Did Lindbergh’s arrival alter the kidnapping?

[Michael]

Michael, just to be clear. It's not that I don't trust what Bush found, in fact he is someone I would favor. It's just the reports of his tracking that seem sketchy to me. (Kevin)

I was only using it as an example. I think its reasonable to doubt just about everything first then work from there. I am certainly not being critical in any way and as always - I respect and hold in high regard any and all of your observations and opinions.

I have the feeling that the NJSP didn't care for a local to show them the way. (Kevin)

I believe the NJSP were in over their heads and unprepared for something like this. They stumbled onto Wyckoff then used him to assist. (BTW: I found reports that say Wyckoff lived with Bush, so its possible Wyckoff woke up Bush after being woken up by the Troopers/Lindbergh). Eventually the investigation became structured somewhat but then jealousy entered the mix.

If the NJSP had sent DeGaetano or another trooper along with Bush and recorded everything in detail, then we could make some concrete assessment of his tracking. Once again I am almost in total disbelief that so much important evidence was not captured. (Kevin)

If it weren't for Lloyd having already dichipered the short hand then I would suspect something might be contained in those. Also, I've found some missing pieces in the teletypes, but I am almost positive I've been through all from the March 1 - 10 already. It's where I found the Kelly Statement about the "house wrecking" lumber mentioned in the FBI Summary Report (it is no where else believe it or not).

I still believe the that the approach could have been from Featherbed La and the retreat was via the access road to the chicken coop. (Kevin)

In case anyone doesn't see the chicken coup in the picture (like me) Koehler mentions in one of his reports that he searched the chicken coups next to the Gatehouse for wood during his ladder investigation.

Your theory here seems to imply a drop-off and a pick-up. Am I right?

[bookrefuge]

Don't know if it's been posted on the board before, but here are recollections of Henry Conover, who lived on Featherbed Lane, about the kidnapping:

www.nj.com/lindbergh/hunterdon/index.ssf?/lindbergh/stories/neighbr.html

This supports Kevin's view of Featherbed Lane as a point of entry.

[lightningjew]

That part about flashing headlights around 6:30 sounds like some sort of obvious signal. I wonder if anything was seen or heard by any occupants of Highfields around that time? One thing though: as we've said, carrying a ladder (even a makeshift, lightweight one) a half-mile from Featherbed seems difficult (though admittedly not impossible). Also, Michael, had a question about something in Gardner's book (I wanted to wait for the new edition, but decided to go ahead and get the old one instead): He mentions Featherbed Ln. as running roughly parallel to the gravel driveway. By "Featherbed Ln." does he mean the access/construction road? I realize I may be asking an identical question to one that was posted earlier on this thread, but I just wanted to make sure. And not to beat a dead horse (and if you'd rather not answer that's fine) but this question of inside help--was this something that would've been deliberate or accidental in your view?

[kevkon]

Your theory here seems to imply a drop-off and a pick-up. Am I right? Michael

Yes.

Amy, there are 4 basement window wells at Highfields. It is only a partial Basement which goes under the Kitchen, Dining Rm., & Servents Rm, the rest of the house has a crawlspace. Here is a photo of the boiler room which is under the Kitchen. The window you see is typical for the other 3 except for the vent taking up the lower half.

[Deleted]

WOW Kevkon! Thanks for checking out the basement windows and for the great picture. Access to the interior of the house would be possible if a window was unlocked. Coming up and out of the basement to use the servants stairway would get them upstairs. They would have to know where they are going though. Plus the timing would be difficult with the Whateleys and Betty moving about in the kitchen and servants sitting room. He would have real trouble getting out of the basement and getting to the stairs to go to the nursery. It makes the front door look a lot more feasible. It is more direct and further from the activities and people in the other part of the house. I wonder if the front door was always kept locked.

[kevkon]

I thought the same thing, Amy. It could be done, I actually walked through the Kitchen while two residents were talking and neither noticed me. But there's no doubt you would have to be someone with nerves of steel. One big advantage of the Servant's stair is that it is not open like the main staircase, so once you get on it you won't be seen.
One thing that I have to say is that Highfields is pretty vulnerable. I don't know how religously all the windows were checked and locked as well as the many exterior doors, but just one on the ground floor is all it would take. And that doesn't include someone who can open a locked window or door. I really wonder how well the NJSP looked at all the other possible enty points.

[bookrefuge]

You know, the potential significance of entry by a ground-level window has escaped me until now. I’ve been looking at this through “How did they get through the nursery window?” or “Did something happen at the front door?”

Kevkon, I believe you are not a proponent of an “insider.” I have been, the biggest reason being the knowledge of the kidnappers that the baby was there on a Tuesday. There aren’t many “insider” candidates, and my favorite is the Whateleys, because they were there unsupervised every week, knew the house inside out, and could even have used the house phone to provide updates to the kidnappers.

But let’s leave the Whateleys aside for the moment, and just assume there was SOME insider. By prearrangement, this insider could have left a certain ground-floor window unlocked. The kidnapper enters by this window; he then closes and locks it so no one is ever the wiser. Presto! He’s inside. This does away with the whole messy business of how did they get through the shutters and window to the nursery.

If we have an inside kidnapper handing off the baby, it also does away with the difficulty of why the nursery appeared so undisturbed—it has always defied logic that an outside kidnapper could have gone through that window, from that ladder, into that dark nursery without knocking things over.

Now it occurs to me that, if a kidnapper came through a ground window, there probably ought to have been signs of mud leading from that window. But maybe this is where he takes off his shoes—and thus begin the mysterious “stocking feet” we have been discussing. By wearing stocking feet, he moves in the house more quietly, plus he leaves no trail of mud. Perhaps he hands his shoes off to his partner before shutting the ground-floor window, then puts them back on outside after the job—but not until he’s gotten a distance from the house.

[kevkon]

Kevkon, I believe you are not a proponent of an “insider.” I have been, the biggest reason being the knowledge of the kidnappers that the baby was there on a Tuesday. BR

Yes, you are correct. I know the Tuesday timing is often cited for the need for an "insider". I look at this from a different perspective. What made Tuesday better than Fri, Sat, Sun. etc? In many ways Tuesday is worse. For one, you know have an additional person, Betty Gow, to be concerned with. That's significant considering her job and where her room is. A weekday is also going to have less out of state traffic. In a rural area like Hopewell that would make a stranger more unusual. But the biggest issue I have with the Tuesday= insider assistance theory is this, such an arrangement would mean good intelligence and planning by it's very nature. The kidnappers would know very well the Hopewell and Lindbergh's routine and plan accordingly. Yet here we have a spur of the moment decision based on an unplanned extended stay by the Lindbergh's. This is the opposite of a planned execution of the crime. The kidnappers would know with the assistance of an insider that the Lindberghs only stay at Hopewell for the weekend and thus would plan their crime accordingly. Another important issue is the child's health. With insider knowledge would they really want to plan the kidnapping while the child was sick? Not just because of his well being, but a sick child is always going to be getting more than usual care.
So, when we boil it all down, what makes Tuesday more desirable than another day?
Then there is one more negative with the insider/Tuesday affair, one that can't be under appreciated. Any deviation from the normal habits of the Lindbergh's is going to be an enormous red flag which will result in exactly what you and many others believe. Now the outsiders can always bail out or walk away from the crime. Not so with the inside person. He or she has to remain in the frying pan so to speak. That person can not do anything for years to come that would seem suspicious. It's a very precarious and dangerous position to be in and certainly no one prior to the crime could tell how events would unfold. Directing and assisting the kidnapping at an out of the ordinary time is just asking for trouble. And once again, what is the benefit of Tuesday?
I believe from all of the available evidence that this kidnapping was planned, but not perfectly. I believe the kidnappers had limited knowledge of the situation which can be seen in some of the actions. I think it's perfectly reasonable that they may have believed the Lindbergh's lived at the house full time and the timing had more to do with the kidnappers schedule than the Lindberghs.

[Deleted]

I don't know if the NJSP would have checked for other entry points. They were directed to the outside and the nursery window area specifically. That is what really occupied them. Finding that ladder not very far from the house and the ladder marks under the window set in motion the crime as we know it today.

BR, I like your idea of how the stocking feet become a part of this scenario. It does move him around the house more quietly and there is no mud trail to alert anyone of an intruder. I also think a ground-floor window could have been left unlocked so entry could be made. My thought on who this "inside" helper would be is Red Johnson. He visited Highfields several times with Betty. He was shown the outside grounds and toured the house. He last visit to Highfields was two weeks before the kidnapping. Gardner talks about this on page 16 in the Betty Gow's journey chapter. He went to put oil in his car leaving Betty and the Whateleys in the livingroom. Took him 20 minutes to do that. He also used the upstairs servants bathroom to wash up afterwards. He could have done other things too, like unlock the basement window and lay out the route from the basement to the servants stairway and to the nursery. He could have conveyed all this to the kidnappers. The inside kidnapper would have known exactly how to go once he was inside.

A workable plan except for Wahgoosh. The intruder would have been within hearing distance of the dog even with his shoes off. UGH.

[bookrefuge]

Hi, Kevkon. It wasn’t the “insider” thesis that I was excited about here—it was the idea of a ground-level entry, and that was what I wanted to explore. It really solves a lot of difficulties in this case—regardless of whether an insider left the window unlocked, or the kidnappers managed a way through it on their own.

Regarding the insider thesis, I do find it a stretch to believe that the kidnappers thought the Lindberghs always lived at Hopewell—which would be poor reconnaissance on their part—and they they “lucked out” and planned the kidnap for the one Tuesday when the kid was actually there.

I addressed this issue of timing under the “Dogs, neighbors” thread, so I’m just going to be lazy here and paste in those comments:

Criminals like a soft, easy target. Next Day Hill at Englewood, with its 29 servants, is virtually impossible. Highfields is a superior target. But that weekend wasn’t such a good time—Lindbergh was there, and so were guests.


Monday, February 29, would seem to have been the best time to strike—no Lindbergh, and no Betty Gow. But I’m going to guess that the kidnappers did not have enough time to react by the time they received the news, probably from a tipster, that the Lindberghs were staying over at Hopewell. Also, they probably didn’t know Lindbergh was going to end up staying at Englewood that evening.


From the kidnappers’ perspective, March 1 is just as good, if not better. The newspapers have reported Lindbergh is going to be a guest of honor at the NYU alumni event, so they anticipate he’s coming home very late. And at 10 AM that morning, nobody knows yet that Betty Gow is coming. So from their own intelligence information, they probably still anticipate that the only people in the house when they strike will be Anne, the baby, and the Whateleys.


The arrival of Betty Gow adds a complication, but certainly not an insurmountable one. The unexpected arrival of Lindbergh at 8:25 is probably a very big worry, because he’s the one occupant who might gun them down. I wouldn’t be surprised if, at this point, the kidnappers argued with each other over whether to abandon the snatch or not—but decided, since they were already there, that they were going to wait and watch, and then seized the moment when they saw the Lindberghs sit down to dinner. The dining room was a fair distance from the nursery.

Again, my purpose was not to divert the conversation to the issue of an insider. What’s exciting to me is your idea of ground-level window entry. And that entry, of course, would be just a little easier if the window was prearranged to be unlocked.

[lightningjew]

Makes a lot of sense: Kidnappers A, B, and C park on Featherbed, A and B hiking to the house with the ladder. Kidnapper A gets in through a ground-level basement window, removing his shoes and handing them off to Kidnapper B so he won't be heard moving about. Kidnapper A then sneaks upstairs to the nursery as Kidnapper B sets up the ladder outside. Kidnapper A hands the baby off to Kidnapper B, the note is placed, Kidnapper A exiting through the nursery window. They make their escape using the access road, dumping the ladder en route--between the house and the mouth of the access road, and stopping for Kidnapper A to put his shoes back on. Meanwhile, Kidnapper C has driven to the other end of the access road to pick A and B up. Something like that? A few things though: How, in all this, would those muddy smudges/footprints have gotten into the nursery; how do we account for multiple individuals seen alone in various cars throughout that afternoon (maybe they each had their own car, parked them at various locations beforehand, and were then dropped off at their respective cars afterwards--splitting up being safer and less noticeable than three men driving around together); and how (as Amy points out) would the dog have not heard anything (an intruder quickly entering and exiting through one upstairs room would be one thing, but someone moving through the house is another). As to this question of inside help, I go back and forth. Sometimes it seems clear to me there was inside help, but at other times I go back to my original question (also posed by Kevkon) of why would an insider greenlight a crime on a night when the intended target isn't normally around? The immediate suspicion would be that there had to have been an insider and that person would then very quickly find themselves on a very short list (in this case consisting of only three people). That's why I'm wondering if this possible inside help could've been something in the middle--not intentional, but accidental (unwittingly letting information slip to the wrong person or something). Either way, Red Johnson seems a good possibility, but (as with all other potential inside helpers) I've never seen any hard evidence against them, one way or the other...

[bookrefuge]

Amy, you do a lot of good thinking. Ellis Parker might have liked to have you as what they used to call a “Girl Friday.”

Red Johnsen is an interesting case. By all accounts, a nice guy, and Mark Falzini paints a sympathetic portrait of his later life in Scandinavia in Their Fifteen Minutes.

But there are some things that make me wonder about Red. First, by being intimate with the baby’s nurse, he would have known the baby’s routine. Also, as you point out, he knew the layout at Highfields, includng the location of the nursery. And he knew about the Lindberghs' change of plans. So he would have made a first-class information source. But what I really don’t like about Red is that phone call to Betty on the night of the kidnapping. Pretty nervy to call your girlfriend on Charles Lindbergh’s phone line. I just have to wonder if he was keeping Betty pinned down during the snatch, making sure she wouldn’t venture near the nursery. (I discussed some pros and cons of this in another thread.) I also thought that, for a rather important figure in the case, it was odd that the authorities hustled him back to Scandinavia so quickly.

There’s one under thing, and it ties back to my thread “A Theory in Development.” On the night of the kidnapping, Red's alibi was that he was “out riding” with Marguerite Junge. Marguerite’s sister was the governess in the house of James Warburg on E. 70th St. One block away on E. 70th was the residence of Warburg’s powerful political ally, Thomas Lamont. Lamont was RED’s employer. Now in that array of circumstances, perhaps there’s one too many coincidences.

[bookrefuge]

How, in all this, would those muddy smudges/footprints have gotten into the nursery (LJ)

Lightningjew, in this scenario--“man in stocking feet entered at the ground floor”—why then do still we have some mud in the nursery? I am going to guess that the man in the stocking feet, after opening the window and shutter, helped pull his partner into the nursery from the ladder because there was something in that nursery that would be easier if done by two people—such as (just for an example) putting the kid inside of a bag.

[Deleted]

LJ, maybe the inside help didn't know they were being used as inside help. Red was "sweet" on Betty which also gave him access to Highfields and he could case the place for the kidnappers.

The mud smudges are a problem. His socks wouldn't be soiled to cause those. Back to the drawing board for me!

[kevkon]

If these kidnappers had such good knowledge of the Lindbergh's routines and the home, why did they miss so much? And again, what makes Tuesday so opportune?
I do believe they may have had someone in the Lindbergh/Morrow staff that provided information of limited degree and probably without knowledge of how it was to be used.
Regarding the mud in the Nursery, I don't say ignore it but it isn't very clear as evidence. There seems to be much difference in the descriptions.
The stocking footprints hold a lot of the mystery. Yesterday, after I was finished, I walked over to the "staging area" and followed what's left of the old access road. I had forgotton just how many rocks are there. I'll tell you, anyone walking around in stocking feet around there was one tough hombre. If only we could ascertain at what point the shoes were removed, that would reveal a large part of what happened that night.

[bookrefuge]

Amy, see the post directly above your last for a possible explanation of the nursery mud smudges.

A workable plan except for Wahgoosh. The intruder would have been within hearing distance of the dog even with his shoes off. UGH. (Amy35)

Amy, what vexes me even more than Wahgoosh not barking is Charlie not crying. By all accounts, he was a yeller and terrified by strangers.

Only two ways to get him out silently—kill him or dope him. Killing him is out of the question. If you’re caught during your getaway, it’s the electric chair for sure.

So he had to be doped. I wouldn’t trust paregoric on the lips to prevent the kid from waking up when thrust out of a window into a cold howling wind.

That brings us back to the various tales spun at the time, one of which was that the baby’s food or milk was doped by Whateley. Dope would put him out like a light. If I was doing the snatch, that would be my choice. And remember, Betty reported at eight o’clock that the baby had “gone to sleep unusually quickly.” (Gardner, p. 19). This could mean the baby was tired, but it could also mean he was drugged.

If Whateley is our insider, it might also explain why Wahgoosh didn’t bark. If I’m not mistaken, Wahgoosh was in the kitchen with Whateley during the time period of the snatch. Check p. 66 of Falzini’s book, and there you’ll see a picture of Whateley holding Wahgoosh. The dog lived with the Whateleys there at Highfields—so the butler was, in a sense, his “master.” If Whateley restrained him during the kidnapping, the dog would have likely obeyed.

Whateley, could, for me, be your all-purpose insider:
--Tips the kidnappers that the baby is staying over. He could have easily done this by phone on Monday and/or Tuesday. Charles is in New York City, and only Anne and the baby are there with the Whateleys. Who’s going to overhear him?
--On the evening of the kidnapping, by prearrangement leaves a ground-level window unlocked
--Perhaps with the help of his wife, the cook, dopes the baby’s milk
--Restrains Wahgoosh while the snatch is on.

People would demand to know Whateley’s motive, but for now I’m just going to point out that the man was potentially a sort of human “perfect storm” that could make the whole scenario work.
This is just a theory, not a "it must have happened this way."

[lightningjew]

Not a bad explanation, Bookrefuge. I'm just wondering if it wouldn't have been better to keep intrusion to a minimum--that is, to have the absolute least number of people in the house as possible, making the least amount of noise. At any rate, that would've been my thinking if I was going to do this, so when it comes to, say, slipping a toddler into a bag--"I'll manage. Just stay outside and wait for me; we don't want too much noise" would've been my instinct. Additionally, if something like what you're suggesting did happen, we're still left with the problem of the suitcase under the window with the tinker toy on top not being disturbed. If someone used that window as an exit only, I can see how they could step over all this to get onto the windowsill without moving things, but getting (or pulling someone) inside would've knocked things over, shifted them around. I mean, maybe the suitcase and toy were moved and then put back during the exit as the note was placed on the sill--though that seems difficult, since the ladder was to the side of window. Speaking of which, had a question for Kevkon: I seem to remember there were marks on the side of the house, indicating the top of the ladder had rested on the outer wall, not inside the shutter louvers, but, at the same time, the ladder seems designed to fit in those shutter grooves, presumably for stability, so what could the explanation be for not using the ladder "correctly"? And Amy, this is my question too: whether or not a potential inside helper knew they were being used as such.

[Michael]

Also, Michael, had a question about something in Gardner's book (I wanted to wait for the new edition, but decided to go ahead and get the old one instead): He mentions Featherbed Ln. as running roughly parallel to the gravel driveway. By "Featherbed Ln." does he mean the access/construction road? (LJ)

I am almost certain he is talking about Featherbed Lane itself. If you give me the page number I will be able to say with 100% conviction.

And not to beat a dead horse (and if you'd rather not answer that's fine) but this question of inside help--was this something that would've been deliberate or accidental in your view? (LJ)

Deliberate.

I personally believe I have circumstantial evidence to support that. Not a smoking gun, but various points of fact when combined together are enough to equal one.

So, when we boil it all down, what makes Tuesday more desirable than another day? (Kevin)

You have a crime that required pre-planning. You obviously have someone in charge. The question would be why that person would "go" on Tuesday. There are certain things we do not know. For example, if the actual event was planned for the following weekend someone vital to the plan may not have been available until Tuesday, so in hearing the child may stay a couple of days they wait to get word after that person is available.

Or, everyone knew Lindbergh was scheduled to be at an Event. This removes Lindbergh from the equation. Was there an advantage to NOT having Lindy on site?

On top of that, I believe someone on the inside is in your corner.

Where's Wahgoosh? Extremely important. Whateley says with him and Betty says with her. And so now we must determine, not only which is true, but when its true. After that, when did the actual "crime" occur?

Each and every point is crucial to solving the crime.

[bookrefuge]

Additionally, if something like what you're suggesting did happen, we're still left with the problem of the suitcase under the window with the tinker toy on top not being disturbed. If someone used that window as an exit only, I can see how they could step over all this to get onto the windowsill without moving things, but getting (or pulling someone) inside would've knocked things over, shifted them around. I mean, maybe the suitcase and toy were moved and then put back during the exit as the note was placed on the sill--though that seems difficult, since the ladder was to the side of window. (LJ)

These are good questions. There seems to overwhelming evidence that, whether for entry, exit, or both, the ladder was somehow used at that window, and there were mud smudges in the nursery near that window. Yet whether an entry or exit was made, apparently nothing got knocked over.

In our “stocking man” scenario, I am going to just suggest the possibility that perhaps nothing got knocked over because (1) maybe “stocking man” had the audacity to briefly turn the nursery lights on, making everything highly visible; and (2) maybe when he pulled his partner inside, he guided him, saying something like, “Watch your foot, there’s some stuff over here.”

I am not saying I’m at all satisfied with this. I’m still bothered by a number of things—such as how that ransom note got left neatly on the sill with that gale blowing. An easier explanation would be a household insider who closes the window, plants the note on the sill—and maybe then does the alleged “fingerprint wipedown.”

But who would that be? Even I don’t see Whateley doing THAT—he’s downstairs serving the Lindberghs dinner around the supposed time of the snatch. He certainly has no opportunity to help out with the snatch itself.

[lightningjew]

Michael, page 31 of Gardner (towards the top of the page): "Featherbed Lane ran roughly parallel to the gravel road down to the house... Someone not well acquainted with the vicinity would hardly have known about Featherbed Lane. But the woodsman [Bush] believed the footprints and tire marks definitely indicated two cars..." Gardner seems to be talking about an old road that ran parallel to the gravel driveway, like the access road Kevkon highlighted in his aerial photo, whereas the road actually named Featherbed Ln. is a half-mile away from the house and grounds. Also, an older point but one I just wanted to (re)confirm: Towards the bottom of page 15 Gardner states "Sometimes he [Whateley] gave house tours." Is he incorrect on this? And this circumstantial evidence you mention of deliberate help--I'll be good and not probe any further, but aw MAN. Dying here...

[Michael]

Michael, page 31 of Gardner (towards the top of the page): "Featherbed Lane ran roughly parallel to the gravel road down to the house... Someone not well acquainted with the vicinity would hardly have known about Featherbed Lane. (LJ)

His source here is the Vitray Book. She is definitely referring to "Featherbed Lane" and so I am sure Lloyd is as a result.

Also, an older point but one I just wanted to (re)confirm: Towards the bottom of page 15 Gardner states "Sometimes he [Whateley] gave house tours." Is he incorrect on this? (LJ)

Yes, this is incorrect.

As I recall this book came out in 2004. My own specific research on this point didn't intensify until about a year later. If you had asked me in '04 I would have had to say "no" based upon the source(s) Lloyd relied on here.

Nothing about this Case is easy. And so once this seemed to be a pivotal fact when attempting to solve this case, I decided to verify it. That's when I discovered (as with many other similar to it) it was baseless and/or false. I call these "Ghost Facts," pun intended, as many are found in the Ghosts of Hopewell book.

I am in a unique situation where my only real interest is this case, I live near the NJSP Archives, I'd rather go there then to the shore or the mountains with my vacation days, and I've done exactly that over the last 12 years. You could however, spend a lifetime researching this case and still make mistakes.

My biggest problem with Fisher's books, for example, aren't the mistakes, but the way in which they are presented as absolutes so that if you don't accept them then you are an "idiot" or something.

As you will see as you continue through The Case That Never Dies, Lloyd's approach is just the opposite. He lays out his research then leaves it up to you (the Reader) to decide. He is one of the most brilliant people (if not the most) I have ever met. If you ever get a chance to see him speak it will be worth the trip!

And this circumstantial evidence you mention of deliberate help--I'll be good and not probe any further, but aw MAN. Dying here... (LJ)

Something like this is a process. If I had, for example, spit out each piece, one at a time, as I found them they could have been minimized. But by waiting then hopefully releasing them at the same time, you will be able to see what I do. It's been no easy task, in fact, I just found another one recently. It was an "old" fact as it relates to my research, but I was looking at it from the perspective of explaining it concerning a specific point I was thinking about at that time. I think it's referred to as "tunnel vision" to which I am not immune it seems. I stumbled upon something Lt. Keaton thought about it and I couldn't believe how focus can allow you to miss certain things. So here comes yet another "circumstance" to add to the pile.

[bookrefuge]

LJ, regarding Featherbed Lane--based on the reliable eyewitness testimony of the Conovers

www.nj.com/lindbergh/hunterdon/index.ssf?/lindbergh/stories/neighbr.html

who lived on the real Featherbed Lane, a vehicle was moving suspiciously on their road at 6:30 PM. This is about a half hour after Lupica, another good witness, saw the car with the sectioned ladder. I agree with Kevkon--It looks like Featherbed Lane was the LAUNCH SITE and the area around the gatehouse/chicken coop the PICKUP SITE.

Looking at the great aerial photo that Kevkon posted, one can see that it might have made more sense to launch from the access roads. But probably not having any such photo at their disposal, perhaps their own reconnaissance was limited, and they hadn’t realized the possibilities of the access roads. Maybe they simply figured—“Well, we can’t go up Lindbergh’s driveway—so once it’s dark, we’ll use the next street up.”—which would be Featherbed Lane.

[kevkon]

I seem to remember there were marks on the side of the house, indicating the top of the ladder had rested on the outer wall, not inside the shutter louvers, but, at the same time, the ladder seems designed to fit in those shutter grooves, presumably for stability, so what could the explanation be for not using the ladder "correctly"? LJ

I'm sure they would have prefered to do the 3 section/ shutter act. Unfortunately, they found the shutters in the closed position.
That sounds reasonable, right?
Unfortunately, there is a major flaw with this explanation just as there is with other LKC "accepted" explanations.

[lightningjew]

Thanks for the Featherbed clarification, Michael. To be honest, I was hesitant to buy Gardner's book for a long time because my understanding was that he didn't offer any solutions. That being the case, I figured I'd just stick with my old copy of the Waller book (which is also very detailed, seems pretty reliable, and doesn't offer any solutions either). But reading Gardner's book now is quite eye-opening. Some errors aside (two I've found so far: the house tour thing and identifying Annie Spencer Cutter--Anne Lindbergh's grandmother--as Charles Lindbergh's mother in the photo section), it's truly excellent. Head and shoulders above a lot of the other literature, though I would like to know, when all's said and done, what he thinks actually happened. Maybe one of the these days I'll get up the guts to email him at his blog or something. And, whenever you're done, I'm anxious to see this "complete picture" of facts regarding this inside helper. Also, Bookrefuge, I too like the idea of Featherbed as a launch site, the access roads as the escape route and the gatehouse/chicken coops as a pickup site. Sounds perfectly reasonable and I see a lot of evidence to support it. My question is, in terms of sightings of cars throughout that afternoon and evening, unless I'm mistaken all the eyewitness testimony regarding potential kidnap cars in the area indicate only one man in the vehicle. Now personally, I think there was more than one kidnapper, so could it have been, as I suggested earlier, that maybe they each had their own car, parked them at various locations beforehand, and were then dropped off at their respective cars afterwards, splitting up being safer and less noticeable than three men driving around together? And Kevkon, could you be a little more specific about the "major flaw" in the closed shutter explanation?

[kevkon]

LJ, LLoyd is very easy to approach so if you want to ask him something definately do so.

Can I be less cryptic about the major flaw. Sure, but I think it's better if people look for themselves and find the answer.
Let's see, the kidnapper's have planned this extensively and yet despite that they strike on an unusual night. They carry with them a 3 section ladder which fully extended is 20' long. They carry this overland for 1/2 mile. Upon reaching the house they see the shutters to the target room are closed. Now what?
hint; What else do the kidnappers see as they look at that East side of the house?
The answer is the major flaw with the explanation of why they didn't use 3 sections.

[wolf2]

kevkon, lloyd never debated his book with other authors yet. plus he had people research for him also. as far as three sections used, i dont think so i saw the replica with three sections it looked unstable

[kevkon]

Then the question is if the three sections are so unstable, why did they build it and carry it all that distance? Are you saying they never tried it out beforehand? Remember that had they put the weight of the 3rd section into the first two, they would have had a much stronger ladder, though shorter.

I can't speak for Lloyd, but as Michael can attest he certainly has debated issues with me. Regarding his book, it's a historical study of the case. It is not proposing any theory, just outlining the various elements of the crime, so there really is nothing to debate. I like Fisher's books as well, but they do contain many incorrect statements.

[wolf2]

i think it was brought there just in case two sections were not enough

[Michael]

I can't figure out how you could possibly debate the crime with someone who invented dialog throughout their publication.

Why not challenge EMINƎM to a duel sound-boarding ad-libs if that's your pleasure.

No thanks.

The message boards are the place to debate. That takes a time-table out of the equation and ruins the attempts to stall by asking for a source when anyone worth their salt knows it could takes weeks to find.

There is no debate. You simply page to Lloyd's footnotes. If you don't like the footnote then challenge it here with one of you own.

Getting back to Featherbed Lane for a minute. Have you ever gone to an appointment or interview where you were very early? What did you do? I would do a couple of laps to kill time. Or if I was looking to meet someone in a general area. I would not want to stay still in case I was in the wrong place. So I drove around and at times I would have to turn around again.

Think about how easy-going this party was. No worries. Now do you think they walked from Featherbed Lane with Ladder in hand when they left via the Access Road?

The other thing is this... These people are walking directly on this board-walk, in the dark, but don't know the shutters are closed? There's no doubt in my mind they knew about these shutters not being locked - if they had to worry about that at all. Think about this. They used the Access Road. What did they stumble on this anomaly then decided to use it? They used the board-walk - in the dark! Stranger from the Bronx who simply put his foot down then accidentally discovered this feature?

This isn't real life. Things don't happen this way.

[lightningjew]

Michael, the early appointment analogy is a good one. I've done that myself. Even if there's really nothing for me to do until "go time", I like to arrive as early as possible for something important, when I don't want to take any sort of a chance on being late or lackadaisical. I can see, then, why the kidnappers would've wanted to do much the same thing--even if there wasn't anything to be done until that night, they arrived in the area way ahead of time to ready themselves (mentally if nothing else), just kind of tooling around and killing time until night came. But, given my own jitters whenever I feel I have to be super-early and/or prepared for an appointment of some kind, I don't see why this would have to mean they were easy going and had no worries about what they were going to do. (Maybe I'm missing your point here, though.) And Featherbed Ln. strikes me as a good staging point because, starting from there, one would be far enough away not to attract the attention of anyone at Highfields, but, at the same time, it's not too far away as to be completely inconvenient. By contrast, the access roads don't strike me as a particularly good approach or escape route for a regular car because they look pretty rocky and bumpy. And kevkon, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make when you refer to something the kidnappers would've seen on the east side of the house. Do you mean the boardwalk?