|
Post by xjd on Feb 4, 2013 20:22:24 GMT -5
I really wished the Nova production had included what Kevkon said was cut out of the final show. seems like the ladder should say so much. but, like the Mannlicher Carcano in the JFK assassination, I suppose it's been handled so many, many times by now that any new evidence discovered on it would be suspect?
one question I've wondered about but after doing a search here didn't really find addressed (but maybe i missed it?);
was there discernable mud on any of the rungs? seems like if there wasn't that would argue for it's being just a prop or brought to the house but not used. how could one or more bad guys traipse through that area on a stormy night & not leave the ladder a gloppy mess? even with the burlap over the shoes?
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Feb 6, 2013 18:13:43 GMT -5
Yes, there was mud on the ladder, some of which was consistent with the soil in the vicinity of the Lindbergh house and some of which wasn't. Several years back, Liz Pagel did an analysis of the soil evidence. It's available here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/lizpagel.pdfRab
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 8, 2013 9:04:33 GMT -5
thanks RAB, that was very interesting report.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 25, 2014 19:08:11 GMT -5
I just finished a book titled "The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping" by Judith Edwards, and it mentions on page 11 that " planks had been put down by carpenters(over the mud outside the house) who had been working on the house that day". Then, not a word that these carpenters had been asked if this was their ladder. No mud on the ladder either. A section of the ladder was found 75 feet away, and nearby 2 more sections. No mud in the child's bedroom, or on the sill. Also you would have to be a monkey to claim through the window, and then back again unto the ladder, if the ladder was placed as it is usually shown in most pictures of it leaning against the house, on the right side of the window, although some photos show only 2 sections of the ladder leaning against the house, as seen in page 55 of this woeful book's account of this tragic event. Not even a monkey could have entered the house from 2 sections of this ladder. My point is, nobody used a ladder to abduct the child, the ladder was a prop. My opinion is that it was an inside abduction, whoever took the baby exited through the front door. This was a huge house, and the few people within were spread out in different parts of the house. The baby didn't cry, the dog didn't bark, none of the other occupants within the house having heard the noise Lindbergh reported hearing outside the house, Lindbergh himself couldn't explain where he had been that day, why he didn't attend the conference he was expected to attend that day, the letter on the radiator not seen by anyone during the frantic first moments after discovering the missing child, no fingerprints anywhere in the room, the intuitive suspicion by the maid that Lindbergh had been playing one of his cruel pranks, hiding the baby in a closet in the house for 20 minutes as he had done just 2 months before, insidious pranks that he has dreamed up many times in the past to fellow workers. I don't fashion this eugenics- minded racist killing his first child but I believe he took the baby and "orphaned" it off in some way. The baby that was found decomposing 3 miles away 2 months after the abduction in the woods was not little Charlie, and that is why the father had the body cremated in less than an hour after he viewed the body, before any forensics were performed. The ransom notes, the transfer of the money, in my opinion was strictly extortion. The extortionists had nothing to do with the abduction, if it can be called that. My finger about who they were would be centered on Isidor Fisch, and cohorts, which didn't include Hauptmann. I believe his story about the money Fisch left behind, and it is known that Fisch left the country one day after the corpse was discovered in the woods. The State of New Jersey should forever be ashamed. That the NJPD left Lindbergh take over the investigation is very suspect, especially with the aborted autopsy of the cadaver found in the woods. The one thing I am not sure of is how Lindbergh went along with the random turnover if he knew the baby had been "orphaned" by him. Maybe that was just the cost of doing "business". That bastard can be glad it wasn't me on this case, but this is 2013, and not 1933, where they didn't have the advantage of hindsight. Enough already.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2014 21:20:40 GMT -5
Thanks for bringing this book to our/my attention Bob - perhaps I am alone when I say I hadn't heard of it before. Those planks had been laid previous to March 1st as a "board walk" through the mud, and every worker they could track down actually was interviewed. Does she say who these Workers were supposed to have been? If so let me know who and I will look them up.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Nov 5, 2017 0:32:09 GMT -5
Just a question if anyone sees this. Why was there mud on the shutter and a bit in the room but none on the side of the house? Or at least shoe scrapes on the side of the house. If the ladder is lower than the window and one has to hoist themselves up to it, how do you keep your feet from touching the side of the house? Did the person leep from the ladder through the window not touching anything? If you have ever pulled yourself up on a wall or fence, your lower body touches it and it would be almost impossible without your “muddy shoes” touching it.
Also, could there have been no fingerprints in the nursery because maybe the guy just wasn’t very good at the job? How advanced was fingerprint technology back in 1932? Maybe...he just had very little experience and frankly sucked at it and that’s why no prints were found. Didn’t he also find no prints on the ladder yet the next guy found lots of prints?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2017 8:40:57 GMT -5
Just a question if anyone sees this. Why was there mud on the shutter and a bit in the room but none on the side of the house? Or at least shoe scrapes on the side of the house. If the ladder is lower than the window and one has to hoist themselves up to it, how do you keep your feet from touching the side of the house? Did the person leep from the ladder through the window not touching anything? If you have ever pulled yourself up on a wall or fence, your lower body touches it and it would be almost impossible without your “muddy shoes” touching it. Your question is something I've been wrestling with for a while now. I do not know how that mud got onto the top of the bottom shutter unless, as I suggested, on page 207 of the TDC. It is clear to me that the mud came from the only footstep in the mud at the base of the ladder facing the house. Since we'd expect more under the circumstances, I am suspicious of it because it is the only one. Next, if someone's right foot remain on the rungs while the left was "high legged over" we'd all expect the ladder to tip if it wasn't held by someone at the bottom. I am not going to get into that debate but "high legging" could avoid the muddy foot from contacting the wall if absolutely careful. The prints in the nursery show there is very little mud left on the foot by that time. This leads me to believe it was either planted or most of the mud was off the shoe before they went in. But it's placement on the top of that shutter is troubling, and the police only made sense of it in a way that does not work. Also, could there have been no fingerprints in the nursery because maybe the guy just wasn’t very good at the job? How advanced was fingerprint technology back in 1932? Maybe...he just had very little experience and frankly sucked at it and that’s why no prints were found. Didn’t he also find no prints on the ladder yet the next guy found lots of prints? I tried to address this on page 226 of TDC. Kelly raised prints everywhere else in the house using the same black and aluminum powders. So if he didn't know his job would we expect that to have occurred?
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Nov 6, 2017 23:11:21 GMT -5
I didn’t remember reading that from your book so I’ll go back and check it out regarding the fingerprints. That is very odd indeed. So regardless of what happened, the nursery had been wiped down by someone at sometime. So why are there no footprints around the room with mud on them from the wipe down and how long was someone in there doing this?! Also, if someone wiped all the fingerprints, I wonder why they didn’t wipe their muddy sock prints.
Regarding the mud on the ladder, could it be possible that the person wiped their shoes before entering the nursery. Perhaps from a rag from the ladder? You’d think there would be SOME sort of smudge on the outside wall from a person, possibly damp from rain and with enough mud on their feet to track some into the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 7, 2017 18:57:02 GMT -5
The mud on the top of the library shutter has always been a puzzle. It would lead someone to believe that someone used it as a step up. I don't. I believe it was a part of the staging. Would it be possible for someone to plop a hunk of mud on top of that shutter from inside the library? If not, and someone climbed the ladder to place it there, how far would the feet of the ladder have been pushed into the ground? How soft was the ground under the window, and how far would the feet sink if someone weighing around 160#s climbed the ladder to the window? I'm under the understanding that the holes beneath the feet were 2" deep. Please correct me, if I got it wrong. Really, 2 inches?
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 6, 2023 8:25:25 GMT -5
According to the New York Times March 2, there was "mud caked on the rungs of the ladder" and "muddy footprints from the window to the crib." They apparently got that story from The Colonel. According to NJSP Corporal Wolf's report, there was one very small smudge of mud (he doesn't say if it's dry or wet, and that would be important to fixing the time of the "entry") on the suitcase under the window, and one small smudge on the floor. That's it. Wolf mentions NOTHING about ANY mud on the "ladder." Considering that there is ZERO chance of ANYONE climbing in--let alone climbing back out--a window opening that small, with a 12-inch sill, and the chest and suitcase piled under the window. Forget PITCH BLACK darkness. Do it in broad daylight. No way. Period. Don't tell me how it "could" be done. Show me. It. Can't. Be. Done. Baby or no baby. That opening is maybe 18 inches tall and 24 inches wide. Eeeeeeeven if you dragged yourself in from the "ladder," WITHOUT kicking the ladder away, and magically levitated over the chest/suitcase, there is simply no way to get BACK onto the ladder from inside. No. Way. At. All. Not to mention getting around the shutter being in the way after he "pried" it open with "the chisel." Unless you think he climbed up twice--once to pry open the shutter, then down, then move the ladder so it's OVER the now-open shutter, then back up again. Funny thing is, there was only ONE set of ladder marks in the mud...
So, we KNOW that is NOT what happened. Period. And that's why there's no significant mud inside the nursery. If there was any at all. Remember, The Colonel is dictating every move and every word.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 6, 2023 14:22:10 GMT -5
According to the New York Times March 2, there was "mud caked on the rungs of the ladder" and "muddy footprints from the window to the crib." They apparently got that story from The Colonel. According to NJSP Corporal Wolf's report, there was one very small smudge of mud (he doesn't say if it's dry or wet, and that would be important to fixing the time of the "entry") on the suitcase under the window, and one small smudge on the floor. That's it. Wolf mentions NOTHING about ANY mud on the "ladder." Considering that there is ZERO chance of ANYONE climbing in--let alone climbing back out--a window opening that small, with a 12-inch sill, and the chest and suitcase piled under the window. Forget PITCH BLACK darkness. Do it in broad daylight. No way. Period. Don't tell me how it "could" be done. Show me. It. Can't. Be. Done. Baby or no baby. That opening is maybe 18 inches tall and 24 inches wide. Eeeeeeeven if you dragged yourself in from the "ladder," WITHOUT kicking the ladder away, and magically levitated over the chest/suitcase, there is simply no way to get BACK onto the ladder from inside. No. Way. At. All. Not to mention getting around the shutter being in the way after he "pried" it open with "the chisel." Unless you think he climbed up twice--once to pry open the shutter, then down, then move the ladder so it's OVER the now-open shutter, then back up again. Funny thing is, there was only ONE set of ladder marks in the mud... So, we KNOW that is NOT what happened. Period. And that's why there's no significant mud inside the nursery. If there was any at all. Remember, The Colonel is dictating every move and every word. Mud in nursery was from Anne's shoes when she returned from her walk.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 12, 2023 15:24:21 GMT -5
Also, remember, The Colonel ran outside and came back inside, then back up to the baby's room, across the room, and to the window where he "found" the ransom note. He must have had SOME mud on his shoes.
|
|