jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 27, 2008 17:18:30 GMT -5
They've got a nice pitch on the roof. It's a half peak with upper windows. Garage will be nicer than the guy's house. Most Injuns are good workers (if they show), but hard to work with if you're not another Indian.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2008 19:28:16 GMT -5
Hey Jack Did you now that one of our fellow boardmember's Grandfather actually helped Hauptmann build his garage! I wonder if someone like you was watching and commenting on the Germans and how they worked! Nothing really changes, we just think it does!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 28, 2008 14:06:19 GMT -5
How right you are Kevin! I'd imaging Germans are pretty good at building garages. I used to run a motel and had roofing crews stay there. They are pretty transient, going where the work is. Interestingly, I learned that a Mexican crew can do three roofs a day, Koreans two, and white guys a partial. I got to know and was friends with many Koreans, but Mexicans are about half illegal and don't chat at all, and the white guys were really trying to get oilfield work, so were usually too busy to hang. I'd say as far as other races I've known Koreans are by far the most friendly. I had a Korean crew recaulk 60 bathrooms in ONE DAY - and basically one guy was caulking - amazing! I had a white maid who could do 50 rooms good, and she paid her own R&B. And a white kid who everyone said was looney so I took him in there to keep him out of trouble who could fix anything - vacuum cleaners, flourescent lights - in about four minutes - I paid him out of pocket, but he wauld have done it for free. Some kinda crazy. I had a kid doing laundry - I only had budget for four hours and he was working eight. We hear so much bad about everyone but there are plenty of good people too. Of course, running that place alone I was working 24/7/365 so lots of workers there at that time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 6, 2008 17:48:53 GMT -5
Hey Jack, are you really the brains behind the forum busting gang? How the hell did you become public enemy #1? Remember, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs! Why is everything a conspiracy? ? PS Keep up the good work!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 6, 2008 23:20:31 GMT -5
Hey Kevin: What a buncha junk. It doesn't bother me, and hope it doesn't bother you and a few others I respect like Michael and Rick and Steve. Tanialee has really come up with some new and interesting things. I'm not sure if you know of her but she's cool. We are working at legal recognition of famous artists via handwriting analysis - kind of an obscure subject, but as an offshoot she is into Lindbergh and is looking at the notes. She's come up with some wonderfull things. I'll let you judge that for yourself - and as you say, we've got to keep breaking eggs so you break some eggs too. You have grand ideas - throw them out! And then you'll probably be known as a forum buster! Everything cannot be a conspiracy. In fact, in all of true crime there are only a handfull of consparicies - think about it - too many people involved, and somebody will squalk. Thousands of cases and only a few known conspiracies - Leopold and Loeb, which you brought up is one of few. The more I think about the crime, the more I believe that Hauptmann had the will and wits to accomplish it alone, and what we are looking at as partial to the crime are simply coincidences. I imagine that Charles Lindbergh looked back at it all over the years and thought that it was pretty stupid. Besterest, Jack
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 7, 2008 7:34:08 GMT -5
Of course it doesn't bother me, Jack. I think it's ironic, though, that you and Michael are tagged as VD'rs and forum busters. I know Michael and he is probably the most tolerant person I have met. And you appear to me to be very open minded as well. The only sad part is the public display of the degeneration of two minds due probably to age. Sad for them and sad for anyone new to this case whose first exposure is the complete lunacy exhibited by them. Paranoia will destroy ya!
Yeah, conspiracies are fascinating but they always leave a large footprint.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 7, 2008 16:36:12 GMT -5
Ya - that's the problem. Newcomers wonder, but I've got an excuse - I'm legally crazy and they aren't! So I jive a lot and touch on good junk once in a while. You know the saying, you have to throw a lot against the wall before some of it sticks. With the ladder resolved you're pretty quiet. There are so many facets to Lindbergh, that most are interesting studies in themselves, but what I like now is what Michael is doing - going after (by fact) the investigation which was stopped at Hauptmann's arrest. There are sure some interesting coincidences there, and you know all about coincidence in true crime. Jack
|
|
|
Post by Alanon on Aug 7, 2008 16:47:57 GMT -5
"Yeah, conspiracies are fascinating but they always leave a large footprint"
it all mostly hinges on your definition of conspiracy; one is a lone wolfe, but +2 is a conspiracy? Just like the lastest anthrax conjecture by the keystone FBI....if you listen to the reports most folks are saying that no ways could the "dead microquy" have ever been convicted on such slime (ops slim) or circumstantial evidence? They harrassed Hatfield for 5 years and he ended up with $5.5million? We all suppose lightening never strikes twice? maybe RBH did it since the letters were mailed in Princeton NJ nearto a sorority KKK?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 7, 2008 19:27:40 GMT -5
You don't have enough faith in the potential of a single person, Rick.
Hmmm. I think, no I know that the more individuals involved in any endeavor, the more evidence that will be present of their actions. You just can't change that salient fact. Two, three, or a mob, the footprint just gets bigger and bigger.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 7, 2008 23:54:59 GMT -5
I hate to get into this further junk, but I remember when anthrax happened and FBI was looking all over the world at terrorists (?) and I said look down the street because that's where 99% of anthrax is developed, and they said "duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh," Well they didn't look for about four years but finally caught the guy. I don't recall all the datails now - been quite a while - but I called the Md. location, and named the three scientists who were developing anthrax and one was a hit and one sued the government and the third I have never heard about again. I guess I don't unnecessarily toot my horn, but that was a super call by me. My blogs are in the archives from CBS (from 2001) - still available along with the usual whining. Also in FBI files which I have not been able to disclose even though I submitted them, but FOI may unravel them. And here we go again, Kevin - a very solid single person culprit. Sounds like Lindbergh all over and under again!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 8, 2008 1:11:50 GMT -5
I am not at liberty to disclose any information which I might have or have not disclosed in the immediate past with or without an attorney. I at this time cannot discuss the nation of Cambodia. I at this time cannot discuss the nation of Laos. I have no knowledge of an probable movement which terminated in the assination of Premier Duk. I have no knowledge of Premier Duk. Any further questions I submit to Geneva Conference attornies - Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Swartz. I cannot answer any further questions. Jack
|
|
|
Post by Nancy on Oct 19, 2008 10:58:44 GMT -5
I know the Garrett Schenck story. My father was involed in it. I am writing the story now.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2008 18:21:20 GMT -5
Hi Nancy.
Feel free to use this board to promote your book! This is yet another offshoot of the Lindbergh Kidnapping and one that should not be overlooked. I have a ton of information on this angle although I am still looking for the trial transcripts. If there is anything I can do to assist or a piece of information you may be looking for but have been unable to find please let me know.
Any chance you will tell us who your relative was?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 13, 2009 20:31:26 GMT -5
Sorry Kevin, but its in the bag already! Your question is moot/ try answering a question for a change? Cui Bono? lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=113There 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. Michaels quote adds additional gravitas to Pam and Rab. One other factor that should not be overlooked: "Climate"--the body had to be somewhere alot warmer than Mt. Rose Hill during some portion of the missing time to decompose to the degree found. eg 70F or warmer-- eg indoors. Climatic conditions were too colde and shady on Mt. Rose Hill to decompose a body to that extent in 72 days, eg skeletelized, during March April and start of May 1932 (shown by Al Dunlap/ Ellis H. Parker/ Alan Hynd). I dont know that it had to be this exact spot--other than its midway between Highfields and White Cloud Farm as the crow flies? Maybe some code words in the Boad Nelly note leads to this spot?[if Charlie Jr was dead on or before April 2nd?] It just had to be left close enough to the road to be discovered...maybe the Bill wasnt Paid in Full? Since this strong inference or conclusion of moving CJrs corpse has been out there for well over one year--maybe this time around the block we can develope some additional insights as to Who, How, Why, When, Where and What for are we being fooled? Who benefits if it appears that CJr never left Hopewell? The Mob--or maybe someone clever like Paul H. Wendel?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 16, 2009 14:43:06 GMT -5
Hey Rick: Good post, but there's an upgoof. At least we're down to an issue which has only two factors, albeit several possibilities. Either the body was there between the kidnapping and discovery, or it wasn't. If it was there during that time (which includes the ransome negotiations), then whoever got the money is an accessory to the crime rather than an actual perpetrater. If the body was not there, then there is the strong possibility of a single criminal crime. If, as you imply, the kidnapper(s) were so kindhearted as to return the body (criminals don't really care about things like that) then why not leave it on their doorstep? It's very likely though that the body was not there , and was accidently found. Because, if in the woods for a few more days there would have probably been nothing left of it except scattered bones which were already starting to scatter. Hauptmann most likely had the body in the box at the rear of his Dodge. The amount of deterioration seems a question - if in the woods for even a week it would have been much much worse. No skin and meat left, just to begin with; while actually Jr. was in quite good shape, the critters and worms were just starting on him. Of course now comes the question, if the body was planted, it was very conviently found while it still had recognizable characteristics,
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 17, 2009 6:57:52 GMT -5
Jack--you also raise some excellent points! I like your take on what would have been left of the corpse after 72 days! Nothing! All those hungry dogs, skunks and varmits would have finished it off to zero in short order! Maybe even in a few days?
Maybe this whole discussion about "placing" has to do with the head/face...."face down in the mud"--to protect features? isnt there some psychological factor of "covering the face" when you know your victim? Pretty far fetched I suppose/
Cui Bono? Well, one simple answer might be that the person who was concealing the baby or body did not want to be suspected or implicated so they cleverly tried to fake the body being there since March 1st--noone with a brain should have fallen for that! It might appear clever, but only by half and gives away the deception/ruse/red herring.
No of course the murderers werent kind hearted--more than likely it was a huge F-bomb to Lindbergh--maybe for sticking his nose into the bootlegging/still commerce around the Sourland Mountains? Revenge is best served on a colde platter.
And last but not least--the most remote place I would look for Charlies remains to hide is in the wooden box on the back of BRH Dodge! Im certain even the NJSP look for that kind of evidence...hair, bones, blood, dirt, coal dust? That box would have been remembered amoung all the cars and ladders seen on March 1st driving around Hopewell. I would love to hear any plausible motive for BRH returning the body to Hopewell? He would come up dead last in my book...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 17, 2009 7:32:47 GMT -5
You got that right, Rick. Hauptmann never returned the body because it was always in Hopewell.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 17, 2009 8:12:56 GMT -5
Wow! F-bomb. Call Funk & wagnells - a great new word. Yes, could be the backwoods distillers. Through these posts there runs an underlieing thought of CAL knowing or suspecting that something was going to happen. Perhaps he was threatened, then the big K, then was threatened again, and the move across the pond. Seems like he knew more than he was letting on - why, for example the L created ruse of a gang, or organized crime doing it (from NO evidence of that)? I still like the Nazis - that table is just too strong evidence to disregard. It's entirely inconceivable that someone would just wander around looking for something that matched up with dem holes, then leave a phony message that wouldn't be found for years. Kevkon says his belt matches the hole pattern - have we looked closely at that belt? Is there a message written on the belt? The box may not even have been on Richard's car at the time of the K - just a thought on where the body could have been kept. If he had it in his garage it would account for it's limited degradation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2009 8:26:07 GMT -5
Well Jack is right and I think that's the place to start. Was the body there the whole time or was it moved?
It's my personal opinion that it was moved.
From there we have many more questions. The first is by whom or by what? Could it have been an animal(s) which dug him up then moved him? While there is evidence of animal activity, I have always been dumbfounded by the minimal amount of that under the circumstances. The bag being found along the road, for me, indicates that when the child and the bag became separated, it wasn't when the bag was taken from this burial site and moved toward the road by any animals.
I haven't seen Pam posting in a while, but I would really like to get her input here. We know the child and the bag were together, that the child began to decompose in that bag - then at some point they became separated. How did that separation occur and why?
Why is also the other question as to why the child would be moved by a person. Like Kevin said, they seem to "care" about something enough to risk capture if they are moving the body around. Then again, "John" seemed concerned about Red Johnson.....
This is a puzzle and we have to examine every and all possibilities to come to the most logical conclusion.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 18, 2009 11:30:03 GMT -5
One aspect which nags at me is the baby's face being so well preserved. One of the photos-seemingly right as the body was first turned over-shows a still white face. One source says it then quickly blackened. If the body had been elsewhere first, it seems to me the face would have darkened by or before being put at Mt Rose. Perhaps my perception of that photo is off.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2009 15:01:16 GMT -5
This is how I look at the whole issue; We are faced with several possibilities all of which have some degree of probability.
1) The body ( in the bag was) placed at that spot at the night of the kidnapping. Pro: Obviously the simple explanation which takes into account the location. Con: The area was searched extensively after the crime. Granted, it could have been missed, especially if it was still in the brown burlap bag. Con: The location and distance from a popular road would make a stop here very dangerous. Considering the rural nature of the area there would be many more secluded and less traveled roads to stop at to dispose of the body.
2) The body was returned ( or relocated) to this spot at at a later time. Pro: It would explain the failure of discovery by the search. Con: Once again, it's not the best road for a stranger to stop at, remove the body and go into the woods. Why not one of the many other available choices.
3) The body was placed here to be discovered Pro: Honestly, I can't think of one. Con: The particular location of the body makes discovery a long shot. If you want the body to be found there are too many better places available. Con: Again, stopping on that road with a corpse is way too risky.
4) The body was removed from the bag by the kidnapper Pro: Another simple explanation for the separation of the two. Con: It had to be done after the body started to decompose due to the bone fragment found in the bag. Can you imagine doing this? Con: What would be the point of this messy operation? Con: Lengthens exposure time while car is on that road.
5) The body was placed there by the kidnapper and a shallow grave was dug.
Pro: The body was found in a shallow "depression". Pro: It would make sense to dispose of the body thru burial. Con: No fresh excavated soil was observed at site. Con: Leaves were found under the body. Con: If you are going to bury a body, bury it. Don't dig a depression. Con: Exposure at that site is now at a maximum. You would definitely choose a better location.
6) The body was disposed of somewhere upstream, the bag was weighted down. Natural gasses as a result of decomposition combined with the spring flooding caused the body to float downstream where it came to rest on a peninsula. At some point the body and bag became separated.
Pro: The state of the body ( decomposition) is more readily explainable. Pro: The body while submerged would have escaped the searchers. Pro: Very minimal risk for the kidnapper while providing security of non-discovery during the ransom negotiations. Pro: The "shallow depression" can be explained by the impression made in the wet soil. Pro: The removal of the bag does not occur violently as would be the case, for example if wild animals got to it. Pro: The burlap bag would be subject to the wind once it dried. Con: I'll let you guys complete this!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 18, 2009 15:16:09 GMT -5
Good presentation, Kevkon.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 18, 2009 17:13:49 GMT -5
You laid that out so well, Kevkon! I see it as very helpful. Thanx! Anyone know the size of the stream?
Question (anyone)- How confident can we be of the thoroughness of the search (4-41/2miles away) at the Mt Rose location?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 18, 2009 19:21:14 GMT -5
Hi Mari: I'd like to see some expert opinion here about bodies turning black. I saw a drowning victim once who was under for only about fifteen minutes and he had turned to totally blue. Leads me to believe, because all bodies don't turn black, that water has something to do with. Consequently, CALjr. could have been kept in a garage or a wherever, and introduced to the atmosphere involving water, and turned black. So he was brought back because Hauptmann was unwise, but true to his word.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 18, 2009 19:29:40 GMT -5
Lets take an unusual occurance though, Kevkon. I buy insurance on 9/10/01 to cover my New York buildings against falling aircraft. It costs me peanuts because it will never happen. So when they're having to pay me the three billion, they counter with, well you must have had insider information, Is that much different than CAL not opening the note or taking a week to build a box or scooting around cemetaries. If Charles would have been put upon a true realistic trial he would have been found guilty as an accomplice.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2009 19:32:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2009 8:42:01 GMT -5
1. I try to think of a scenario where Kidnappers would dispose of the child where it was found immediately after the crime. One must suppose things before running down these theories.
Was it Hauptmann alone? Was it a group solely from NY or somewhere a distance away? Was it or could it have been a Local who may have been part of the group?
I think each option presents a different possibility for each.
Kevin's point that this area was searched is important. It's also important to note the temporary wires phone wires were run very near this spot along the road. Additionally, many people claimed to have been at or very near this spot after the crime and claim there was no way the child was there. Still though, I think we would be remiss, as Kevin suggests, to say it wasn't somehow missed. And so we should probably not assign it a 0% that this could have happened.
So, for a minute, let's suppose the child was "put" there on the very night he was taken.... If they were "afraid" of getting caught, or some other like reason, what happened to create this thought in their minds? Running down examples for reasons "why" they did this one of the main assumptions carried down through history was they were "afraid" once they discovered the child was dead. Fear makes sense, but because the child was dead - that doesn't. A dead child is easier to deal with then a live one. Anyone disagree? Also, this implies "panic" and "haste." And so we'd then have to find evidence of both panic and haste to support this in my opinion.
And so if they were "afraid" of getting caught, or some other like reason, what happened to create this thought in their minds?
Next, what relieved them of their fear once the ransom collection began? Now, more then ever, they are in a position of getting caught IF the child is at Mt. Rose waiting to be discovered.
The other con Kevin mentioned about people being seen.... I have several reports in my "suspicious car" file which could be clues here. Additionally, on my old board "MikeK" posted about old road behind this area and suggested the body was brought in from the back - not the front. A few of us went out there with him to check it out...Gary, Sue, Steve, and Frank. After seeing this for myself, I believe its a theory to consider. But again, I don't see how Hauptmann would be this knowledgeable with the surrounding area to this degree.
I am going to deviate for a minute to post on something while its in my head....
There is a little bit of evidence to suggest animal involvement. This is the one thing that bothers me the most. If the child lay there the entire time I wouldn't expect very much of him to be left at all. Yet, that's not the case. For example, a neighbor buried a dead Pomeranian in the woods. Only a few short days days later it was discovered it had been dug up. The "grave" (hole) was empty and just a little bit of hair remained. My opinion is the Foxes I see roaming back there got to it. Looking at it through this lens, how does a dead 20 months old child lay there from March 1st thru May 12th with only this small amount of damage due to animals?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 19, 2009 11:17:16 GMT -5
That's just one of many reasons for believing the body was submerged for a period of time.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 19, 2009 11:30:02 GMT -5
Here are the major issues or problems I see in this discussion:
1. IF the body was left on March 1st, which I doubt is plausible, the ROUTE from Highfields to the site along Princeton-Hopewell Road is stupid--why drive thru Hopewell if you can disappear into the boonies on other smaller roads? Unless you are making a loop?
2. Once you get to the spot--WHY pull along a major highway and risk detection or someone remembering your car on the very night of the kidnap? Doesn't make much sense for a precisely planned crime?
3. How far off the road is the body found? I mentioned years ago that different sources range from 30 ft (Al Dunlap) to "less than 100 yards" in Gardener? Who's going to run so far into the woods leaving a car to be seen on the Highway? Why not just throw the burlap bag out the window on the fly?
4. I actually like the idea of pulling down the gravel road behind the woods and taking the body to the found site--this way is the best to avoid detection. Problem1--BRH wouldn't know this road and Problem2--you have to pull back onto the main road wasting time doubling back unless it went all the ways thru in 1932? A car could be remembered there too.
5. Shippells shack is nearby--even closer than the main highway by some estimations? Lots of folks accused HIM of taking the baby in some bizarre revenge against CAL? The found location would simplify the entire event if later on Charlie Shippel moved it there thru the woods? If he was seen, noone would care...maybe he found it and took it inside for a while? Note: one news account said Schoeppels Shack was 1/4 miles away? Is that about 1,300 feet? or 330 yards?
6. Advanced decomposition was beyond what could have occurred during the cold temps of March and April--nearly refrigerated. (re: James Walsh--Fawcettes PI) Either the TIME of decomposition was longer or the climatic conditions needed to be WARMER--eg inside a building thats heated in the winter....not in BRH's unheated garage. And whats the motive for bringing it back from the Bronx = none/nada/zero.
7. Its an interesting theory that the kidnapper threw the burlap bag into the stream along the road....and then it washed downstream to the found location on the V of the banks...BUT now we have the problem of even more retardation of decomposition in the colde water AND now how does the burlap bag manage to jump onto the opposite side of the road to mark the location? Two big problems right there. Especially if it is nearly 100 yards--the length of a football field?
7.5 How long did the body need to be in the burlap bag AND how long did the burlap bag lie along side the road? Just a few days? Did any person remember seeing the burlap bag?
8. Since the extensive decomposition occurs when the body is inside the burlap bag--we should assume at the outset that both the body and the bag were somewheres HEATED and INSIDE during the interim between kidnap and discovery.
9. Since only the extremities and half the internal organs are missing by animals and varmints we should assume that it was NOT there a full 72 days to be devoured by scavengers--if it was nothing should have been left over.
10. The MOTIVE for returning a decomposing corpse nearby any highway with the chance of discovery is the KEY & most puzzling part. This alone is as high risk as the kidnap. Maybe only a lunatic, or person with a sick mind, would ever consider anything short of full and complete disposal in a place it could never be found? Only a limited number of reasons can even be suggested for having it found...(usually its the life insurance policy) It looks like a half-baked job with little or no planning--but clever never-the-less...if anyone benefits? My vote goes to the Mob/Mafia.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 19, 2009 12:42:29 GMT -5
Rick, I have a question regarding what degree of decomposition was possible under natural conditions. You seem to believe that the decomposition present was not possible without an artificial heat source. I'm not in any way an expert on body decomposition so I would really like to know what factors you are basing this on. It's a very important point. What I do have on this was gathered when I first considered the possibility of the body being carried downstream. I looked at the site, referred to topographical maps , and finally the weather; climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/data/index.html If you note the period in question during 1932 included some unusually high precipitation. These small streams around here are notorious for swelling immensely during periods of heavy rain or snow melt. I didn't see that it was very cold, though. Regarding the separation of the body and bag, there have been more than a few crimes in which a body was weighted down in a bag only to surface and separate. It's certainly not something I thought up. That separation could have occurred at one of many places upstream and the burlap bag once dry would easily be moved by the wind.
|
|