Did Lindbergh’s arrival alter the kidnapping?

[kevkon]

Yes, absolutely. Snook is pointing out the obvious. If the ladder was damaged to the extent as found then it would have also been found in a heap under the window.
The pivoting or hinging is a real issue. With only two sections you can control it without much problem by gripping the area of overlap on the rails. But with three sections there is simply too much weight and leverage.
The real problem with the hinging in terms of the climbing is what occurs as you get off the top step. Normally one never uses the very top step on a ladder for obvious reasons. I think what Steve is not grasping is that doing nothing more than climbing up the ladder is not anything like climbing up and standing on the very top step 30" down from the sill and 15" to the right and then pulling yourseelf up and over the window ( after you have opened both the shutters and window). The reverse operation is even worse.

[Michael]

Thanks Kevin. The excerpt I posted was the Report written in rebuttal to Snook, so this isn't in his report - rather coming from the Gov. Hoffman's Reinvestigation Team.

[Joe]

Kevin, thanks for the additional detail. Now if the same three section ladder was walked up and the first and second sections temporarily secured at a nearly vertical position, could it then have been rotated 90 degrees to resist scissoring while the ladder was then maneuvered into position by one person?

In this scenario, I am discounting the presence or lack of any marks outside of the immediate setting area of the ladder and where it was ultimately used. If the ladder was used in two and three section form as it appears to have been, I would think we would see much more on the ground.

Mairi makes a good point about the ground texture seemingly not being consistent enough to present an accurate portrayal of events. Then there is the contamination of the crime scene being a variable, in that significant marks may have been obliterated, not to mention the possibility that some of the setup, tear down and maneuvering of the ladder took place outside the immediate area where the ladder prints were found.

[kevkon]

I just don't know, Joe. It seems to me a bit forced. The ladder in 3 sections is over 20' long and quite a handful to manage without help. I really don't know what to think about the ground mark evidence. The ladder has sharp edges so it definitely cuts into the earth. It's hard for me to believe that any other marks were missed or completely obliterated, but that's just my opinion. What I know is that there are two sets of distinct marks in the ground from the ladder rails. One set while being set down vertically and one set from being climbed. I have to stick with that, like it or not ( I don't).

[Michael]

I think its a good idea to consider everything but we shouldn't grasp at straws. The evidence is clear. The ground being muddy was never in question. If there were more prints that were obliterated that would have been reported at the time of the investigation. But what we have is one footprint and no evidence of "other" prints being contaminated. The ladder prints are there too, and there are no others around. Something obliterated would leave marks as well showing it had been modified in some way.

Many Reporters, and Investigators followed the footprints in the yard. Eventually this, along with the weather, was credited for tainting some of that evidence. But even this didn't happen before earlier investigations had been conducted concerning them.

There is a sequence of events. We cannot explain certain facts away by reversing them. This isn't a "chicken or egg" question. The Police came first, and I have their Reports. I also have several of the first Reporter's Letters, and Scoops concerning this evidence.

When the Police arrived - that evidence was there. Next, when the Reporter's arrived - that evidence was there.

[wolf2]

kevkon, we had a lighter person go up, he went right at the window. i learned from this experiment, you couldnt be to heavy to go up this ladder to the window. weighing 230 i couldnt do it. this guy would have easily got into the window. your right with a dead baby in a bag or coming down with one it would cause problems. but getting in is no issue as far as im concerned

[mairi]

Hi Michael,

....but how do you come up with one footprint, but absent the other Somehow it doesn't seem likely that the ladder work--up and down-- could have been accomplished on the boardwalk.
We've got to have another foot

[kevkon]

I'm still confused about the supposed burlap wrapped shoes. Is that true, conjecture, or another tale?
I would offer this; while doing tests on the ladder imprints I found that the perfect match was made when the soil was damp and the temp was just above freezing. There may have been actual mud on the site, but near the house the better drained soil was fairly stiff.

[Michael]

....but how do you come up with one footprint, but absent the other Somehow it doesn't seem likely that the ladder work--up and down-- could have been accomplished on the boardwalk. We've got to have another foot (Mairi)

This is good stuff Mairi and you are right for asking.

The footprints (everywhere) have always been something that had everyone scratching their heads. In the Nursery, at the bottom of the window, in the yard, from the window to the back of the house, etc.

Since it really doesn't make any sense then its natural to inject "reasons" for why it doesn't. My point is if the evidence itself proves marks could be made then the lack of marks because the ground was too hard can't be the explanation, therefore, there must be another one. Next, if the Police document their findings, then the Reporters show up, we cannot blame the Reporters for ruining the evidence the Police documented.

See my point?

The more you look at the footprint evidence the worse it gets - just as you point out above. There is one print by the ladder. This means that someone getting on (or off) only stepped in the mud with one foot. So they had to have stepped off the ladder (or board-walk) with one foot straight onto a rung while the other foot stepped into the mud. It is hard to wrap your mind around it but that's what the evidence is telling us. Next, the female prints that lead from under the window to the back of the house were attributed to Anne by the Police, and she testified to that herself in Flemington. This proves, if its true, that prints could be made there, and lasted for a good amount of time.

Yet, how does 1, 2, or 3 Kidnappers walk that board-walk, erect that ladder, get on and off of it, and leave only (1) real print there in the pitch dark, windy, rainy night when Anne couldn't even stay on it during a nice leisurely stroll around the house - in the day?

Like I said it just keeps getting worse. But that's what the print evidence tells us. And again, not just that (1) print but those "female" prints leading to the back of the home.

For me there's something Rotten in Denmark.

I'm still confused about the supposed burlap wrapped shoes. Is that true, conjecture, or another tale? (Kevin)

It's conjecture concerning those smudges on the Nursery floor which were assumed to be footprints. They believed part of the reason they weren't well defined was due to something being worn over the shoes to deaden the footsteps above the heads of those in the house. Next, Wolf wrote in his report that up to the ladder there was something over the feet but really isn't specific. There is one specific print that is described as having a "heavy woolen sock" appearance, and I saw it suggested in another Letter, Memo, and/or Report somewhere that it may have been burlap and not wool.

[wolf2]

for what i read, they were harder on lindbergh on the stand at the curtis trial then his sons. didnt bush the trapper talk about something being worn over the shoes? its in the fbi reports

[Michael]

for what i read, they were harder on lindbergh on the stand at the curtis trial then his sons. didnt bush the trapper talk about something being worn over the shoes? its in the fbi reports (Steve)

You're right about that Steve. Bush made some claims which are in the FBI Summary but I believe they got them from the Newspaper Accounts and not an official source. Still though, his observations, if that's what they truly were, are important to look at as well when considering this evidence. When I do the crimescene chapter I will do my very best to accurately state what he claims to have observed.

[kevkon]

Yet, how does 1, 2, or 3 Kidnappers walk that board-walk, erect that ladder, get on and off of it, and leave only (1) real print there in the pitch dark, windy, rainy night when Anne couldn't even stay on it during a nice leisurely stroll around the house - in the day?

Like I said it just keeps getting worse. But that's what the print evidence tells us. And again, not just that (1) print but those "female" prints leading to the back of the home.

For me there's something Rotten in Denmark. Michael

I know we are going to disagree on this in the same way as the issue regarding the fingerprints. The lack of observable or identifiable prints is not proof that no prints existed.
We know the ladder was placed in a certain location and the depth of the holes prove it carried a substantial weight. We also know that the ladder was removed. Now regardless of what role one feels the ladder played the action of placing it and removing it requires more than a single step even for a one legged kidnapper. The logical conclusion is that the other steps did not leave a clear or identifiable print or there were other prints that became obscured either by the kidnappers or the police. Also, if the kidnappers did indeed have some sort of covering over their shoes that may very well have left a very obscure mark. Given the state of the landscape of the newly built Highfields there would likely be a mixture of soil types and drainage which would make some areas more conducive for footprints.

[lightningjew]

Michael, as to the female footprints leading to the back of the house: Do you think they were different from the ones Anne said she made earlier that day?

[Michael]

The lack of observable or identifiable prints is not proof that no prints existed. (Kevin)

We are going to both agree and disagree. I believe any print would have been discovered and pointed out. Whether or not it was identifiable would be the question - and was concerning at least one that I know of.

Now regardless of what role one feels the ladder played the action of placing it and removing it requires more than a single step even for a one legged kidnapper. (Kevin)

I agree. The problem is the evidence doesn't appear that was the case. Now, there were prints leading away from that area to where the ladder was found just as we would expect. So it appears to me (unless one or more of those prints pointing away from the house is connected somehow with putting up or breaking down the ladder) that it was being done by people on the board-walk without stepping off. I believe two people with time and effort could do this if they had some light to which to work by. One certainly could not by any stretch of the imagination (imo). My next point leads into LJ's question:

Michael, as to the female footprints leading to the back of the house: Do you think they were different from the ones Anne said she made earlier that day? (LJ)

I am uncertain right now so I tabled the whole question in my mind until the time comes where I am ready to re-look at the Reports.

It would seem if they weren't then it might explain the activity under the window. Yet, I've discovered some evidence to show that Anne had told Police about her walk almost immediately... its just not in her Statements. So that covers her testimony and why she gave it there but not earlier - because I am satisfied it was at least suggested....so she did.

Next, I want to believe her - which is a Cardinal Sin as I have repeatedly warned against to any and all Researchers.

The problem is all we really have is the testimony. Was it a suggested possibility earlier which grew into an understanding without being properly looked at? I don't know. These types of things can happen. But the other problem is that she ventured off as a result of getting then throwing pebbles at the window. That shows the "Kidnappers" should have faced a similar set of circumstances with the Ladder yet we only have that one print facing the house while we have several of what are supposed to be Anne's which were made many hours earlier. Then there's the issue of Anne continuing to walk in the mud which created the trail of footprints to the back of the house. I am not sure why anyone would do that even if they're feet were already muddy (we're not talking the Pig Woman here we're talking Anne Morrow).

Finally, Robert Thayer not only said that the "footprints" in the Nursery were Anne's, he claimed it was verified. Kind of makes sense if she had been walking through the mud. However, this is most troubling because if Thayer is reporting this then most likely it came from Anne first then the Police second. Yet, at Trial, these "footprints" were indicated as the Kidnapper's and there is no mention of Anne making them whatsoever.

So my dilemma here is if Anne didn't make those in the Nursery then its possible they weren't here prints from the window leading to the back of the house either. But if she did then those smudges in the Nursery are likely to be hers. And then of course either/or could be true as well.

[bookrefuge]

Finally, Robert Thayer not only said that the "footprints" in the Nursery were Anne's, he claimed it was verified. Kind of makes sense if she had been walking through the mud. (Michael).

That is a fascinating statement by Thayer. I have always presumed that the mud in the nursery was strong proof that there was an entry by the window. If, however, the footprints in the nursery were Anne’s, it opens up a different ballgame—especially taken together with the otherwise undisturbed appearance of the nursery.

A couple of problems I have with Thayer’s statement, Michael. If the footprints were Anne’s (because she was walking in the mud earlier), shouldn’t her footprints have been all over the house? Also, Anne being a rather refined lady, it seems to me she would have changed her shoes to avoid tracking mud in the house. What is your take?

I believe that you commented earlier on the somewhat surprising absence of Thayer at the Flemington trial. There seems to be an indication that perhaps he knew some things the prosecution wasn’t comfortable with.

[lightningjew]

My understanding has been that when she went for her walk that afternoon, Anne went down the driveway, then there was the pebble-tossing business at the nursery window (or maybe those two events were reversed). Either way, her walk consisted of going down the drive and stopping below the window. I can see, then, why there might be a cluster of female footprints in that vicinity and how they were in all likelihood Anne's, but I don't recall in any version of events in which she walked around any more than that, making a trail of footprints away from the house. Just so I'm clear, where exactly did this trail of female footprints lead?

[Deleted]

Hello to all who contribute so much great information on this board. This is my first time posting and I have a question regarding the footprints found at Highfields that night. Back on March 1, 1982 The Philadelphia Inquirer printed a lengthy story for the 50th anniversary of the kidnapping. In that article it mentions that Trooper Nuncio DeGaetano, one of the first troopers on the scene, followed footprints that appeared to be made by a stocking foot from the house to the ladder. He said he then traced rubber boot or overshoe impressions from the ladder to a chicken coop and then a nearby road where tire tracks were found. My question is this: Is there a written report by Trooper DeGaetano about these prints and was a search made of the chicken coop since there were prints leading to it? I appreciate any insight that you can share on this point.

[Michael]

If the footprints were Anne’s (because she was walking in the mud earlier), shouldn’t her footprints have been all over the house? (BR)

Certainly. But let's not forget one of the reasons Whateley wasn't so fond of Gow was due to her not helping out unless asked. So these muddy prints may have been cleaned up by Mrs. Whateley elsewhere. I just wanted to throw that out there - not saying I believe it.

Also, Anne being a rather refined lady, it seems to me she would have changed her shoes to avoid tracking mud in the house. What is your take? (BR)

Again I agree, but that was my argument against her walking through the mud in the first place. See what I mean?

Just so I'm clear, where exactly did this trail of female footprints lead? (LJ)

When I say "trail" I want to be clear. I believe there were (3) of what were described as "female" footprints. One was approaching the 2nd window, another was at the window, and the 3rd was "opposite the outside rear entrance". I am also reasonably certain that at least one, if not all, were between the boardwalk and the house.

This is my first time posting and I have a question regarding the footprints found at Highfields that night. (Amy)

Hello Amy - thanks for signing up and I appreciate the post.

My question is this: Is there a written report by Trooper DeGaetano about these prints and was a search made of the chicken coop since there were prints leading to it? I appreciate any insight that you can share on this point. (Amy)

Attachments:

[Michael]

Since we on the topic of footprints I just want to bring something up in hopes that someone can explain something to me.....

In Fisher's 1st book, The Lindbergh Case, he writes the following:

Many of those who maintain that Corporal Wolf saw two sets of footprints leading from the Lindbergh house to the kidnap ladder have misquoted this passage form Wolf's report. One of the writers to do this was Harold G. Hoffman, governor of New Jersey from 1935 to 1939. Hoffman wrote a fourteen-part article about the case for Liberty Magazine. In Part B of the series called "The Crime - The Case - The Challenge," published on March 19, 1938, Hoffman quotes this portion of Wolf's report as follows" "Apparently two member of the party proceeded on foot to the east side of the Lindbergh residence and assembled a three-piece home-made extension ladder...two sets of fresh footprints leading off in a southeast direction..." Nowhere in his report does Wolf mention two sets of fresh footprints, but modern-day writers who have made the argument that two or more persons were involved in the kidnaping have cited Hoffman's misrepresentation of Wolf's report as evidence of this.

(p.431-2)[/blockquote]

*Misquoted Wolf's Report.

*Hoffman misrepresented Wolf's Report.

*Nowhere in his report does Wolf mention two sets of fresh footprints.

So naturally after reading this I go straight to the report. Wolf, Joseph A. Cpl. #371. New Jersey State Police Report. Major Initial Report. March 1, 1932.:

Sheet #1:

The Kidnappers consisted apparently of a party of at least two or more persons.

Sheet #2:

The ground on the east side of the house was muddy and showed the imprints of the base of the ladder when placed against the wall also apparently two sets of fresh foot prints leading off in a southeast direction.

If I am missing something or mistaken someone please share it with me. I really hope I am because he is using this to make, not only the Governor, but everyone else who says this to be a Jackass for doing so.

[zerohunter]

Well obviously its one of three possibilities.

1.) He didn’t read the report and is asserting his beliefs as though he has. This I would think unlikely, since it demonstrates unprofessional and sloppy work which one would hope to be uncharacteristic of a former FBI agent.

2.) His editor was confused and changed the original meaning of the whole paragraph either in error or by design. This is even less likely.

3.) He read the report and decided to revise history to suit his own agenda figuring that no one would ever verify what the original report said and to also accuse everyone else of being revisionist so that it might detract others from pointing a finger at him.

I think it’s pretty clear who the real jackass is… wonder what his agenda is??

[wolf2]

to research gov hoffman i came to believe he was a total jackass in this case, so have many others. many wanted him to resign. and zerohunter, jim fisher unlike gardner debated his book against other authors and held his ground. i was around in the late eighties early ninties for all this hoopla

[Deleted]

Thank you Michael for posting Trooper DeGaetano's report. It is my feeling that the reports written by the first police officers on the scene are probably the most reliable as evidence. The crime scene became quickly compromised when reporters and others started walking all over the grounds.

[bookrefuge]

Michael, thank you for posting the DeGaetano report. I notice he describes the footprints between the house and the ladder as “stockinged,” and apparently the footprints BEYOND the latter as rubbers or overshoes.

I cannot imagine any utility to wearing stockings around the yard. I would guess the time you want to wear stockings is INSIDE the house to muffle the sound of your footsteps (which I believe is what Wendel claimed in his forced confession). Overshoes or rubbers would go nicely with the stocking feet—you’d want strong footwear to get you up to the house, something you could easily slip off to switch to the quieter stockings.

I have not been following the footprint discussion too closely, but I believe there has been talk of the impression of a strong single footprint. Any chance this might have been made by a person standing on one foot as he removed his first rubber or overshoe?

If there were impressions of stockinged feet leading 75 feet from the house to where the ladder was found, and rubbers/overshoes beyond that, it sounds as if a kidnapper exited the house with stockinged feet, and switched back to the rubbers/overshoes at the point where the ladder was abandoned.

If so, this sounds like more than one kidnapper to me—I just don’t see one kidnapper carrying the ladder, the kid, AND his footwear.

Of course, I’m aware that various other interpretations can be put on this, and also that the DeGaetano report might contain errors. And, of course, that my brain might contain errors, which wouldn't be anything new.

[kevkon]

Thanks Amy for asking the question and thanks Michael for providing the answer once again. This is why I posted the aerial photo showing the road DeGaetano mentions which leads to the entry. It is the logical escape path, it is directly in line from where the ladder sections were found , and it could explain why the thumb-guard was found down there in the driveway.
I think it's important to consider several things regarding the footprint situation. First, as I said before, the ground around Highfields is inconsistent. There is virgin soil, disturbed soil, and back fill from the construction. Some areas such as those around the house are well drained and were not what I would call muddy by any means, at least at the time of the kidnap. The result is that you may get clear footprints or you may not. It depends on the weight, the type of foot gear and the location.
Second, I think it is a big mistake to assume the location where the ladder was found was a "staging area". While it's certainly possible, the staging or approach could very well have been in an entirely different location. If the approach was from Featherbed or South, then the area where the kidnappers met the house could have been back by the terrace. That would also be the perfect place to assemble the ladder as it's nice and flat. Believe me, it's a real pain trying to put the ladder together in the dark and on an uneven surface.
Bottom line is that while we do know certain events took place, there are others that may have and we just don't have enough or any evidence to indicate it. At this point I have completely changed my mind regarding how the ladder was used that night. In fact I'm not completely convinced that it was used either for the entry or the exit. I do feel certain it was used to place the note and probably to remove the child. It's just a shame that the recording of crucial evidence was so compromised as was the entire crime scene. There are way to many questions regarding even the evidence that was found. Two examples, the moving of the ladder sections before Kelly could take a photo insitu and the lack of photos or plaster casts of the footprints. there are many, many more.

[Deleted]

Hi Kevkon. Your aerial photo is what started me looking once again at the footprint evidence. Glad that you posted that! I have read many things about footprints leading away from the house. Are there any reports that have footprints approaching the house? I feel the the final resting place of the ladder was not where it was assembled either. To my knowledge, the only footprints linked with the ladder all lead away from the house. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. I agree with bookrefuge that it is not possible for one kidnapper to have carried everthing himself. I can't imagine him changing his footwear while trying to leave the scene. Does not make any sense to me. What would be the point of that?

[lightningjew]

Kevkon, just to be clear: You're saying that the access road you highlighted in yellow (the one with the sharp S-curve) is the route the kidnapper(s) took, and, since it connects up with the driveway, that's why the thumbguard was found where it was? Also, it's interesting to think the ladder was only used to place the note, but I'm a little confused about something else you said--that the ladder wasn't used for entry or exit, but was probably used to remove the baby. What exactly do you mean, and how, if not by the ladder, would the kidnapper(s) have gotten in/out of the house? The front door scenario--or sneaking in through any door, really--always struck me as a little farfetched: To me, having entered through a normal entrance means you'd then have to maneuver through at least some rooms and hallways in a house which, in this case, really isn't that big and, as such, carries a huge risk of being discovered.

[mairi]

Footprints along the driveway
Didn't Ollie walk along side of
cal driving the car to look for clues until police arrived?

Don't the front stairs empty into the foyer (not having to go thru rooms to get up to the nursery)? Maybe I'm not seeing the layout clearly. By stealth, there wouldn't have to be noise of perp entering or exiting front door. Good chance, I should think, of household being in conversation wherever they were. What do you reckon?

Somehow I can't rule out the traces of mud in the nursery being Anne's. Wasn't there a rug in the nursery? Is that where the mud was?

Overshoes
Weren't there overshoes found somewhere in proximity to the grave site. Seems like I recall some gloves-one more worn than the other. Then there were the long strips of burlap somewhere in the vicinity.

[kevkon]

LJ, yes the road I highlighted in the photo, it joined the driveway near the entrance.
I think it's possible that one of the kidnappers may have entered through a rear door or window and was in the house long before most think. A similar action occurred in the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I'm not saying this did happen, just that I consider it a possibility now. For those of you who have never visited Highfields it can be difficult to envision what was likely and what was not. The house is actually small ( especially compared to todays McMansions). I can't buy into the front door as a means, it's just too close to where everyone was. Perhaps the library or the spare bedroom below Gow's would be possible. And no, I don't believe the Lindberghs or Gow had any involvement.

[lightningjew]

Interesting idea about a kidnapper entering the house and hiding out for a while (a la JonBenet). Could be. As you say though, the house is fairly small, so I wonder where this person would've hid and for how long? Using this scenario as a working hypothesis, would it be possible, then, that the kidnappers approached the house by the highlighted access road, then one of them entered the house, hid out before going to the nursery, placed the note, and handed the baby off to a second person outside on the ladder? Would that kidnapper (the hander-offer) have then exited the way he came in or used the ladder to climb down? To tell us whether someone did hide out for awhile, I wonder if any mud was ever found anywhere else in the house besides the nursery...?

[Michael]

Well obviously its one of three possibilities. (Z)

It seems to me, as I notice the multitude of mistakes Fisher made in his "books" that he is relying on someone who has the reports to feed him his information. Of course its just a gut feeling coming from someone who regularly goes to the Archives. So in my mind, there's no way he could possess all of the information from all of those sources in the short time he spent there. This would explain how it appears sloppy or negligent because under my theory it wouldn't really be his sloppiness or negligence, rather, the person feeding him this stuff. What really gets me is he uses his own mistakes to attack other people or to attempt to dissuade opinions other then his personal ones with this fiction. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

to research gov hoffman i came to believe he was a total jackass in this case, so have many others. (Steve)

To say that no one did anything stupid or made mistakes would be untrue. Gov. Hoffman was not an exception. However, he had the most to lose by his actions but did the right thing in the name of Justice. Make no mistake about that. He was driven by finding the true solution to this Crime. I respect him and I am thankful he had the guts to do what he did or else there would be a whole lot of material which helps to solve this case missing from our coffers.

jim fisher unlike gardner debated his book against other authors and held his ground. (Steve)

Steve, debating with fiction isn't really fair is it? Additionally, what about Lloyd's book is debatable? Everything is backed up with solid sources. He doesn't give a theory. He doesn't tell people they're idiots for not believing in a specific theory. And he has no agenda to push. It's more of a history book on the case which leaves to the Reader to make up their own minds about the Crime.

It is my feeling that the reports written by the first police officers on the scene are probably the most reliable as evidence. (Amy)

You are absolutely right about that those on scene. The only problems I've discovered are these....

They all had little note pads in their pockets which they recorded their information on. I've found some of those and their reports omit (or add) certain pieces of information. Also, some Cops would write a "quick" initial report then later on down the road write a more detailed one. For example, I've found (3) Reports written by DeGaetano concerning this exact investigation. I've posted #1, but #2, and #3 are more detailed, while both have some additional facts the other ones do not. Now if someone is unwilling to spend as much time as I have/do at the Archives then they might just find (1) of those reports never knowing more exist in other places. See what I am saying? And if I hadn't been through everything numerous times I'd be hesitant to say more aren't "somewhere" else.... and they might be - just not at the NJSP Archives.

The crime scene became quickly compromised when reporters and others started walking all over the grounds. (Amy)

Absolutely. But I am convinced those prints near the house and in the yard were protected. The Troopers were careful to walk around, and once the Reporters began to show up there was a Guard placed to protect that specific area. The other thing (I am not sure whether or not people know) is that this ground became frozen very shortly after the call came in.

I notice he describes the footprints between the house and the ladder as “stockinged,” and apparently the footprints BEYOND the latter as rubbers or overshoes. I cannot imagine any utility to wearing stockings around the yard. (BR)

It's an important clue (or as the Troopers wrote back then "clew"). No one there could believe whoever made that trek in the mud hadn't fallen. Many wrote to the Governor to express their opinion about this. So its not just the Nursery, the Shutters, the Ladder, etc etc. It's the Yard as well. Like I've said before - it just keep getting worse and worse.

Second, I think it is a big mistake to assume the location where the ladder was found was a "staging area". While it's certainly possible, the staging or approach could very well have been in an entirely different location. If the approach was from Featherbed or South, then the area where the kidnappers met the house could have been back by the terrace. That would also be the perfect place to assemble the ladder as it's nice and flat. Believe me, it's a real pain trying to put the ladder together in the dark and on an uneven surface. (Kevin)

You're right Kevin. That was no staging area. I have also come to believe, specifically do to your research, that this ladder was assembled prior to walking down those planks.

Are there any reports that have footprints approaching the house? (Amy)

None from the NJSP. The "female" prints led to the back porch. I am still working on Bush's findings.

I can't imagine him changing his footwear while trying to leave the scene. Does not make any sense to me. (Amy)

Playing Devil's Advocate let's say someone did. What does that say about their fear of being caught? It would be like a kid with a snowball taking their jacket off to get a better throw, then once they hit a passing car, stopping to put their jacket back on before running away.

Footprints along the driveway Didn't Ollie walk along side of cal driving the car to look for clues until police arrived? (Mairi)

From everything I've found, Lindbergh was just as careful as the Police concerning the footprints.

Wasn't there a rug in the nursery? Is that where the mud was? (Mairi)

From memory I believe there was (3) faint "smudges" believed to be footprints. One was on the rug and one was on top of that trunk near the window. They all led toward the crib according to the Police.

I think it's possible that one of the kidnappers may have entered through a rear door or window and was in the house long before most think. (Kevin)

What about Wahgoosh? There's been some talk of the baby being drugged or chloroformed but do you think maybe it happened to the Fox Terrier? I read about this occurring in another abduction case. In that one a Servant was involved and had put a drug in the dog's food - fortunately the Father was alert and prevented the crime.