Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2008 11:45:40 GMT -5
Rick, if you're talking about the hole in the top of the baby's head, I think you're referring to its fontanelle. At the risk of unhinging myself again, I suppose one can't preclude the possibility though of a clean laser hole drilled by overhead flying saucer as the baby was out on its eight mile round trip nightly stroll through the woods. This may be the detail Mary Belle Spencer missed out on.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 20, 2008 11:58:35 GMT -5
Here is an interesting website: Click on the "Illustration"...Baby Skull... www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001590.htmIt discusses and illustrates "Craniosynostosis" or premature closing of the skull fontenelles in a baby's skull--a congenital defect leading to other very serious problems. Im not certain you could call the anterior fontenelle illustrated a perfect match? Does a hole the size of a quarter exceed the notion of late closure? and "top of head" vs. "forehead"? Seems like it might be a medical question? Joe and Kev--maybe you two could become host/questioners for the next Pres debate? Call ABC and check?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 20, 2008 12:43:52 GMT -5
Thanks for the plug, Rick! Unfortunately I am already pitching a new reality series called the Lindbergh Loonies. It's potentially a great show and the best thing is there is no shortage of guests and material. Stay tuned for contact info!
So, is it a varmint hole, a bullet hole, or a space based laser( good point Joe)? Are you sure it's Charlie? Joe might have a good point, we could be looking at an extraterrestrial visitor here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2008 19:37:45 GMT -5
Now was the was hole dug out or not? Here is some old research. When I get a chance I will try to do a little more to see what I can find. From the 5-12 Wire: The body was lying in a depression as though there had been attempt to bury it, face down. The body was in a bad state of decomposition. We could not tell how long the body had been lying there .Inspector Walsh, 5-12 Report: Body, while partly buried, was clothed in two shirts, which were subsequently identified by the nurse in the Lindbergh home as the shirts worn by the Lindbergh baby at the time of its kidnapping. Orville Wilson Statement 5-12: We stayed there about five minutes or more and in looking over the little body we noticed that it lay in a sort of a shallow hole and sort of covered up with dirt and leaves. It seem to me as if somebody had put the body there and attempted to cover it up with leaves and dirt.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2008 10:03:21 GMT -5
It's a no-brainer to me that had the body been buried the body would remain in the bag. Since the body was found without the bag I would assume that any natural material found covering the body was not placed there in a feeble attempt at a burial. If you are going to bury the body, you bury it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2008 5:58:20 GMT -5
Here's how I see it, and we all know I could be wrong.... I believe the body was somewhere else then placed in the place where it was found. I do believe whoever moved it then wanted it discovered after it was moved. I also believe there was an attempt to make it appear it was left there March 1st after being hastily buried. Everything I have been able to find says the body was found 75 feet or 25 yards from the road..... Here is something else I was able to scrounge up: The body was lying in a depression as though there had been an attempt to bury it, face down. The body was in a bad state of decomposition. We could not tell how long the body had been lying there. [Schwarzkopf - Special Bulletin - 5-12-32]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2008 6:41:16 GMT -5
Ok, so you must believe that the body was removed from the bag then partially covered with leaves. That must have been a pretty unpleasant job. See where I have a problem with this scenario is somewhat the same as the Hauptmann frame up. If you want to frame a guy you do it and you make it happen, you just don't let chance dictate the terms. If the body was meant to be discovered, then why not make it easy to discover. Why allow chance to dictate the discovery? As with Lyle and the gold note, how much longer may that body have remained there if Allen walked 10ft in another direction? Too much chance, imho at work here. Just the exposure to various carrion eating birds and animals could have virtually destroyed the body. Why not simply leave the body in the bag and tie it on a tree limb? That would protect it and it would be like a flag to any passerby.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 22, 2008 8:58:42 GMT -5
Michael--I totally agree. The body was brought back in the bag, dumped out of the bag and the bag placed along the road as a marker.
Al Dunlap commented when he hurried to the body site on May 13th that there was evidence of searching all around that area so the dump must have been later than all that. Some persons remarked about walking their dogs around there etc. some hunters or doctors?
I dont see this discovery being left to chance after all this precise planning--for a year or more? William Allen could have easily been paid, as all the other actors, to go find the burlap bag? After all, he crossed the road to look around....as Im pretty certain they were headed North on Hopewell-Princeton road.
I found 2-3 other sources claiming the body was only 50 feet from the road, Whipple, Waller, and The Hand of Hauptmann (Haring), but the only concern here is to get in, and get out as quickly as possible. Can you confirm that Schenck saw two cars at the spot along the road before he was kidnapped by J. Devine>?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2008 9:41:48 GMT -5
At the risk of making everything a little simpler ( oops, now I did it), why not just save yourself the enormous risk and unpleasantness and just dump the body in the bag along the road?? So now we add Allen to the gang? At least they are an equal opportunity employer! My suggestion, perhaps it would be easier to name those in the metro area who were not involved. It's getting to be a pretty short list.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 22, 2008 12:33:34 GMT -5
"Why not simply leave the body in the bag and tie it to a tree limb?" --I continue to wonder about the long strips of burlap found at or near the grave site. Also what appears as a cut/tear in the burlap bag (but don't know if that was toward the top or the bottom).
Please bear with me a moment if you can: - Suppose it was not the perp(s) who put the body at that site. Shippel comes to my mind. Did he not, at some point, claim the baby was dead? He also said a hole had been dug on his place. Was he curious about that hole, dug it up, found the remains, put them in a burlap bag and got them the hey off his property(?) Maybe even with March 1 newspaper (being crazy, doesn't have to also mean dumb). Bag tied up on tree limb (but later onto ground from whatever cause)? Not a bad idea and yes, possibly to be found, for whatever his reasoning. --Back to the hole dug on his property--think maybe a (happenstance) mulch pile which would be easy and quick to dig hole in - nearly everyone had those out in the country- mulch=heat=quicker decomp. I recognize that not all the parts may fit this way, but guess playing with the pieces may be OK.
I can't help but have problem with burlap bag being at roadside as a marker. Since there was enough decomp for a foot bone to have been found inside it, couldn't that have been an animal dragging it away/dropping there?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 22, 2008 17:31:07 GMT -5
I guess if your suggesting that some other than BRH moved the body then it makes some sense. I just don't see risking the stop, carrying the decomposing body in a sack 75ft into the woods, taking the body out ( can you imagine), placing the body in a shallow "grave", covering up with leaves, then walking back and placing the bag by the road as some type of marker. Why bother? Why risk it? What's the point? Is the body meant to be buried or discovered? Neither intention is satisfied by the previous scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2008 18:43:49 GMT -5
There may have been shallow holes (depressions) in the area, or someone "scooped" out a very small amount of earth. The corpse was then covered with a small amount of dirt and leaves - enough to ensure that weather would eventually uncover it.
My position is:
1. The child was moved to this place.
(Condon and Parker's assertion - in addition to Rab's research - and the fact negotiations still took place are enough for me.)
2. The child was meant to be found.
(Partial burial and bag left on the side of the road almost, if not, directly marking where the corpse was on a direct line in 75 feet from the road).
3. It was meant for the Police to think it had been there the entire time.
(March 1st newspaper found nearby and decomposition rate very near time of kidnapping)
He did point out a hole on his property and said it had contained the baby originally.
Exactly. It was Rab's theory that the Kidnappers were honoring their agreement by "returning" the child.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 22, 2008 19:17:11 GMT -5
Michael: this raises other questions: [/quote] [li] What is the motive for creating the illusion that Charlie has been there for the entire 72 days? [/li][li] Who amongst our cast of characters is clever enough to consider this ruse and get ever so close to being fully successful? Someone like Paul Wendel? [/li][li] eg. Does this ruse throw suspicion off someone or group in particular and onto someone else in particular? Its puzzling/ [/li][/ul]
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 22, 2008 20:28:20 GMT -5
If we stay with the scenario of Shippel finding the remains buried on his property, and just maybe in something of a mulch heap, I would guess he used a shovel to lift out those remains--dirt, leaves and all. Into the burlap sack. Gloves on his hands (discarded gloves found somewhere in vicinity of the body). Remains found with a few leaves and a bit of dirt on it. If I recall the description of the leaves in bag wasn't it something like "a clump" or "matted together"? Matted together in combination with decomp matter? As to the risk of transferring the remains. Somewhere, and how I wish I could find that, it was said someone saw a man walking in a field up near to the woods/grave, (and, I think)carrying a sack. And I should guess this said only after the body discovery. Out in the country would a man walking across a field be that unusual?And not knowing how long after the kidnap this disposal occurred, do we know how active a local search was still going on? i.e. how risky? What with the ransom note being mailed from NYhow long and how intensive did those (about 4 miles away) searches go on? If Shippel's shack was 1/4 mile from grave site, does it take (and not necessarily along the road)very long to walk it? I don't know those answers, but do wonder. Still with Shippel now, whether he aimed for the body to be found of not ,-- it beats me. He seems to have been on the paranoid side, which would make his reasoning difficult to figure.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Apr 23, 2008 1:26:49 GMT -5
The site where the baby was found, and the question of how long the body was there is certainly interesting.
I can't agree that the body was removed from the bag and the bag then used as a marker. They must have both been decomposing together for at least some period of time, as the Squibb report states that amongst the five bags of soil dug to 14" at the site of the body the following were found: a small mat of fibre corresponding to the burlap bag with small rootlets growing through it, and two small pieces of the baby's underclothes.
To me this indicates the bag was with the body at least as long it takes for this disintegration to occur.
Also, on both the childs undergarments there were fibres from the burlap bag, two of them actually being on the inside of the inner garment, which I also find quite interesting.
There was no sign of blood in the soil or on the leaves or bag. There were signs of putrefication, decomposition and maggots in the 3 bags of leaves and soil. This takes time.
Bones found were embedded in soil, hair was found matted with decomposing leaves. This takes time.
So what does this mean? Well to me it seems the body was transferred to the site after an unknown period of time. The body and the bag were there long enough for disintegration of the bag and clothes to begin.
At some point body and bag were separated - I can only think of two ways, either by animals or a human.
If it was animals, esp dogs, that may explain the dirt kicked up around the body.
If it was a person, well just maybe they discovered it to their horror and did not want to become involved, or some such?
I know very little about Schippel, but he sounds a bit nutty - say he found it and that's why he said the baby was dead? I presume that while he seemed a prime suspect and was questioned, there was a reason the police discounted his involvement, but I would love to know more.
I have no idea how the bag came to be so far from the body.
I for one so far remain unconvinced that body was meant to be discovered. If it was me, I wouldn't want to be discovered with the dead baby. I tend to think that the discovery was coincidence or good fortune and probably even irrelevant to the dumper.
I do find the bag intriguing in that its recent uses seem to have been for oats and coal - to this city girl seems more for rural use than NY, and so I continue to wonder about a local connection.
Hope I haven't gone on too long!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 23, 2008 6:12:26 GMT -5
Refreshing and encouraging to hear someone using facts and evidence ( not to mention common sense), exalts PZB!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2008 11:01:29 GMT -5
This is excellent stuff and I remember you posting some of it before. It's why I believe the child had been buried in the bag originally before being brought to Mt. Rose. I can't see how he wasn't taken out of the bag after the "move" but before the dump due to the bags location, and the child's partial burial. If we are to believe animals wrestled it there then we have to consider the stream, which seems to get in the way, the fact the bag is being dragged toward the road (and not away from it), and the desirable object (corpse) is out of it. I suppose the only other argument is the bag + child was dropped on the side of the road and the animals drug and buried the body where it was found. In company with Sgt. Zapolsky, Cheif Williamson and Chief Wolf we immediately porceeded to the spot on Mt. Rose Hill designated by both the above men and there upon stepping out of the car we found a burlap bag along the road. Entering into the wooods about 25 yds. farther we came to the body of an infant in a badly decomposed state. (Det. James F. Fitzgerald, 5-12-32)[/blockquote] For me, the body was moved for a reason. Obviously where ever it had been was a good spot. Perhaps Rab was right or they thought its former location was somehow too incriminating if the remains were ever found there. I seem to believe Rab's theory because it was risky to move it where it was found instead of some other place.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 23, 2008 14:07:07 GMT -5
Hi pzb~`Found your post to be so interesting, well laid out and the lab review/fibres/rootlets, etc, quite helpful. Have made a copy of same for handy ref. Kudos to you! I, too, would like to learn more about Shippel. Need to get my LKC books unpacked from a recent move and review previous posts, here, about him. Having to read with one eye closed, makes for slow going, but I do aim to do so.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2008 6:21:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 24, 2008 12:08:11 GMT -5
Like it or not the, the trail leads to the Bronx. The "complex" symbol and Hauptmann make it so. Why does one have to negate everything based on the location that the body was found? Who says it was "dumped" there? Kevin--are you suggesting the body came from St. Michaels Orphanage? Very cool! Theon Wright claims Wilintz covered up Mrs. Edith Dormer's testimony during the Trial. (see page 27 In search of the Lindbergh Baby) She was the custodian of St. Michaels at the time. (page 274 Noel Behn)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2008 12:31:41 GMT -5
I somehow knew that's exactly what you would say. Is that really all you can see?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 24, 2008 13:57:13 GMT -5
1. that the green area where the body was found is labeled Mercer County? or,
2. "Back on January 17, 1935, in an effort to dispel the contention that the corpse found in the woods was not that of the LIndbergh infant but most likely the remains of a child from St. Michale's Orpahange, which owned the adjointing land, the prosecution at BRHs trial had elicited testimony from Mrs. Elmira Dormer, the custodian of St. Michael's. Dormer had told the jury that in Feb and March of 1932 all of the institution's children were acccounted for. Ten months later Ellis Parker still wasnt' buying this and assinged Bill Pelletreau to check out the enrollment of the orphanage in early 1932 and learn which of the children had died." page 321 Behn
3. St. Michael's owns over 333 acres? [666/2?]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2008 15:36:46 GMT -5
Sorry, good try. Maybe loose the preconceptions?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 25, 2008 15:13:00 GMT -5
There's more on this if anyone is interested I can keep looking..... I believe he actually showed someone a hole and said that's where the child was buried. We have to remember that Schippel was unstable. He was once overheard saying he believed Lindbergh wanted to "kidnap" his daughter.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 26, 2008 13:48:59 GMT -5
It is surprising how many different persons had Charles Schippell noted as a person of interest in this case--from Squire Johnson in 1932 vis-a-vis the ladder to C. Lloyd Fischer (Liberty Magazine) in 1936 when BRH was executed? Bornmann and Koehler checked out his lumber and tools in March 1933. There is even an implication that Antonio Chowlewsky considered him a suspect on page 119 of Laura Vitrays book. Schippell had a Bronx NY connection and rented his farm to weird Italians in summer 1931 (FBI files). But the best connection was the close proximity of his shack to the body discovery site (1/4 mile) and rumors of a hole dug up on his property where the baby had been buried earlier? Also, most of his friends and relatives accused him of participation in the kidnapping? Maybe even Garret Schenck the fish monger connects to Shippell in some way?
How did Charlie Schippell (aka Schoepfel, Scheppel, Shappel) avoid arrest and more intense questioning the likes of Red, Violet, and Brinkert about possible involvement? His alibi for March 1st seemed flimsy? A May 19th 1932 photo of his deserted farmhouse in the Daily Northwestern claims he was missing and sought by police?
Michael--why did the NJSP take a 2nd look at Schippell after BRH was arrested? The Palmitier document above is dated Oct 7, 1934? Were the cops still maning the Gate 30 months later?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2008 19:37:34 GMT -5
Apparently it checked out. His name kept coming up but everytime afterwards they would rule him out again based upon it. Here's a statement taken from him which includes the "hole":
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 28, 2008 16:58:06 GMT -5
Michael-- the NJSP had 30 months to investigate Schippell before the arrest of BRH. Wonder why his name came back up into the spotlight after Sept 19, 1934 unless BRH happened to mention his name? Doesnt add up to me?
If I read the early documents/interviews correctly he said he and his wife were in Hopewell iin March and April 1932? I suppose Schippel was allowed to change his alibi until he got it right? Its interesting that his daughter graduated from Hopewell High in 1938.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2008 18:31:34 GMT -5
I know that he did make conflicting statements Rick but there was supposed to be proof he wasn't in Hopewell that night. Supposedly he was home in bed sick (236 E. 88th St. NYC) and the Police seemed to accept this.
Another thing was that Condon saw his picture and said he wasn't John... The issue I have with this is that Schippel looked a lot like Hauptmann and was even mistaken for him by locals after Hauptmann's arrest.
I am still searching for a couple of reports that aren't located in the file I assigned to him......when I locate them I will post what I find.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 29, 2008 10:04:11 GMT -5
Michael...you are absolutely right! I found the May 1932 reports on Schippell.....he claimed he was in VA hospital the night of the snatch, but came back to Hopewell with his wife between March 22nd and April 2nd. Interesting timing....
Two things always astounded me about this case:
1> Jafsie Condon was the designated gatekeeper? If JFC didnt say you were Cemetery John then you were home free OR
2> If your handwriting didnt match the ransom notes you were released immediately?
3> Maybe John Gorch, maybe Isador Fisch, maybe a Scandanavian seaman--but surely not Charlie Schippell?
4> Can you post Schippell's photo?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 30, 2008 2:48:36 GMT -5
Are you implying then, since there is no exit wound that the incompetency of the autopsy or their compliance of a criminal act in it's infancy (it's been going on for seventy plus years) meant that the pistol killing was then covered up? Just offhand, think why would a kidnapper risk the sound of a gunshot when he/she/they are trying to be secretive? The baby could be killed and silenced by, gross as it sounds, a quick squeeze of his head. Personally, and I know I'm not as knowledgable as many on this site, it seems to me that the more the crime is looked into the more ridiculous it becomes. It rings very much of credible people wasting their time on Kennedy, Kennedy, King, OJ, Ramsey, just in our lifetimes, and Borden, and Jack the Ripper of old, while interesting crimes such as Hall-Mills perhaps could be solved by Monday morning detectives. I've noticed that no one on here listens closely to Kevkon and Joe - they just take the next spot and keep expounding their last unusual premise. I don't think the LKC has been completely solved but that's just my personal opinion. In a big way it has very much been solved as a one looney thing. The KK board evidence swayed me. I don't see how Hauptmann could have done it alone but after 911 I've thrown impossibles out the window. Bringing up junk like Val O'Farrell whose claim to fame was that he was never known for anything is just distracting. Bornmann was certainly a more credible detective, and what did he say about the crime, even after being ragged on directly by the Governor, along with many others, NJSP, NYCP, and FBI? Bornmann is very underrated, perhaps defamed by doubters at LKC, and they should look more closely at him than at Val O'Farrel who was probably inbetween jobs or careers when he investigated LKC.
|
|