jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2009 16:53:39 GMT -5
Had to be Nazis - no book that I am aware of - Rick? - look at it this way Kevkon - who gained from the crime, and it was a very very crime - not some backyard joke like it is presented to be. So it's a crime and a murder and who gains? Hauptmann gained a little but screwed himself. Fisch may have gained, and from what is known he did. Bob Mills knows of criminals (facts) that did not gain and are mostly dead. Doesn't this ring of a set-up to you, Kevkon? And as to who gained - the Nazi Government super gained and nobody else really did. The Nazis were as powerfull in 1932 as they were in 1942 and it is very very suspicious that BRH wanted nothing to do with them - so he said anyway! - after walking out of that country and boarding a boat unobserved and illegally entering USA and living happily with a frau - come on man - how much will you believe? That's the problem here - you guys just accept this junk as fact - where is a real detective?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2009 17:43:57 GMT -5
Just a little tip Sherlock, before you run to the press with this you might want to check the status of the NSDAP and the NSDAP/AO at the time. I doubt they had the time, inclination or political capitol to worry about Lindy let alone kidnapping his child. And since you possess the detective skills found to be so lacking among the members of this site, you might also come up with the necessary link between the NSDAP and Hauptmann. Should be easy.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2009 22:58:12 GMT -5
Don't clime (new word for you Kevkon?) to me about detective skills. You've been barking at this crime for forty years and havn't come up with a woof! And don't call me Sherlock anal head because it's you who seem to think they're Sherlock and a very limited Holmes. So come up with some decisions you and your pal or give this place over to Rick!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2009 23:09:06 GMT -5
And the NSDAP existed long before 1932 and had strong inclinations towards power - they easily could have taken over the world - but you would probably be in some camp! They didn't screw up - Hitler's generals defeated him and I can prove that! For one thing - the plan was to go into Russia in April - his generals waa waa and whined and so they didn't go in until June - Hitler said to take Moscow and the generals thought it was more important to take the southern oil fields - whine whine - If they would have taken Moscow by June which would have happened, Hitler would have eassily won all of Europe - he already had France.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2009 23:12:38 GMT -5
And don't tip me jerk!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2009 6:15:44 GMT -5
I want to thank Mairi too for that bit of insight. I always wondered but never had a clue. These types of posts are so helpful to my research!
My impression of the NSDAP "connection" possibility started with the table brace. For me it indicated "He" (it looks like a male's handwriting to me) was probably associated with the NSDAP - at the time he wrote it. Or of course, wasn't but wanted everyone to think that.
So due to the date of discovery, in my opinion, if you are going to get to the NSDAP its more like an "after the fact" and to see what roads led there.
It's also possible to out think/overthink yourself and the situation. However, since we've all been doing this for some time I believe its easy to begin to become desensitized to the overwhelming and fantastic nature of the case. This was the most famous man in the World who was married into one of the most powerful families on the Planet.
When looking at it through this lens, this was a crime with the potential backing of just about ANY force with some real juice behind it. And would they use one or more tools if those would die without saying a word?
I have become wary of the "Fisherisms" that certain positions are absurd or silly. If that were true then it would mean they could never happen. I've done quite a bit of research on Nosovitsky - who I do not think was involved - however, if you saw some of the things he did, or was directly mixed up in then you would know this stuff did go on more often then we ever believe. The man was a "Triple Agent" then even testified on behalf of someone he was spying on.
Now having said this, I can relate to Kevin's position that firing a list of names without anything to back it up can get frustrating. There's certain things we know so I'd like to see connections, however slight, in order to bolster a particular line of thought. Not that its bad to through things out there, it isn't, but to do so repeatedly in order to create themes should have something - anything - to support it in order to be seriously considered.
I've actually begun to write. I've put myself in a position where I actually have too many sources. Looks like a very long road ahead since I will not do anything without seeing everything I know I have on the subject to consider. Jack - There is a spell check button just below.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2009 7:34:13 GMT -5
Your right Jack, I'm no Holmes. Not even close. Though I do attempt to approach things in the same manner. That's why these seemingly insignificant issues like the diapers are of such importance. If what Mairi has offered is correct, and I have no reason to doubt her, then a crucial step in this crime has to be re-thought. That's how it works, ask any detective. You go step by step even if the steps seem almost imperceptible. At the end you have a picture. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, Jack.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 27, 2009 10:12:33 GMT -5
Kevkon, Thanks for that ebay photo of the thumb guard. It gave me a better idea of it's shape. I can't imagine using such a thing. Seems to me a baby could accidentally hit itself in the eye with a contraption like that. It's crossed my mind to wonder if the t-guards were actually applied at the 8 o'clock bed down.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 27, 2009 14:41:05 GMT -5
Rethought? Iz 80 years ex post facto - Time for some new thought! Old thoughts havn't worked Kevkon.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2009 15:37:24 GMT -5
Is it new thought that's needed Jack, or a better way of approaching the subject. Personally, I don't see anything new in bringing up more and more suspects or involving every gang under the sun. Perhaps if we stopped wasting time with personal agendas and arguments and concentrated on the evidence, we might see things in a new light. I know one thing, ignoring the facts and evidence or regurgitating erroneous information will yield nothing. You don't start with the answer and then look for the questions. If you truly believe that the Nazis were involved, fine. Put it together. Explain just how they benefited. Show some link to Hauptmann. Anything less yields one more unfounded claim in a case that has 80 yrs of the same.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 27, 2009 17:43:11 GMT -5
I figured it out Kev - nobody did it - perfect crime! Is obvious how the Nazis benefitted and nobody else. We been friends a long time and I don't want this to come between us so I will rest it here!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 28, 2009 6:46:16 GMT -5
Ok Jack. I know how much you like movie trivia, so here is an easy one for you. What was Jack Palance's reply to Alan Ladd's taunt prior to their gunfight in Shane?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 28, 2009 14:31:55 GMT -5
Was just thinking about that movie. I always thought Grace Kelly was in it, but it was Jean Arthur - did Palance say "shove it?" Did you know Palance was in an airplane crash? Was no gunfight - Palance was killed from a window by Jean Arthur - I think her screen name was Carol Tringby or Trilby. Palance said "shove it" and got shot by Arthur. Ever seen "The Invisible Man Meets Abbot and Costello?"
Shane was a good boy - never killed anybody.
|
|
|
Post by Shane on Jul 29, 2009 19:33:46 GMT -5
C'mon Jack, you can do better then that!
|
|
|
Post by astrid on Jul 30, 2009 19:23:24 GMT -5
Kevin....is that you?
|
|
|
Post by astrid on Aug 3, 2009 10:03:45 GMT -5
I doubt we can make this any more concise: 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]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2009 6:01:28 GMT -5
This was his position on 5/12. We have to remember more was done after this while conducting the investigation (e.g. Squibb).
The main thing missing was what Dr. Gettler suggested - toxicology report.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 4, 2009 9:13:22 GMT -5
If one looks at all of the photos taken of the body at the site, it's hard for me to in any way conclude that there was any effort to bury the child.
Michael, I seem to remember an official survey drawing of the site with the measurements. Do you have a copy?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2009 17:26:44 GMT -5
Unless you're talking about Tpr. Carmody's Report or the "map" with Coar & Leon's names on it (I found crumpled up) then I neither have it nor do I recall ever seeing it either.
If you want send me a PM and we'll get on the same page with this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2009 17:27:04 GMT -5
Unless you're talking about Tpr. Carmody's Report or the "map" with Coar & Leon's names on it (I found crumpled up) then I neither have it nor do I recall ever seeing it either.
If you want send me a PM and we'll get on the same page with this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 5, 2009 7:31:52 GMT -5
OK
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 5, 2009 17:20:23 GMT -5
Not sure about that picture Kevin.
The body was discovered covered up with only a foot sticking out. The picture shows the body uncovered and laying on its back with his head to the side. All the reports say the child was face down - until being turned over. The picture is very dark. If the child was flipped back do we know for certain there isn't a slight hole there? I can't see behind him. Also, I don't know if both the garments are on him in that photo - one or both may have been removed already which would mean its original postion would have been disturbed even further then it was after being flipped.
He certainly wasn't in a deep hole. Swayze said it was as though someone had kicked out an area with their foot, then covered him up with leaves, branches, and some dirt.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 5, 2009 22:39:16 GMT -5
How many pictures do you have?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 6, 2009 6:26:30 GMT -5
One of that series of photos is in Gardner...the larger hole in the top of the head can be seen clearly...you know the one that purports to look just like Cjr?
Is it possible that Charlie Schippell is responsible for the "moving" of the remains to final resting hole? He claimed to be in the Bronx on the nite of kidnap but was brought back for questioning later on?
He said there was another hole marked by trees? Who else saw and marked the location of this hole?
Maybe someone else dumped Cjr off on Olde Mount Rose Road and then Shippell moved him to where he could be found.
Quite a few people thought Shippell capable of the crime, but maybe just a part of the hole?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 6, 2009 12:10:37 GMT -5
Hi Rick~~ I, like you, can't seem to get Schippell off my mind. Maybe even the origin of the burlap bag being from his place(?) I've also wondered how the clump of matted leaves got into the burlap bag. Somewhere I read-the source of which I've lost-that someone saw a man walking across a field adjacent to the wooded area. Schippell lived mighty close to the gravesite, huh? Wish I knew how comprehensive the investigation was , of him. Didn't he also say the baby was dead? I guess there were many who guessed at the same, though.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2009 16:04:52 GMT -5
Kevin - I believe there were two or three of them at the "gravesite." I could look this up. One that I have is face down but its dark and it appears that body is lower then the surrounding ground. Could be an illusion or even bias. But I also seem to rememeber the photos were taken after it had been moved. It could be that they "returned" him to how they found him (minus the dirt, leaves and branches) for the photos in question. I'd have to check out the photo logs - they don't mention pictures in the normal reports during this investigation. I would also review the trial testimony although no matter what was testified to, either way, it should be looked at with with a degree of skepticism.
Mairi & Rick - Schippel was a favorite of many people. Squire Johnson for one. He also looked a lot like Hauptmann and was even confused for him once Hauptmann's pictures hit the papers. We have a thread on him somewhere on which I posted his picture. I think we've accumulated quite a bit of information about him.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 7, 2009 8:09:20 GMT -5
I have 4 of the site, though I think there are a few more. I agree that the body was disturbed at the discovery so that has to be taken into account. I simply wanted to point out that the idea that the body was "buried" is not supported by the evidence. I know this can be gruesome but note closely the condition of the garments and the child's abdomen.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2009 19:00:38 GMT -5
There were 15 photos taken at the "grave-site" in total. Some were "worthless" and I think others might have been several shots of the same position. It has to be remembered that originally the clothes were removed to be identified by Gow. I still haven't reviewed the testimony but it appears very much like the pictures were taken after.
I see where you are coming from Kevin but consider that everyone who arrived at the scene all said the corpse was at least partially buried or an attempt had been made, however slight, to bury him. I think this observation is important. Swayze, who was the last person there and took the corpse away said it looked as though someone "kicked" out an area with their foot so that gives us a good visual.
I am sure there are several explanations for how this might occur. It could involve water washing him into a pre-existing "depression" or the water could have washed some of the dirt away. A person may have done it. Maybe even an animal.
One person interviewed claimed they had been where the child was discovered digging some soil for to put under their bushes. They claimed the child was placed in one of these areas where they had removed the soil for this purpose. If true it dates when the child could have been placed there - by any cause.
Then there's the bizarre instance where Schippel "finds" a hole on his property claiming its where the baby originally was and that it had been dug up then moved is interesting. If he was "dug up" then the soil there would have been identical to that where he was found. I'd love to know where that hole was now, but Schippel's place was very near the spot CJr. ended up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 8, 2009 10:09:27 GMT -5
Consider that if this is a correct observation then it's clear that the person who placed the body there had not been prepared to properly hide the body. Had he been there is little doubt that a proper grave would have been dug. Also I would say that a partial burial pretty much ends all debate regarding the notion that the body was meant to be found ( not to mention the location), so that can be put to rest. Personally, as much as I would prefer the burial scenario, I just am not convinced. Attempting to scoop out a grave in a setting like that usually creates a fair amount of disruption even if one is not using a shovel or tool. Also, if one is going to make that effort I would think they would expend a little more effort to make a proper grave to conceal the body. Add to this that it is a fact that the corpse displayed evidence of animal scavenging. That process would not be likely to occur without movement of the body. I would have great difficulty in believing that the body was placed in a depression, then subject to scavengers and still be found in the same spot . Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2009 14:10:52 GMT -5
Agreed.
Why? It's my position the child wasn't there originally. If moved and placed there by a person then why was this done?
I don't follow you.
Hard to say if it rained afterwards, or if earth was removed to be placed elsewhere. Then there's the idea of "kicking" it out. That wouldn't leave much and still it was claimed there was some dirt on top of him as well as leaves and branches. From all accounts it wasn't deep at all. But again, we don't know how he got there so I am open to any explanation for consideration.
Not sure about this. The newspaper dated March 1st found nearby was no accident in my opinion. That bag being found along the road is suspicious too. Take the totality of the circumstances into account instead of each individually and it looks very much like an attempt to create a scenario that wasn't the original situation.
I absolutely agree the child wouldn't be buried like he was unless something happened after scavengers discovered him. The degree of decomposition tells me the animal damage should have been much more then it was. Why wasn't the face devoured when most animals find the eyes and facial muscles appealing? Why not the liver when that, along with the heart, is the organ of most often the 1st to be eaten? Why was the decomposition rapid compared to the weather & temperatures for the location in which he was found?
|
|