kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 8, 2009 15:44:08 GMT -5
It's a logical and rationale deduction that had the body been placed to be discovered then no effort would be required to effectively hide it. By the same means anyone who knew they must dispose of the body and who would choose burial as the means would be properly equipped ie; shovel. I would again say that the very best way of looking at this episode is to think about it in real terms. Another words, put yourself through the entire process taking into account each and every step required and what that would entail. As for moving the body from some other location, I'd say that probably is only a realistic scenario within a short time frame of the child's death ( for obvious reasons). I would only say that it is hard for me to believe that someone doing so wouldn't have known to bring a shovel for a proper grave.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2009 7:23:53 GMT -5
What I see is: - Evidence the child wasn't originally there.
- More decomposition then should have been in these elements.
- Less scavenger destruction then should be present.
- March 1st newspaper nearby.
- Burlap Bag, which the child was originally decomposing in, and sitting on the shoulder of the street. If you see that bag and, almost on a straight line take that course through the brush, thicket & trees - then over a very small area for a stream when it rains - you find the "grave" about 75 feet in.
- Small amount of dirt has been scooped out (somehow), child in the depression it created (somehow), then covered with a small amount of dirt, leaves, and branches (somehow).
- Extremely shallow grave that implies haste if a human is responsible.
If the child was elsewhere originally, as most of the evidence shows (imo) then if humans are responsible how can we explain this? Was their intent to dig a perfect grave? There's a lot going on here to consider with both nature & people. Some makes sense and others don't. Why not combine everything that makes sense and discard all that doesn't as it relates to both?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 9, 2009 15:21:03 GMT -5
Do we really have anything concrete or forensic to implicate Shoeppel? Or just hes a nut case and innuendo? Maybe its just implication by close location? Is there any confirmation of any grudge against Lindbergh? Baby clothes or baby diapers? Wood doesnt match? Do burlap bags match? Car match? or just Green? Everyone in the neighborhood jumped on him with both feet? Folks came to the front gate to say he was culpable? Was there any reason NOT to implicate him? Something we dont know? Why would Shippell move the body so it could be found? He surely would own a shovel! So if he could dig the body up--he could rebury it? he would have little interest in making it look like a March 1st dump? Or leave a newspaper? Doesnt add up at first blush....even though his shack might be "heated"? Shippel has means and opportunity--but no obvious motive? What did Garrett Schenk the fish monger say he saw before he was kidnapped for 72 days? 2 cars along Princeton-Mt Rose road? what was the motive to detain him so long? All charges dropped against those who detained him? Very weird science? - The baby was kept somewhere else and dumped later.
- The baby was decomposing somewheres warm, presumably indoors, inside the burlap bag for some period of time.
- Some small plants grew up inside the baby clothes so it was later "outside-together" for another length of time before moving.
- Thus 1-inside>>>2-outside + bag >>>3-outside - bag? Thats alot of moving? Whose capable of all that movement? Shippell, BRH-Fisch, Wendell, The Mob, someone local, or the Family?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2009 6:04:43 GMT -5
Rick -
Schippel's "shack" according to Lloyd Fisher was only 1000ft from where the baby was found.
Schenk did witness something that should have been investigated. Instead the NJSP laughed at him and didn't want to be mixed up in his plight so they kept him at an arms length. His "abductor" (J.J. Devine) too was belittled concerning anything he brought to their attention priorthereto.
The Police held onto a theory that someone Local was involved. They never let go that more then one person had been (excepting to convince the Jury otherwise in order to secure a conviction) but in reality they always knew more had been. Get your client to confess, to paraphrase the words of one of the State's Prosecutors to Lloyd Fisher, and we'll get him life. We all know there's always more then one involved in this type of crime.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 12, 2009 17:09:26 GMT -5
Michael-- This represents the primary source of a big problem = Plurality: Everyone wants to get into the ACT? - So what Shippell lives only 1000 ft or yds away from the dump site/so what he has a Green car and burlap bags? Do they match?
- Everyone near Hopewell, that has a green car, burlap bags and a shovel cant be a suspect? Doesnt add up/
- This is Condons game: everyone in the Bronx cant be Cemetary John--tall ones, chinese ones, scandanaian sailors, coughing hacks etx? Its a game to comfound and confuse/
Maybe it makes more sense to start off the top of the List and try to eliminate the Main Suspects--not just add more new ones?- Because its an Inside Job with no apparent solution: CAL is my top suspect! Nursery gets a good scrubbing--no evidence of break-in?
- CAL comes home unexpectedly, at least once, on March 1st at exactly the kidnap hour...missing his NYU dinner? "beep-beep"
- CAL runs the entire investigation(?) or obfuscation into the ground with an iron fist--blocking investigators and cops at every turn? He threatens to shoot Mulrooney?
- He sits on the ransom note for 2 hours and sends Whateley to Hopewell for a flashlite? Brilliant!
- CAL blocks the servant interviers, bloodhounds, Boy Scouts and sends Gangsters running in all directions? No Lie Detectors!
- CAL hires the olde Family Fox Condon to negotiate for his first borne son? JFC drags red herrings in every direction.
- CAL pays $50,000 for essentially nothing? Look Ma no photos, no fingerprints, no phone calls, no birthmarks, no t-shirts: No Charlie? Big Surprize.
- CAL rides around in a yacht with Curtis, his new BFF, for 19 days until CJr is found in Hopewell? Curtis gang just vaporates?
- CAL and Condon head for greener pasteurs overseas when they suspect that BRH has spilt his guts to Gov Hoffman.
- As long as there is a list--or until exhonerated:CAL is my #1 suspect! Means/Motive and Opportunity.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2009 13:48:28 GMT -5
Wiser words were never spoken. Lets start with Lindy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2009 5:47:47 GMT -5
3 Extra-Marital affairs in Germany kept secret for how many years? How'd he do that? The doesn't just happen in the '40's but continues on into the present day. A secret like that could never be kept - right? Were these affairs for love - or for principal? How many more "affairs" did he have that we don't know about?
And how many secrets?
When he believed in something he went for broke.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 14, 2009 7:32:34 GMT -5
No doubt Lindbergh is what many would call a risk taker. However, the key to him is understanding the nature of his risks and how he perceived and handled them. If you can understand that then the notion of him behind this crime becomes remote.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 15, 2009 1:21:54 GMT -5
Kevin--Its not an all or none proposition--there is a third possibilty. Lucky Lindy may not be "behind the crime" as you offered, but he could be the mastermind behind the concealment of the Truth or the coverup? The latter seems to be CALs forte...concealing of quilty parties to avoid...the bad press? Its still possible that CJr died of "natural causes" or "an untimely accident"? We dont even know where he was hidden for 72+ days? Dr. Llewelyn Barker said "its all a hoax"? What did he mean?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 15, 2009 8:31:48 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand how this would work, Rick. Perhaps you could elaborate. I guess my point is look at Lindbergh's ability and his personality. I don't see the crime ( or whatever you may care to call it) reflecting these traits. I do see his efforts to control, but even that is negated too some degree with the enormity of the public interest.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 4, 2009 20:50:30 GMT -5
Taken from the top, the crime is a joke. Lindbergh knew his kid was dead and so he waffled on the ransom negotiations hoping someone would find the body. There is no other answer to that part of it in spite of all the bickering on here. Essentially the deed had been done and he was being conned out of some cash which he resisted. How about some unanswered questions? Lindbergh was in the car with Jafsie when the R was paid. So L, "in control of the investigation" was aware of the significance of the last 20K. Yet Jafsie is blamed for not giving it out - duh - how stupid are people? Lindbergh agreed to not give it out. It was a set deal - CAL knew he'd been had and had been pre-warned and probably even knew it was coming except he thought it would be at his mother-in-laws house. So Lindbergh fell in line with the Nazis (because he could be next) and they almost won. Michael - did you know there's a "send topic to froend" button on the screens?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2009 7:24:12 GMT -5
So you don't think he drug his feet hoping for the safe return of his child? How about the idea he was doing it so they could safely escape (e.g. veto-ing the idea to guard the Canadian Border)? Couldn't one argue this was all either to protect the child OR protect his word?
This is interesting Jack - could you expand on why or how you came up with this?
Yes. It's been used by a couple of people now and again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2009 11:52:11 GMT -5
Just to quickly add a fact or two to the "grave site" while its fresh in my mind.... Inspector Walsh testified in Flemington that the "depression" which the child was discovered in was 2-1/2 to 3 feet long and 8 to 10 inches deep. When he was asked how he thought it was made he testified to the following: I don't know. It gave me the impression that the child had been laying in it. I couldn't tell you whether it was dug out or whether it was caused by nature or whether or how it was made; I know it was there however. [Trial Transcripts pg. 1467]
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 16, 2010 12:17:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 16, 2010 12:37:12 GMT -5
Rick, Also, see photo of Arthur J. Barry and John F. Condon. (arrow down) This is a 1956 newspaper. Police say Barry and another criminal were responsible for the 1922 unsolved murder of a Peter Wagner in Bridgeport, Connecticut. news.google.com/newspapers?id=6-MyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uAAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2104,7315854&dq=arthur+barry+peter-wagner+dance-hall&hl=en
|
|