as knowledgeable of the various roads in the area. Look at where the body was found, it's one of the few roads with no houses.
Regarding the ladder, we do have one very good piece of evidence, the photo Trooper Kelly took of the imprints in the ground. If you look at that photo closely you will see the 2" deep impressions made by the ladder bottom section. You can also see the compression of the soil as the legs moved toward the house while under the weight of a climber. Looking even closer you can notice the slight impressions of the ladder in a completely vertical position. These are just slightly to the right and closer to the house. These marks were made with no loading other than the weight of the ladder itself and were probably made while setting the ladder, though they could have been made while removing it as well. To do this maneuver with three sections would require another to keep the ladder from folding towards the house. The reason is that the joint between section 1 and 2 does not lock the sections together as rigidly as the joint between section 2 and 3. What you have in effect with the 3 section ladder is a rigidly connected 13' ladder atop a non rigid 6'8" ladder. I can erect all three sections by myself but with great difficulty. To do this I turn the ladder 90 degrees while footing it. However there are several problems with this action. One, it leaves completely different marks in the ground than those recorded at Highfields. Two, the dowels tend to fall out. Three, you have very little control over where the top falls on the house and if it's not right you can only slide it as pulling it away from the wall causes it to hinge. It's not a pretty exercise and I wouldn't even think of doing it in the dark with any type of wind.
As far as footprints at the base, I honestly have no answer. Kelly's photo is concentrated on the imprints and it's very tough to ascertain anything other than the holes. But you have suggested multiple climbs which I happen to agree with. Surely this would also result in additional prints in the same way as a second person would. All that I can come up with is that area was contaminated by others who ruined some of the evidence and only the footprints known to be those of the kidnapper were recorded. But who knows?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 19, 2012 11:27:08 GMT -5
Continuing a recent post in which I mentioned an "insider" handing the baby out the window: I'm playing - repeat "playing" - with the possibility that the guard CAL let go was the inside perp -both entering and exiting by way of front door. Obviously he knew the layout of the house and property. Surely he was investigated - police probably feeling he had an acceptable alibi. I've not been able to read much about him. I believe A& M said he house-sat for the Whatelys to bust loose from the boonies and if memory serves he had done so in the week before the kidnap.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 19, 2012 13:40:47 GMT -5
The notion's also occurred to me that one of the workmen, advertently or inadvertently, could've passed some information about the layout of the house and surrounding area on to the kidnappers, but I've never heard of anything tangible against anyone. But this guard sounds interesting. Who was he?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 19, 2012 17:56:57 GMT -5
Hi LJ, CAL had a guard there for awhile, but decided to let him go. I can't come up with his name
Also - another name I can't recall-bad eye doesn't let me search-so we'll need some help. A current day pathologist opines that there was no skull fracture. That the skull plates just fell apart at the suture lines at the autopsy. Interesting to consider. I just don't think the chisel was a weapon. Had it been so I think you would have found a distinctive shape and type of fracture. Comminuted fracture, maybe.
Kevkon I tend to believe the burlap bag was used, for ease of carrying. A dead body or deeply drugged is floppy and hard to handle. You shared another good picture with us!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2012 18:58:11 GMT -5
I do understand your point but I think in terms of someone who has been working with people convicted for a variety of crimes 40 hours a week for the last 21 years, as well as someone, when I had vacation time, that I spent in the Archives from 2000-2011. Even now I will venture down there when need be (I've spent about 30 hours there this year already). So when I think in terms of this point above, I try to utilize everything. Sometimes I am behind it, sometimes I am playing "Devil's Advocate" and sometimes I am just fishing or throwing it out there. Nothing's "fool-proof" and different people do different things in similar situations too. Plus there are a multitude of "situational" circumstances to consider.
If someone were to say that whoever brought the child back didn't do it for Lindy, rather, as a "thrill-seeker" type then I could understand, at least, what their reasoning would be. I'd still say it doesn't make any sense because they have shown a propensity to use the Mail so why change it up so drastically? But here I am arguing against something no one has put forth - only that I have already considered it myself so I assume maybe others may have as well. Perhaps this is the type of discussion I am attempting to draw out here.....
The NJSP believed so too. They conducted a lengthy investigation concerning this. It's also interesting to note that many of those who worked there were Locals and/or lived nearby in local areas. Some were even NYers.
There was only (1) print facing the house located at the base of the ladder. We have to remember that certain Troopers were there before any Reporters came onto the scene. Might the assistance come from someone on the boardwalk? Even if there was just one person, which I do not believe, they seemed to do a great job of staying on that walk themselves - so why not two people?
First of all, this is GREAT research and it puts so many others who have come before you in that vein to shame.
Now, might the ladder have scissored? Could the marks on the side of the house actually be evidence of that instead of what we think? Just wanted to see what your thoughts would be on this.....
To Piggy-Back off of Mairi's point. Could someone already in the Nursery have reached out to assist with the raising of the 3 sections? Again, just wanted to see if you think its possible.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 20, 2012 6:19:26 GMT -5
i never saw kel having great difficulty putting together the three sections of the ladder. i dont think the ladder scissored going up. if three sections was used, and i dont think it was, but i could see it happening.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 20, 2012 8:13:57 GMT -5
Michael, I think I didn't realize you definitely believed the child was returned and that the spot he was found was not where he was all that time. I'm not convinced that's the case.
The marks on the ground don't seem to indicate this. As for the marks on the wall, Kelly's log indicates he took two photos of these marks. I asked Mark for them but he only could find one and if anyone can tell anything from that one photo my hats off to them. I have heard that the marks were horizontal in any case.
I can't say with certainty, but I doubt it.
Perhaps you could describe the exact method you observed to erect 3 sections with no assistance while leaving only two marks on the ground. Like I said, I can erect it in 2 or 3 sections, I just have not been able to do it in a manner which conforms to the evidence left at Highfields that night. You know it's all fine and well to say there's no problem erecting and climbing the ladder. The problem isn't climbing it. It's awkward but stronger than some think. The problem is duplicating the known evidence while erecting it and getting on and off it. If you fail to achieve those two things then you have not in anyway re-created what occurred that night. Then add the extra difficulty of doing this at night and the removal of the child,, not to mention the shutters, window, and letter.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 20, 2012 10:30:51 GMT -5
What, in your view, caused the ladder to break? Could it have been that it wasn't able to handle the awkward exit from the window (with the baby, the wind, etc.)?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2012 12:27:55 GMT -5
Just a couple of quick items for now.
Kevin, thanks for the detail around the ladder setup, and I can well understand that the exercise would have been much easier with two people working in coordination with each other. I've always believed though that the kidnapper had the ability to act on his own and had the desire to fashion his own destiny almost singlehandedly.. and I don't think it's any surprise that the perceived antagonist that ultimately fixated him, that person being Lindbergh, was of a similar mindset.
If one person was responsible for the abduction, which I believe included the raising and lowering of two, and then three sections of the ladder, could it be done? I don't disagree with any of what you are saying in terms of the ladder construction and applied physics, but I have a game plan for one person here, based on my understanding of the ladder that I would rather not dispel until I am convinced otherwise.
Secondly, does anyone have a map, which details the Lindbergh house and surrounding landmarks, including the location of the Conover house. I have seen one a long time ago and while it may have been a newspaper artist's rendition, it still might point out some useful connections and give others a better understanding of the crime scene and its possible extensions.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 20, 2012 20:22:11 GMT -5
thats why two sections was used. of course its hardwer puting 3 sections of the ladder up against the house then three. and as far as the ladder breaking, kel thinks it was a design flaw rather then the weight
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2012 9:34:00 GMT -5
Tough question, LJ. There's really no way of telling for certain. My opinion is that the splits may have developed while the ladder was in use but developed to the condition as found during the removal, probably from the ladder being dropped while still in connected. what I can say for certain is that the ladder did not fail during a climb. That would have left plenty of collateral damage and evidence.
Joe, I completely understand what you are saying. Unfortunately I can see no possible way to erect that ladder in 3 sections while leaving only the marks as found. The only caveat i can offer is if the climber was extremely tall ( over 6'0") and very strong. The problem is that you only have 10" of overlap between the sections and I (5'-9") can't get enough purchase to resist the levering of the 15' length of section 2 and 3 once it goes over center. As I said before, I can erect all 3 sections, but not in any way that results in the known marks found on the ground at Highfields. As for two sections, I won't say it's impossible, but one would have to be way beyond lucky to pull the maneuvers required off without help. If we assume that the plan was to kill the child in the Nursery, then I would say the operation is certainly easier as you could literally toss the body out and only be concerned with exiting alone. I still wouldn't bet on it, though.
Steve, do you know the difference in height that exists at Highfields today and back in 32?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 21, 2012 10:16:29 GMT -5
Interesting. Okay, so, I'm trying to picture this: Your view is the ladder more or less held up and remained useable during the break-in but, when the kidnapper(s) dumped it in the place it was found, the rails split because it had been weakened from the climb? Could that (the ladder being tossed into another part of the yard, rather than it failing completely during the climb) account for the breaking wood/crate dropping sound Lindbergh said he heard? Or would it have been too far away from the house to be audible?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 21, 2012 11:06:01 GMT -5
according to the reports the ladder ruts on the ground were a inch and a half. i never read the exact height of the ladder but our experments gave me a general idea of what took place
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2012 13:04:23 GMT -5
LJ, I suppose it's possible. The closest I have come to getting a noise like a "cracking" is when the two sections fold or slap together. When I have broken any of the ladders for testing there is no such sound, rather it is a dull sound as the ladder falls onto itself.
Steve, when you guys set up the ladder at Highfields, did you locate it on the concrete sidewalk?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 21, 2012 20:08:59 GMT -5
probaly, but id like to know how many inches are we gaining since 1932? i know it must be more but its not a perfect experiment
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 22, 2012 8:09:01 GMT -5
Kevin, again I can see the benefit in two people assembling the ladder, setting it and removing it, but I have some problems with logistics vs. actual evidence, so hopefully you can help to address these.
Firstly, I really don’t see any particular significance in the footprints / ladder marks, or lack of them observed at the scene, other than of course, the one deep footprint and the marks which evidently were created during climbing of the ladder, also the faint impressions caused by the ladder being stood up unloaded. The latter are clear indications of something that actually took place. Had there been one or two people present for the abduction, seems to me a stretch to conclude, based not only upon the quality of preservation of evidence at the scene, but also within the consistency of the ground itself to tell investigators an accurate story of who really was at the scene and how the ladder was being handled.
Secondly, which particular phase(s) of the three-section ladder assembly, setting and climbing requires the participation of another person and what evidence on the ground would you have expected to see in this case?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2012 8:56:19 GMT -5
Joe, erecting the ladder with all three sections is a awkward maneuver. As I said previously, the only way I can do it alone is to turn it 90 degrees or sideways, foot the bottom leg in the ground and walk it up to the vertical position. Once I have in that position I then let it go toward the wall and then rotate it. There is very little ability to move it after that other than sliding it. That's been my experience with three sections. I did this once with a moderate wind and it took the ladder out of my hands. It's nothing like a traditional extension ladder which is rigid and can be footed and then extended to the required height. Now as for the marks, they simply don't indicate anything like the procedure I described. What they indicate is a ladder moved and held in a vertical position and then set in place and climbed. I have always believed all three sections were used, but I just can't see any way in which it could without another person to assist. I can't make sense of the footprint evidence either. There should be quite a few at the base regardless if one or two persons were present or 2 or 3 sections were used. I should add this, explaining all of these mechanical actions and describing the limitations and characteristics of the ladder is somewhat difficult without being able to actually demonstrate it. I just went through this with an author and a producer and I finally just had them come to my shop so I could let him see for himself. Maybe I should just offer LKC replica ladders to anyone interested.
Steve, I didn't realize that was an experiment that you were part of. If I may ask, what was the purpose of this experiment? I only ask because if you don't know the correct measurements of the ladder placement in 1932, then what were you hoping to discover?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 22, 2012 9:24:21 GMT -5
Kevin, where exactly would the second person come in, in terms of being additive to what you were able to do by yourself? Is the second person's job to help steady the ladder while it is lifted off the ground or while it is footed? Better still, can you present a scenario with some detail that would describe a proposed two person exercise, as you have with your personal experience here?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2012 9:38:41 GMT -5
The second person can do a couple of things depending on which configuration is used. With three sections that second person would foot the ladder and once it's rising he would grab the ladder from the back and keep that second/third section from flopping toward the house. Remember we are talking here about a 22 ft ladder that's pretty flexible and top heavy. With two sections the second person would essentially steady the ladder from any lateral movement or any outward movement such as when the climber steps on or off the very top rung.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 22, 2012 13:05:52 GMT -5
With three sections being previously assembled on the ground and the climbing side facing upwards, would it be possible to raise the ladder from the top of the third section and then walk under it while continuing to raise it higher towards vertical, until a point where, while grasping a rung in the second section with the right hand and temorarily "locking" the hinged joint between first and second sections with the left hand. maneuvre the ladder into position with the back of the kidnapper facing the wall? I guess this is how I have envisioned doing this singlehandedly, but as I've never actually done it, there may be some pitfalls here. Would there be any of these, aside from the independent and uncontrollable variables of wind and darkness?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2012 14:51:34 GMT -5
I like the way you think Joe! Yes, that method would work. There's only two problems with it. For one, that maneuver would also leave telltale marks in the ground that were not present at the night in question. Second, the climber would have to be about 6'6" to reach the first rung on section two. There is a way that could work while leaving the evidence required. One would tie a rope from the top of section 3 to the first rung and pull it taut. This would be a tension stiffener and not allow the sections to fold. Of course no rope was ever found, but I don't see why it couldn't be done . I'm not too inclined to believe it, but it would be possible. It's also possible that a single person over 6' might be able to get enough grip height on section two to resist the leverage. Btw, I have tried to use a 3/4' Bucks Bros chisel to somehow keep the sections locked. I couldn't get it to do anything but mar the rails up.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 22, 2012 17:48:42 GMT -5
kevcon, we discovered that one person can put two sections together and place it at the house and enter the window
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 22, 2012 19:13:21 GMT -5
I guess we can take it that there was some inconsistancy abou t the mud at the ladder since there was only one footprint. What might that say as to whether there could have been more than one ladder perp?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2012 19:57:58 GMT -5
So you entered and exited the Nursery, that's great! How far down was the top of the ladder from the sill?
Mairi, good question! I only see one at the base of the ladder. Others may ( probably) know more about this.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 23, 2012 6:25:31 GMT -5
they wouldnt let us exit or enter the window. im to heavy to climb the ladder, it wasnt made for a heavy person. but the guy who was lighter then me went up and showed it can be done
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2012 7:17:58 GMT -5
On January 26, 1937, Captain Snook submitted a lengthy report concerning the evidence against Hauptmann covering most of the major points of evidence. Gov. Hoffman asked some of those working on his reinvestigation to review the report then give him their opinions concerning it. At some point, Dr. Hudson, Leon Ho-age, and I believe Squire Johnson got together with the evidence and made two separate reports titled: Captain Snook On Ladder. They are undated, however they would have to have been completed before Ho-age moved out to LA. One point that was made in the report concerning review of the exhibits is this (p1): S-211 We still wonder how the man put this ladder up to the window -- and then took it down without it pivoting at the dowel and collapsing -- with the toe of his nearest foot six inches back of the foot of the ladder. This might not be true had the two upper sections been used.
We also wonder why the split sides of the upper section did not break entirely off when the ladder broke -- if it was the combined weight of the man and the child caused it to break. First, it appears they are working from the premise that only (2) sections were used (because they approach it from the State Police theory) and they still note the "pivoting" action that Kevin has been mentioning. Next, they give us some information concerning the one footprint facing the house. Finally for Kevin, I was wondering if you agree, or disagree with their findings above and why. Yes, under those bogus conditions. That's not the same as happened on March 1st so it doesn't mean anything - at all. If you are going to "show" something can be done you do it by placing the ladder at the same height, same positioning, and same conditions. You don't raise it up higher (when it was lower), place it closer to the window (instead of to the right where it really was), and do it on a nice sunny day (when it was dark, windy, and rainy night). If these factors have been met - no one would have been able to do it.
|
|