|
Post by jdanniel on Jul 30, 2012 17:18:30 GMT -5
I have two questions about fingerprints.
In several of the books I've read about the case, the authors have claimed there were practically no fingerprints whatsoever in the nursery. (A few faint prints of the child were supposedly found, but no others.)
I'm assuming the authors all got this information from the same documentation. Question #1: How accurate can we assume this claim to be? Is the claim that there were NO fingerprints credible?
Question #2 is obvious: If we consider the claim to be credible and accurate, then how could ALL of the fingerprints in the entire nursery have been eradicated WITHOUT the kidnapping being either an inside job, or having at least one inside participant?
I can't for the life of me envision any scenario in which a kidnapper or kidnappers took the time to wipe the entire room clean, prior to exiting it down a ladder and/or staircase. And why would they need to? Wouldn't they have worn gloves?
It doesn't make sense...unless the claim about the absence of fingerprints is factually inaccurate.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2012 18:19:27 GMT -5
I am going to try to answer your questions simultaneously with the following..... From Dr. Hudson's Liberty Article: A point of great rested in the absence of any fingerprints on the nursery window and its remarkably broad sill. Kelly had powdered it a few hours after the kidnapping. No prints were found, although Betty Gow, the child's nurse, and Mrs. Lindbergh had opened and closed the window that same night. Miss Gow had rubbed the child's chest with an ointment the oleaginous base of which would have augmented the secretion of the finger ridges in leaving clear prints. Of course there would have been older prints as well. The reason Kelly failed to get all these prints was because they must have been washed off. I think its important to remind everyone that on March 15th, the crib was (again) checked for prints but this time they were looking for the child's so they powdered the lower sections close to where he slept. Here they developed prints of the child. But all of the Reports are clear about no prints being found at the entry/window area. None. During the Trial even Kelly testifies that he found "no prints" of "nobody." This would graduate into one answer that no prints "of value" which would then ultimately lead to the Vick's palm print, or whatever it was, on the crib railing. Later Kelly admits he found a "mark" on the window which causes him to offer suggestions as to what could cause the "mark," like someone wearing a glove.... Wilentz would then lead Kelly into admitting a child in a bag brushed across the window sill would erase fingerprints. It was, in my opinion, simply a countermeasure to the "Insider Theory" the Defense was relying on. Like the footprint testimony which clearly contradicts the Reports. But you see, the Defense did not have those reports so they couldn't bring it up on Cross. Now baring the mistakes Fisher makes, he offers several reasons for why no prints of the Kidnapper existed: 1. Gloves 2. Wiped off what he touched 3. Prints were smudged, smeared, or partials 4. Kelly accidentally ruined them ( Ghosts p. 103) There were no smudged, smeared or partials at the "entry point." Kelly didn't accidentally ruin any elsewhere, and if they weren't good he still collected them. When considering evidence you have to look at everything. If someone, as a matter of system, policy, or even habit does something everywhere else then by nature they would do it in the questioned area as well. If not then why? This fact cannot be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 30, 2012 20:04:19 GMT -5
what mistakes? hes given his opinion. didnt gardner do that? you and gardner only say fisher makes all these mistakes, but you never mention the mistakes in the other books, and theres plenty of them. vand i dont want to hear gardners book was written for the reader to come to his or her conclusion. thats a bunch of crap
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 30, 2012 22:57:39 GMT -5
The more I look at the fingerprint issue, the more it looks to me that certain parts of the room were wiped down. As to the reason behind this, my thinking now is that whoever was in there felt, for some reason, that they had to leave a trail--a trail that would telegraph to any observer that "THIS IS A KIDNAPPING. AS SUCH, WE HAD TO ENTER AND EXIT THROUGH THE WINDOW--THAT IS, NO ONE LET US IN THE HOUSE OR ANYTHING--AND, HAVING COME THROUGH THE WINDOW, WE HAD TO TOUCH HERE, HERE, AND HERE." But, in communicating this, whoever took the baby out of that room obviously wouldn't have wanted to leave their own fingerprints, so they had to wipe down certain spots in the room, erasing existing fingerprints to leave this trail and convey the message they wanted to convey (a message further reinforced by footprints leading away from the house and a ladder dumped en route with a chisel, apparently brought along to jimmy open any windows). In short, it looks to me, for now, that things were being staged to deflect attention away from the idea of this being some sort of inside job, but, working in the dark and being in a hurry, this was done poorly (not realizing the beer stein and tinkertoy by the windowsill should be knocked over or set on their sides to better indicate an obvious window entry, for example). At any rate, all this is just my current impression.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 31, 2012 7:29:16 GMT -5
I think that a couple of things must be understood, the lack of identifiable fingerprints is completely different than the absence of fingerprints.Many crime scenes do not provide identifiable latent prints but that does not mean that the scene was wiped down. There are a multitude of reasons for why latents are not evident and identifiable. New processes in latent print examination have made the process of capturing prints more efficient, but it is still not 100%. Next, the same is true for the process for "wiping down a room of prints". It's almost impossible to do completely and is compounded by the same factors that make "lifting prints" difficult. Last, you have to witness the entry and exit from that room to understand why there would not be a cache of identifiable prints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2012 8:26:17 GMT -5
Dr Hudson thinks that the room was wiped down so that identifiable prints would not be found. This is not an accidental thing that occurred. Something would have been found in the key areas checked even if it is just a partial if there were something to find. Betty and Anne's fingerprints should have been on the shutters and windows. Were all the windows checked for prints including the French Window Betty handled before she went to get Charlie out of the crib? Those prints should have definitely been there!
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jul 31, 2012 10:29:47 GMT -5
From the responses in this thread, I conclude I didn't make my point well enough.
I was talking about THE ENTIRE NURSERY. Not parts.
T-H-E E-N-T-I-R-E E-F-F-I-N-G nursery.
Either I'm misreading all these books and am selectively retaining information, or else the authors are saying THE ENTIRE NURSERY had no identifiable prints. Not parts. THE entire nursery.
Am I misreading all these people?
I can understand it--maybe--if parts of the nursery were wiped. The kidnapper(s) may not have worn gloves, although I find that ludicrous. If they had worn gloves, why on earth bother wiping ANY part of the nursery?
But NO prints were found in the nursery. This is how I comprehended everything I have read. Am I wrong?
If I'm wrong, then I have to go back and read a few books again, paying much, much closer attention to this facet of the case.
But if I'm right...and the authors--all of them--stated there were no prints in the nursery...then something very, very, very odd went on in that room.
Anne Lindbergh's prints? Betty Gow's prints? The father's prints? Nowhere in that room?
Unless I am misreading what I've read, then my only response to that can be: Bitch, please.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 31, 2012 10:29:54 GMT -5
First, there's obviously a difference between the absence of identifiable fingerprints and the absence of fingerprints, period. Actually, my initial thought on this was that there was just an absence of useable prints--that there were only partials and smudges in the room, and that this point has gotten lost over the years and become "there were no fingerprints in the nursery at all." But based on Hudson (and the points that Amy makes above), it looks to me like certain spots in the room had no fingerprints at all when they should have, and that these areas would've therefore been wiped down. And JDanniel, I think what the books mean when they say no fingerprints were found at all is that only the places that were dusted had no fingerprints. I think a lot of authors translate or simplify this into "the entire nursery had no prints." I could be wrong about that, though. Also, I agree it would've been crazy for the kidnappers not to wear gloves. I think they did, but a possible explanation for them bothering to wipe down areas of the room while wearing gloves might be, as I said above, to leave some sort of trail: Needing to wipe down certain spots in the room to communicate a specific entry-exit route, but obviously not wanting to leave their own prints, so they do this by erasing existing ones instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2012 14:20:53 GMT -5
Michael, if possible, could you post Trooper Frank A. Kelly's statement of March 16, 1932 to perhaps shed some light on this fingerprint issue?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 31, 2012 20:41:09 GMT -5
Just a thought-- The perp went in gloved. Tried to pick the child up, but can't because the blanket is pinning him to the bedding. In the dark, did he unglove to see what was what. He drags the child out from the bottom of the blanket. Then has to wipe away prints where he thought he had touched. I believe Kevkon gave a good explanation as to why prints couldn't be lifted from certain of the window parts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2012 20:46:57 GMT -5
Sorry I am way behind on keeping up with the threads. I will do my best to eventually get to all of them....
They found the child's prints on the lower portions of the crib where he'd be expected to touch it. There was also testimony by Kelly that he found something unidentifiable made from the Vicks which I don't find 100% reliable but it has to be mentioned.
So the statement concerning "no" prints is technically inaccurate. But everywhere you'd expect them to be there was "no indication of any prints."
This is absolutely true and its an important issue to be raised. But if you investigate from the angle that there were prints, just not identifiable, then you have to come up with something to counter what's in the Reports, what Dr. Hudson said, and how Wilentz approached this in Court.
Not only that, another thing I have done is look at the other situations that existed concerning prints that Kelly, Kubler, etc. raised. Did they, for example, raise partials or unidentifiable elsewhere but say they found "none" or "no indication of any prints"?
The answer is no.
Did they actually collect partials and other unidentifiable prints elsewhere?
The answer is yes.
So when Lt. Barna handed over ALL of the collected prints to Calspan during the NJSP re-investigation in 1977, of the 99, how many were any good? The answer is 51. Did any of these come from the Nursery Window area (inside and out)? No. From the French Window? No. From the Sun Lamp? No. From the screen around the crib? No.
So finding the child's prints on the area of that crib he was expected to touch it is an important "control" to all of this. It's a measuring stick for whether or not Kelly knew what he was doing as well as whether or not we would expect to find prints elsewhere under similar conditions.
Wilentz did his best to neutralize what we all see here. His biggest problem was Dr. Hudson. He therefore could not have Kelly testify to something Dr. Hudson knew was not true. I am quite certain, (this is my opinion) that if Hudson wasn't an issue Kelly would have been testifying to exactly as Kevin suggests above.
Here is page #1 of Kelly's March 16th Report:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2012 20:48:27 GMT -5
The 2nd and final page of Kelly's March 16 Report: Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 7:48:00 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for printing the report. I am puzzled that Kelly could not get any good prints off the French window. Betty handled that just before she went to get Charlie from the crib. It seems something should have been there, even if only a partial.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2012 8:34:03 GMT -5
Kelly had not been at the job of fingerprinting for that long. He also had only one dusting technique. Dusting and lifting latent prints is dependent on many factors such as the temperature, humidity, surface material, etc. It sometimes works, it sometime doesn't and if it's not done correctly it can actually destroy any prints. Also, as Mairi said, if the kidnapper wore gloves there obviously would be no prints and the gloves would tend to eradicate any latents in the same position.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2012 10:51:27 GMT -5
Just a point here for consideration. Is it possible that parts of the nursery had been wiped down following Trooper Kelly's dusting and print lifting attempts?
The carbon black pigment used in the black powder method is very messy and notwithstanding any of the environmental conditions pointed out by Kevin which could have hindered the lifting of good prints, was the nursery then left in its powdered condition, prior to Dr. Hudson's silver nitrate method evaluation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 13:42:02 GMT -5
I have wondered the same thing as Joe. If the room was left in the powdered condition then that may be why Dr. Condon said that he saw a partial hand print near the window used by the kidnapper. This could have been because the investigators caused prints to be left when they were acting out the role of the kidnapper going in and out the window and at other places in the nursery too. That could have accounted for Dr. Hudson finding more usable prints than Kelly did. Kelly also dusted the ladder for prints but didn't find any good prints.
I did not know that fingerprints could be affected by environmental factors such as temperature and humidity. Those outside conditions must have had an effect on the ladder fingerprints for sure then.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2012 14:17:56 GMT -5
What's interesting is that Trpr. Kelly did not dust the piece of toy ark on the suitcase or the suitcase under the window ( it was black). If you witness the entry through the window those two items are actually the most likely to be touched. He also did not dust the floor under the window and in front of the table/suitcase, which believe it or not, is another likely spot. Not trying to pick on Kelly, it was past midnight and he had come from the Morristown barracks to a crime much bigger than he had ever been involved with. Plus he had many important eyes on him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2012 14:47:41 GMT -5
No doubt that Kelly was in a difficult position. As an aside, he does observe that "a dirt mark large enough to be a footprint" with substance and colour of gravel, was on the black suitcase in the front left corner, as one faced the nursery window. Not to change the subject here, but this would seem to coincide with a left foot-first entry into the nursery from the ladder's third section.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2012 15:02:28 GMT -5
Joe, you're gonna have to wait for the Nova show
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2012 15:29:14 GMT -5
I know everyone is working through this and its important to because it really doesn't make sense. But in the end, if the facts remain, then its important to see where those facts lead us.
The idea that Kelly didn't know what he was doing isn't a new one. I personally don't feel comfortable making that claim because, after all, he was raising them everywhere else. So while its possible he made some mistakes I cannot accept he made them everywhere we need him to in order to accept this as a total explanation for what happened.
The other being that the Kidnapper wore gloves so what he touch erased all the prints, or, even as Wilentz suggested - the burlap bag being dragged over the sill took some out as well.
Again, this doesn't explain why prints are missing everywhere they should be - especially an area like the French Window that we know the Kidnapper(s) did not utilize.
There should have been, at the very least, partials with no workable ridge counts like they found everywhere else in the house. Like I said, they were raising both kinds of the child's prints well into the summer in various places outside of that Nursery.
Additionally, Kelly wasn't the only fingerprint man to work the crime scene. I know that Sgt. Kubler, and Sgt. Sjostrom (and maybe Hausler) also worked it for several days dusting various areas. Once Dr. Hudson came on board he actually taught them how to use his Silver Nitrate methods.
Hudson got involved because he read there were no prints found on the ladder. As Amy suggested, the weather and the unpainted wood the ladder was constructed from weren't ideal for the Black Powder methods - so that, along with the fact people touched the ladder after wards, is why the Silver Nitrate worked because it brings prints that soaked into the wood out. But its also interesting to point out they found at least (1) (maybe more) prints where only one of the Makers could have touched it (in the mortise under the rung).
The most obvious answer is that someone wiped down the room in those areas. So we should consider this, at the very least, as a possibility. If the Kidnapper wore gloves why did he? Maybe he took them off as I believe someone suggested earlier then attempted to erase the areas he/they believed they touched. Or maybe it was an "Insider" who, thinking they'd come up with their prints thought removing them would make it less likely to be considered as a Suspect. It could even be that someone came in after the fact, started touching everything, then thought "Holy S***!, I just touched everything and now they're going to think I was involved...." type of scenario. That person being totally innocent and having no involvement.
Kevin: I will have to go through my Fingerprint file to see whether or not Kelly (or someone else) ever did dust those areas. Sometimes secondary Reports reveal certain things not listed in the main one.
BTW: I mis-spoke when I called the 1977 NJSP action a "re-investigation." It was deemed a "Review."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 18:11:20 GMT -5
So many of the other investigators described that print as a smudge. I didn't think it of real value as far as showing a window entry. Kelly describes a much more defined print. I may need to rethink the window entry now!
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Jun 27, 2014 15:33:35 GMT -5
The lack of fingerprints has always bothered me. I've read conflicting reports and opinions on this but something just occurred to me. The baby seemed to spend a lot of time in the nursery. His potty chair, even his meals etc. And as anyone who has ever spent time around a normal & mobile toddler knows, they touch EVERYTHING within reach. Had he ever toddled or played in his own nursery. Could it be one more indicator that something was wrong with the baby that his fingerprints are not located in any of the normal places an active & healthy toddlers prints should be? Besides his crib I mean. That is, on every surface he could reach ? Because a mobile toddlers prints should have been. Regardless of him not having spent a lot of time at his parents new estate. Could this be an indication that at least at this juncture, the baby was unable to get around very well?
Just trying to think outside the box here...
|
|
|
Post by Rain on Jun 27, 2020 15:17:44 GMT -5
You make a very good point. I've read that the baby's toys and books had his fingerprints on them, as well as the bottom of the crib. But a toddler would be crawling and then walking all over the room, touching everything, perhaps including the broad window sills.
So something doesn't make sense. But even if the baby was not very mobile, he could probably crawl and he would attempt to stand and walk. Unless those who were caring for him feared he could fall and break a bone or fracture his skull.
Just a thought: Did the windows in the nursery have protective screens/barriers to prevent a wandering toddler, particularly one that was large/tall for his age, from climbing a suitcase, potty chair or large toy onto the broad window sill and then falling out of an open window. Was the window easy to open? Would the window have been open that day? To air it out? Was it too cold and windy? What was the weather like between 10:00 a.m. and 7 p.m. that day. Apparently, Betty didn't arrive until mid-afternoon that day. Did she have other duties besides caring for the baby, such as sewing the baby's clothes or hemming the adults clothes? Did Lindbergh require that the window in the baby's room be opened at times during the day?
Did the baby fall down the stairs?
Was Lindbergh the type of man to admit to an accident? Would an inquest have been necessary? Maybe.
Are we sure Lindbergh wasn't at the house earlier in the day before his stated arrival of 8:25 p.m.? Was it confirmed that Lindbergh was at his office that afternoon and early evening?
Was Anne at the house that afternoon and early evening? Was pregnant Anne ill that day? Did she take to help her rest? Did she sleep?
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 27, 2020 16:35:23 GMT -5
It's quite possible that the person who wiped down the room to get rid of the fingerprints also straightened out the toys that were knocked over when the room was exited. This looks very much like an inside job. Straightening the room may have been part of the plan, but it's more likely that the individual doing the "cleaning" straightened things automatically just to "put them right."
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 27, 2020 17:21:32 GMT -5
Let me explain further: following the kidnapping, someone from the household wiped down the room down to get rid of the fingerprints and noticed that the toys in front of the window had been knocked over. This individual then wiped down the toys just in case there were prints or some other evidence on them. This person then replaced the toys but set them erect, perhaps an oversight but understandable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2020 7:31:31 GMT -5
Just a thought: Did the windows in the nursery have protective screens/barriers to prevent a wandering toddler, particularly one that was large/tall for his age, from climbing a suitcase, potty chair or large toy onto the broad window sill and then falling out of an open window.
You made a very good post, Rain. I have certainly given thought to the possibility that Charlie's skull could have been fractured by an accident. I am so glad that you brought up the window screen issue. There were screens for the Highfield house that were installed. I will post the report for this. I do not see how any screens were on the nursery windows at the time of the kidnapping. If they were in place at that time the shutters would not have been able to be closed without doing something with the screen first. It would be in the way of accessing those shutters. imgur.com/LHCZdf2 Page One imgur.com/EtSEHqK Page Two Michael, did Leon and Horn ever get to interview Robert Kubler?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2020 7:38:37 GMT -5
It's quite possible that the person who wiped down the room to get rid of the fingerprints also straightened out the toys that were knocked over when the room was exited. This looks very much like an inside job. Straightening the room may have been part of the plan, but it's more likely that the individual doing the "cleaning" straightened things automatically just to "put them right." I do agree that the room had been wiped down to remove fingerprints. I think this was part of the staging plan for this room. I am still uncertain that there was a window entry into that room. More like Charlie was passed out the window from an inside helper, which is my current theory.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 28, 2020 7:46:19 GMT -5
Ass I recall, mud was found on the floor of the nursery, which would indicate that someone had come in from the outside as the ground was covered with a yellowish mud.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2020 8:04:44 GMT -5
True. There were some mud smudges (not many) that could have been part of the staging of this room to suggest to investigators that there was a window entry when there wasn't. The idea is to point away from the possibility there was inside help and steer the investigation to outsiders only. CAL himself does this, pointing out, when he takes investigators to the nursery and tells them they must have used the unlocked southeast window to enter the room. Why does he make this suggestion other than to influence the police interpretation of the crime? He wasn't asked. He offered this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2020 9:37:32 GMT -5
Michael, did Leon and Horn ever get to interview Robert Kubler? As I'm sure you know the investigations into the workers began immediately after the crime and extended even after Hauptmann's arrest. Some people were never located but Kubler was: imgur.com/klkoo9cimgur.com/v1Vbk3n
|
|