|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2022 19:39:01 GMT -5
Well, I finally got the chance to read the Foldes book Sleeping Dogs. I've always wanted to but could never find a hard copy anywhere but finally got my hands on one. I rather enjoyed it. The tale and the drive. The whole process and adventure of putting it together was interesting to me as well. From the first time he heard the story to his visit to the Archives during the period when it first opened up and so on. And so, once I finished that I decided to re-read V4 which I'm still doing. One of the first things that jumped out at me was an unforgivable error I made on page 63 where I wrote that Swayze was the former "Hunterdon" County Coroner. Just how in the hell this happened I will never be able to explain. I've known he was in Mercer County since the 2nd grade. Had to be a document in front of me at the time and I was on cruise control or something. That still doesn't explain how it got past me during my many reviews. Lucky for me its well documented in V1 and I'm pretty sure in one of the other volumes as well. It also helps that everyone reading already knows it but I just had to vent a little. Another stupid error is on page 256 where I wrote "mid-August 1920" which of course should be 1922. The footnotes save me there but it still shouldn't have happened. As far as further proof of animal activity... There's a source in V3 concerning the animal hair discovered that I did not use in V4 just in case anyone is still wondering about that issue. Is anyone? I mean, do people still think there was no animal activity concerning that corpse?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on May 29, 2022 17:01:36 GMT -5
As I view the evidence, there was definitely animal activity involved with the child's body and the burlap bag. An animal reached into that burlap bag and removed the decaying body. However there are certainly various opinions as to exactly when and where this occurred. Perhaps at this point and time the specificity of this will never be known.
On page 55 of Volume IV I believe that in regards to Det. Patterson's assignment you meant to write 1934 instead of 1932. Again your footnotes clearly indicate 1934. Minor stuff. It must be a major project to proof read all the information that you provide in your thorough Volumes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 29, 2022 20:22:16 GMT -5
As I view the evidence, there was definitely animal activity involved with the child's body and the burlap bag. An animal reached into that burlap bag and removed the decaying body. However there are certainly various opinions as to exactly when and where this occurred. Perhaps at this point and time the specificity of this will never be known. I couldn't agree more. As far as the timing, it comes down to one's best guess based on all of the known facts - which I've tried my best to share throughout and across. Of course, there could always be a new discovery such as a trove of documents in someone's attic, but until such time I'm confident I've seen all there is available at the NJSP Archives - to include what's in the boxes inside the closet. What's your opinion about the "when" and "where" here? On page 89 in V3 I discuss my theories and I'm wondering what you think. On page 55 of Volume IV I believe that in regards to Det. Patterson's assignment you meant to write 1934 instead of 1932. Again your footnotes clearly indicate 1934. Minor stuff. It must be a major project to proof read all the information that you provide in your thorough Volumes. Yup. I missed that one even this latest read-thru. I read "1934" even though that's not what's there. The years can kick my butt because reading all of the reports and sources with the same year over and over can be hypnotizing and I do start reading what I think is there as opposed to what actually is. Sometimes even the source is wrong but I usually catch those while I'm looking at them. I really did my best to make it an error free volume by reading it over and over again and again. I caught some very similar in nature, thankfully, but that Mercer County mistake is haunting me. I can't understand how that happened. It's the same as writing Prosecutor Marshall was from Hunterdon County or Ellis Parker was from Mercer.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on May 31, 2022 19:35:24 GMT -5
Michael,
You asked about my opinions on this issue of "when" and "where" as it pertains to the burlap bag and the child's body on Mt Rose Hill. I found your discussion of this in V3, pages 89-93, very interesting, and as always, very thorough. However, my opinion at this time is that the child's body was disposed of in the wooded area on Mt Rose Hill on the night of the kidnapping, and the decomposition/putrefaction processes began immediately while contained in the burlap bag. The bag would have obviously been in some sort of quick make-shift burial depression created in a hurry by the kidnappers. I believe the decomposing body remained in the burlap bag until it was discovered and removed by an animal. To me, the Squibb Laboratory Report's description of the animal hair on the child's garment (and the manner in which the remains were found) strongly suggest the animal was a bobcat. The corpse had remained in the burlap bag for a period of time that was at least long enough for decomposition to create the single bone that was found in the bag. Additionally, the corpse was then in the final shallow "animal hiding grave" long enough that when Investigators lifted the body they noticed that the side of the face against the ground was "different' from the side of the face that had been up. They noticed an immediate "darkening" of that side of the face as it was exposed to air. Also the eye on the side of the face that had been against the earth was still showing a blue color and the facial features (nose, chin, forehead) on that side were still intact. All this indicating that the corpse had been in the "animal grave" for a decent period of time, AFTER it's removal from the bag and original hillside gravesite.
I believe that the Squibb Laboratory Report made some forensic determinations that are relevant to this discussion of the body and burlap bag. I'll list a few:
** "the sack was spotted with soil common in its microscopic characteristics to that of the immediate location" (gravesite soil samples).
** "the soil of location (gravesite samples) contained a small mat of fibers corresponding to the burlap bag entwined with rootlets"
To me, these two findings strongly suggest that the burlap bag was in the area of the submitted soil samples (gravesite location) and not just lying alongside the road for days or weeks. If these soil samples from the gravesite wooded area of Mt Rose Hill had a small mat of burlap fibers entwined with rootlets in them, and the burlap bag was spotted with soil characteristic with the submitted soil samples, it could only mean one thing. No matter how the bag subsequently found its way to the roadside, it had previously been up in the wooded gravesite area with the corpse. I don't really see another option.
Two additional laboratory findings appear to me to suggest that the decomposition and purefaction of the child's body occurred at the site on Mt Rose Hill and not elsewhere:
** "microscopic examination of the soil adherent to the bones revealed no particles not common to the soil in which the bones were found."
** "in the portion of the top soil in which the bones were found, putrefaction and decomposition was evident. Numerous maggots were present."
As to the various accounts by individuals who said they saw activity on the road near the gravesite prior to May 12th, the accounts are interesting but I am always skeptical of such accounts. I am certain that once the body was discovered, people started remembering things. Investigators are always confronted with this, and although they certainly need to be looked at, most will have little relevancy to the case. I always found that most people are not very good at reflecting back on when prior events actually occurred. It seems to be human nature not to have precise memories as to time, dates and places when remembering things that had little importance to them at the time. We just don't seem to live our lives that way, I'm certain a number of vehicles were observed at this roadside pullover area during the time of late April/early May, but it has to be remembered that this spot was the first place to pull a vehicle over as one is coming up the long Mt Rose Hill from Hopewell. With the unreliability of vehicles in 1932, I'm sure many vehicles did use this pullover spot to check on any vehicle problems, etc. It also seems reaonable to me that if the child was dumped off here it would have been done under the cover of darkness with no one observing it.
I know that Rab Purdy is well informed on the LKC, and I have read many of his outstanding past forum posts, but I would respectfully offer a different viewpoint from some of his listed obsservations on page 92 as to the Mt Rose location. I am getting very long-winded here so I will save my opinions on this for another post.
I couldn't agree more with you concerning your final paragraph on this topic on page 93. The important question of WHY!!! I like to think that I have a pretty good perspective on the criminal mindset, and I can think of NO reason in this case why any kidnapper/extortionist would ever risk being caught red-handed with the decaying corpse of the Lindbergh child in their vehicle (this is one reason I believed that they ditched the child's body as fast as they could on the night of March 1st). Criminals are only concerned with what is in their best interest. They would obviously know that to be caught with this child's body would mean a straight and quick trip to the N.J.'s electric chair. After the ransome payment on April 2nd, they had their money and that was the end if it. Thus, as you state, this leaves only one person who would have any semblance of a motive to do this. Since I do not see the evidence to support the theory that Lindbergh was responsible for a fake kidnapping of his son, this motive fails for me and adds to the reasons why I reject the idea that the child's body was "dropped on the roadside". If one does believe that Lindbergh was involved and was responsible for his son's body being "returned" to prevent further ransome demands, then for me this begs two questions:
1. Who in the world would Lindbergh be able to get to actually carry out this insanely dangerous act?
2. If Lindbergh knew that his son was deceased (and knew that it could be retrieved and deposited on the Mt Rose Hill road) why would he have not had this done just prior to April 2nd and thus shortcircuit this whole double-cross extortion attempt altogether. If he was capable of having the corpse magically appear to announce to the world that the child was deceased, why didn't he do it to avoid paying $50,000 to a group of double-crossing extortionists? For me, the "why" of this theory just has no reasonable explanation.
These are just some of my thoughts and opinions on this aspect of the LKC, and I don't mean to reject the speculations, opinions, theories, etc. of others. As you have always said Michael. each individual who examines this case has to evalute all of the evidence and data and then come to a conclusion that they feel is reasonable. I do believe that the Squibb Laboratory Report does provide some valuable insights on the LKC.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 1, 2022 1:56:58 GMT -5
Michael, You asked about my opinions on this issue of "when" and "where" as it pertains to the burlap bag and the child's body on Mt Rose Hill. I found your discussion of this in V3, pages 89-93, very interesting, and as always, very thorough. However, my opinion at this time is that the child's body was disposed of in the wooded area on Mt Rose Hill on the night of the kidnapping, and the decomposition/putrefaction processes began immediately while contained in the burlap bag. The bag would have obviously been in some sort of quick make-shift burial depression created in a hurry by the kidnappers. I believe the decomposing body remained in the burlap bag until it was discovered and removed by an animal. To me, the Squibb Laboratory Report's description of the animal hair on the child's garment (and the manner in which the remains were found) strongly suggest the animal was a bobcat. The corpse had remained in the burlap bag for a period of time that was at least long enough for decomposition to create the single bone that was found in the bag. Additionally, the corpse was then in the final shallow "animal hiding grave" long enough that when Investigators lifted the body they noticed that the side of the face against the ground was "different' from the side of the face that had been up. They noticed an immediate "darkening" of that side of the face as it was exposed to air. Also the eye on the side of the face that had been against the earth was still showing a blue color and the facial features (nose, chin, forehead) on that side were still intact. All this indicating that the corpse had been in the "animal grave" for a decent period of time, AFTER it's removal from the bag and original hillside gravesite. I believe that the Squibb Laboratory Report made some forensic determinations that are relevant to this discussion of the body and burlap bag. I'll list a few: ** "the sack was spotted with soil common in its microscopic characteristics to that of the immediate location" (gravesite soil samples). ** "the soil of location (gravesite samples) contained a small mat of fibers corresponding to the burlap bag entwined with rootlets" To me, these two findings strongly suggest that the burlap bag was in the area of the submitted soil samples (gravesite location) and not just lying alongside the road for days or weeks. If these soil samples from the gravesite wooded area of Mt Rose Hill had a small mat of burlap fibers entwined with rootlets in them, and the burlap bag was spotted with soil characteristic with the submitted soil samples, it could only mean one thing. No matter how the bag subsequently found its way to the roadside, it had previously been up in the wooded gravesite area with the corpse. I don't really see another option. Two additional laboratory findings appear to me to suggest that the decomposition and purefaction of the child's body occurred at the site on Mt Rose Hill and not elsewhere: ** "microscopic examination of the soil adherent to the bones revealed no particles not common to the soil in which the bones were found." ** "in the portion of the top soil in which the bones were found, putrefaction and decomposition was evident. Numerous maggots were present." As to the various accounts by individuals who said they saw activity on the road near the gravesite prior to May 12th, the accounts are interesting but I am always skeptical of such accounts. I am certain that once the body was discovered, people started remembering things. Investigators are always confronted with this, and although they certainly need to be looked at, most will have little relevancy to the case. I always found that most people are not very good at reflecting back on when prior events actually occurred. It seems to be human nature not to have precise memories as to time, dates and places when remembering things that had little importance to them at the time. We just don't seem to live our lives that way, I'm certain a number of vehicles were observed at this roadside pullover area during the time of late April/early May, but it has to be remembered that this spot was the first place to pull a vehicle over as one is coming up the long Mt Rose Hill from Hopewell. With the unreliability of vehicles in 1932, I'm sure many vehicles did use this pullover spot to check on any vehicle problems, etc. It also seems reaonable to me that if the child was dumped off here it would have been done under the cover of darkness with no one observing it. I know that Rab Purdy is well informed on the LKC, and I have read many of his outstanding past forum posts, but I would respectfully offer a different viewpoint from some of his listed obsservations on page 92 as to the Mt Rose location. I am getting very long-winded here so I will save my opinions on this for another post. I couldn't agree more with you concerning your final paragraph on this topic on page 93. The important question of WHY!!! I like to think that I have a pretty good perspective on the criminal mindset, and I can think of NO reason in this case why any kidnapper/extortionist would ever risk being caught red-handed with the decaying corpse of the Lindbergh child in their vehicle (this is one reason I believed that they ditched the child's body as fast as they could on the night of March 1st). Criminals are only concerned with what is in their best interest. They would obviously know that to be caught with this child's body would mean a straight and quick trip to the N.J.'s electric chair. After the ransome payment on April 2nd, they had their money and that was the end if it. Thus, as you state, this leaves only one person who would have any semblance of a motive to do this. Since I do not see the evidence to support the theory that Lindbergh was responsible for a fake kidnapping of his son, this motive fails for me and adds to the reasons why I reject the idea that the child's body was "dropped on the roadside". If one does believe that Lindbergh was involved and was responsible for his son's body being "returned" to prevent further ransome demands, then for me this begs two questions: 1. Who in the world would Lindbergh be able to get to actually carry out this insanely dangerous act? 2. If Lindbergh knew that his son was deceased (and knew that it could be retrieved and deposited on the Mt Rose Hill road) why would he have not had this done just prior to April 2nd and thus shortcircuit this whole double-cross extortion attempt altogether. If he was capable of having the corpse magically appear to announce to the world that the child was deceased, why didn't he do it to avoid paying $50,000 to a group of double-crossing extortionists? For me, the "why" of this theory just has no reasonable explanation. These are just some of my thoughts and opinions on this aspect of the LKC, and I don't mean to reject the speculations, opinions, theories, etc. of others. As you have always said Michael. each individual who examines this case has to evalute all of the evidence and data and then come to a conclusion that they feel is reasonable. I do believe that the Squibb Laboratory Report does provide some valuable insights on the LKC. But what about the fact that area was searched? That telephone lines were installed nearby? That the bag was literally on the side of the road? That there was some kind of embalming fluid on the body? None of this makes sense if you believe that the body was there from the get go. As to why the extortion was allowed to continue, I have my own theories but would love to hear Michael theories.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 1, 2022 13:27:15 GMT -5
If we consider Lindbergh as the mastermind, what could’ve happened was that there was some pre-designated spot where to keep the body until it was time to disinter and dump it at the Mt. Rose turnout, for a quick discovery and closure to the case. Once it was clear that the kidnappers wanted more (when they started sending more ransom notes) and Lindbergh realized he was being double crossed, he would’ve had no reason to assume that the body would be at the prearranged spot. He would’ve had no real idea where it was; the kidnappers had double crossed him and were now holding all the cards. Once the ransom had been paid on 4/2, the kidnappers would’ve wanted closure on this too, so there could’ve been another communication, telling Lindbergh where the body was (my guess is buried somewhere in the Hopewell countryside). Since it would’ve been madness for the kidnappers to return to the Hopewell area, swarming with police, I don’t think they were the ones who disinterred and dumped the body on the Mt. Rose turnout. Once that had happened though (probably just after the ransom payment), before it could be found, animals dragged the corpse out of the bag and back into the woods, where it was scavenged over the following weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2022 15:50:47 GMT -5
I'm so glad I asked for your opinion Lurp, and the input from Trojan and LJ (so far) show how valuable the discussion board can be. Reading these provide options which is so very important in attempting to solve this puzzle. We have a scenario here, like just about everything else connected to this case, where we don't have all the pieces. I tried to assemble everything that currently exists, both known and unknown, in my books in order to assist. But these pieces "seem" to both support and harm any one particular position.
The first issue appears to be whether one considers Lindbergh a suspect or doesn't. I do believe I've demonstrated that many of the people involved at just about all phases at least suspected it at one time or another. Next we have the various situations that point to it as well: Gow's reaction to Garsson, Lewis' assertion that Kelly overheard Lindbergh warning her to keep her mouth shut, Lindbergh leaving the dog behind then testifying he didn't expect the other one to bark when it was a known fact if he heard something he barked. The shutter testimony when we now know he was calling about repairs for the front door sticking, everything that happened on his Curtis trip, etc. etc. For me there's too much to ignore. Furthermore, as I wrote in V4, we can clearly see it was on the minds of those at Scotland Yard as a possibility as well. Sometimes when there's smoke there is no fire - but sometimes there is.
As it concerns to grave site, I see that bag being on the side of the road as a major clue. For me, it has to be explained. I will never believe an animal dragged it toward the road while that actual body lie in woods. It makes more sense to me that since we know the body had been in that bag, the animals went into it then dragged the body in the woods to be consumed leaving the bag behind. There's other issues too, like with the rubber pants. Rab made a good point asserting that animals didn't eat those. As far as the sightings go, I tried to list as many as possible so everyone could decide for themselves what or what not they might believe. The fact there were so many show they can't all be true, and I completely agree with you that any or all of them could be either made up, weren't anything nefarious, or saw it but got the dates wrong. But the sighting that always caught my attention was Pierson (aka Pearson). He never reported what he saw because he did not want the attention it would bring. Next, what he saw was a "bundle" in the road. Makes sense if that bundle was the burlap bag with the child inside. But of course it could have been something else too but we know that child had been inside that bag at one time, and it was found empty on the side of the road where Pierson claimed to have seen that bundle. If I am right, where had the child been before this time? That's the tricky part since some of the child's face was preserved and the evidence of rootlets growing through the burlap. Can rootlets grow in almost two months? I think so. But if not, what are the alternatives? I agree one would be it laid there the entire time, however, who moved the bag to the street - and when? If buried somewhere else, before being dug up, it had to be in a way or something was added that preserved the face - at the very least. Can that happen? If tossed in the road, as I wrote, it was meant to be immediately discovered.
As to the "why." I've suggested in the past that Lindbergh hired people through another person to insulate himself from them. They'd be paid some up front and the rest after it was over. I've also suggested that the child was meant to be destroyed, the note a ruse, and the money to never be collected. The idea being the child is soon discovered dead with the thought it was killed because the family disobeyed instructions once they called police. I also believe, that once in possession of the body, "some" (one or more but not all) decided to double-cross and take advantage of the situation by collecting the additional 50K later upped to 70K before Condon warned them not to take the 20K in $50s leading them to accept only the original 50K. At that point, while Lindbergh has control over the investigation and the NJSP, he has no control over these rogues extorting the ransom laid out in this note. Whatever was said between CJ and Condon we will never know because Condon lied about many things designed specifically to protect them and get them their money. But there can be no doubt the deal was for the return of the child, they followed through by tossing the body, still in the bag, placeing it in the middle of the road to be discovered. This would mean it was dumped sometime after April 2nd. This fulfills the deal and ends any future extortions.
Unfortunately, since it was tossed at night, it gave animal(s) the opportunity to come out of the woods, pull the corpse out of the bag, and drag it into the woods. In doing so, the bag probably rested near the shoulder for the duration until Allen discovered what was left of the corpse. It's location tells me it hadn't been there that long. I could be wrong about that, but as I sit here I'd expect it to move around up or down the road over time.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 1, 2022 18:22:34 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
Who is the guy Pierson (Pearson) who saw the bundle? I know there was a Hopewell doctor named Pierson who believed the baby was just a mile or two from the Lindbergh home, and stated as such soon after word got out that the baby had been kidnapped. (And a Dr. Pierson from Theon Wright's book called In Search of the Lindbergh Baby, who allegedly operated on...)
There is also Albert Cramer, the truck driver employed by American Stores. Cramer claimed he saw a bundle in a ditch about a mile or two from the Lindbergh home about 1 am on March 2. He gives the location of the bundle, that looked like a large doll, as the north side of Princeton Mountain, on the way to Somerville.
Princeton Mountain?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 1, 2022 18:46:35 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Jun 1, 2022 18:46:35 GMT -5
Echoing Sue, can we get some more details on Pierson's account? And do you think the kidnappers would've been the ones to dump the body? If I was one of the kidnappers, I wouldn't want to go within ten miles of Hopewell... Also, who do you think these guys were? There are so many names in 'Dark Corners', but would it be any of them? Finally, where do you think the body was kept in the meantime? Is there any telling?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 1, 2022 19:25:14 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jun 1, 2022 19:25:14 GMT -5
Two additional laboratory findings appear to me to suggest that the decomposition and purefaction of the child's body occurred at the site on Mt Rose Hill and not elsewhere: ** "microscopic examination of the soil adherent to the bones revealed no particles not common to the soil in which the bones were found." ** "in the portion of the top soil in which the bones were found, putrefaction and decomposition was evident. Numerous maggots were present." Hi Lurp, Great observations and I'm with you on much of this. Can you please show be where you found in the Squibb report that "...in the portion of the top soil in which the bones were found, putrefaction and decomposition was evident. Numerous maggots were present." According to Lise Pearlman's "research", no maggots were found. Thanks, much appreciated.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 1, 2022 20:39:47 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 1, 2022 20:39:47 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne. That quote from the Squibb Laboratory Report should be on page 3 under Section II discussing the Examination of Leaves & Soil samples. It's item# 3 of items numbered 1 through 8. It's relating to 1 phalange and 1 calcaneus corresponding to the foot of the infant in the top soil.
I had a tough time getting through Pearlman's book so I don't recall her comment on the maggots. I believe that her book is the only source I've seen that made some vague reference to embalming fluid on/in the corpse as related by Trojanusc in his post. That would certainly be a game changer in the LKC. I would like to see any documentation that provides the evidence to substantiate that allegation.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 1, 2022 21:23:18 GMT -5
lurp173 likes this
Post by Wayne on Jun 1, 2022 21:23:18 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne. That quote from the Squibb Laboratory Report should be on page 3 under Section II discussing the Examination of Leaves & Soil samples. It's item# 3 of items numbered 1 through 8. It's relating to 1 phalange and 1 calcaneus corresponding to the foot of the infant in the top soil. I had a tough time getting through Pearlman's book so I don't recall her comment on the maggots. I believe that her book is the only source I've seen that made some vague reference to embalming fluid on/in the corpse as related by Trojanusc in his post. That would certainly be a game changer in the LKC. I would like to see any documentation that provides the evidence to substantiate that allegation. Lurp, Thank you so much! I have read the Squibb report numerous times over the years and completely missed this. You're right, here it is -- Lise Pearlman and her forensic pathologist claim that the body was embalmed and their proof of this is that no maggots were found on the body. They conveniently ignore the fact that Walsh claimed the body was covered with "vermin". And now the Squibb report confirms that maggots were found. If you want to read the forensic pathologist's claim that the body was embalmed, it's in Pearlman's book, Appendix C, page 458. If you don't have the book, I have a PDF of Appendix and would email it to you, if you are interested. Again, big thanks for the Squibb info!
|
|
|
V4
Jun 1, 2022 22:58:38 GMT -5
Post by Sue on Jun 1, 2022 22:58:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 2:27:39 GMT -5
Post by trojanusc on Jun 2, 2022 2:27:39 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne. That quote from the Squibb Laboratory Report should be on page 3 under Section II discussing the Examination of Leaves & Soil samples. It's item# 3 of items numbered 1 through 8. It's relating to 1 phalange and 1 calcaneus corresponding to the foot of the infant in the top soil. I had a tough time getting through Pearlman's book so I don't recall her comment on the maggots. I believe that her book is the only source I've seen that made some vague reference to embalming fluid on/in the corpse as related by Trojanusc in his post. That would certainly be a game changer in the LKC. I would like to see any documentation that provides the evidence to substantiate that allegation. I'm pretty sure there's a claim that the body appears to have been coated or embalmed with something. Michael do you know where this was found? I know I didn't hear about it first from the Pearlman book.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 9:25:48 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 2, 2022 9:25:48 GMT -5
Sue, You are correct that George E. Pierson and Dr. Theodore A. Pierson, Sr. were brothers (and both very good baseball players!). Dr. Pierson was one of Hopewell's few physicians back in the early 1900's, and his two sons were both physicians (the father was the physician who attended to my grandfather's fatal heart attack in May of 1931 while working on the Lindbergh house construction). George Pierson apparently owned the Rexall Drug Store in Hopewell up until the 1920's prior to being owned for a very long time by Paul Cutter. I believe it was Cutter's Drug Store by the time of the LKC. Apparently the pay phone that was always in that Drug Store was one of the few in town in 1932, and needless to say, very popular with the hordes of press. I'm attempting to attach a circa 1900 photo showing both George and Theodore Pierson, Sr.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 9:28:46 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by Sue on Jun 2, 2022 9:28:46 GMT -5
In Search of the Lindbergh Baby on page 25. Theon Wright proposed that the corpse may have been embalmed.
James Fawcett's chief investigator, George H. Foster, believed there was an embalming.
Other sources, too.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 9:50:41 GMT -5
Post by Sue on Jun 2, 2022 9:50:41 GMT -5
lurp,
Thank you for the team photo with the Pierson brothers!
I know we talked about your Dad in the past, but I don't think I recall reading that Dr. Pierson was there for him!
There sure seems to have been many upstanding citizens in Hopewell at the time that the Lindberghs were living there!
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 10:32:12 GMT -5
Post by Sue on Jun 2, 2022 10:32:12 GMT -5
Dark Corners, Volume I, discusses topic of embalming, but here is one newspaper article: "Corpse in Brush Was Embalmed, Foster Asserts" The Bergen Evening Record February 21,1935 Page 2 The whole page can be viewed. Go to bottom of the page. www.newspapers.com/newspage/488822633/
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 11:11:20 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2022 11:11:20 GMT -5
I started putting together this information before the latest posts so forgive me if I repeat anything. Just use it to compliment them or disregard as repetitive....
On Pierson:
I have the Wright book but never read it cover to cover and cannot find the reference so I'm not sure if it refers to him or his brother. I wrote about him on pages 68 & 90 in V3. It's important to add that he gave his recollections to Ellis Parker. Why? Because many of the locals did not trust the NJSP. Pierson made this clear to Parker during his interview. The reason for this can be traced back to the Meaney case (see Falzini's Seige at Jutland for more information on this event). But Parker's reputation was stellar and among law enforcement he was trusted by just about everyone: The Press, Locals, and even the Criminals most of the time. And so, he could get information from sources the NJSP could never hope to obtain themselves. I should have written about this and perhaps if there's ever a V5 I will. But for now its important for everyone to understand the situations as they existed at the time.
The report itself from which this information came explained that George E. Pierson (or Pearson) had "sold his drug buisness." However, "he got so fidgety that he acepted a position to help the druggist in Princeton, N. J." It was coming home from Princeton one night approximately 15 days before the corpse was found that he saw the bundle laying in the road. This night had been a little foggy and there was also another man in the car with him ... a "soda clerk" that he was giving a ride.
On Maggots:
Juge Pearlman writes about this mainly starting on page 404 in her book Suspect No. 1. Dr. Speth specifically addresses them in Appendix C on pages 462-463. I counter argue these postions in V4 pages 66-70. Clearly I think its a mistake to assume something did not exist because there isn't a mention of it within the reports and I gave various reasons for this. Additionally, we could do the same everywhere else we would need to in order to support or disagree with ANY position. For example, the Burlap Bag contained the dead child. This is an undeniable fact. And yet, Squibb found no evidence of embalming fluid in that bag. But we only know this because we assume it to be true since its not mentioned in the report. Furthermore, the NJSP in April 1977 never found evidence of ANY chemical in that bag either. So, there you have it - right?
Embalming/Chemicals:
On this topic, I first wrote about it V1 on page 301. This is the source for Pearlman's mention of it on page 178 of her book. Further references seem to also come from my books and can be double checked in her end notes. The rest comes from Dr. Speth's observations in Appendix C once again. The topic itself is written about in various letters at the NJSP archives coming in from the public. This appears to have come from the article I referenced in V1 on page 301. This is another reason why I'd like to get my hands on the Fawcett collection. My other source here is Det. Kirkham who gave his eyewitness account of "something" on the body that apparently had to be scraped off. I'm sure there was additional interaction by Kirkham with those that were there but I have no other sources to consult. Once again, it would be nice to review the Trenton PD or Mercer County files on this case to see what exists. I was told, at one time, the files in Trenton do exist but my source stopped comminicating with me (as can happen). Anyway, I also wrote more about this in V3 on pages 96-7.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 13:11:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by IloveDFW on Jun 2, 2022 13:11:54 GMT -5
Two additional laboratory findings appear to me to suggest that the decomposition and purefaction of the child's body occurred at the site on Mt Rose Hill and not elsewhere: ** "microscopic examination of the soil adherent to the bones revealed no particles not common to the soil in which the bones were found." ** "in the portion of the top soil in which the bones were found, putrefaction and decomposition was evident. Numerous maggots were present." Hi Lurp, Great observations and I'm with you on much of this. Can you please show be where you found in the Squibb report that "...in the portion of the top soil in which the bones were found, putrefaction and decomposition was evident. Numerous maggots were present." According to Lise Pearlman's "research", no maggots were found. Thanks, much appreciated. Wayne...LOL her "research"!😹
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 13:59:27 GMT -5
Post by hiram on Jun 2, 2022 13:59:27 GMT -5
Interesting discussion here. We need to take into account the weather and climate in the Mt. Rose and Hopewell areas in New Jersey at the time of the year the Lindbergh child was taken. Early March is a late winter period, and the ground would not have been thawed at that point. The ground is usually frozen in the northern US about six inches from the surface which would make digging a difficult task for humans and animals. The ground thaws gradually, and a body would not decompose as quickly in the cold as it would later in the heat of summer. The body may have been placed in an area where it would be discovered. If the body were in a burlap bag, the kidnapper could have wighted it with a few rocks, tied the opening tightly with strong string and dumped it into a river or lake. If that had happened, the body might not have ever been discovered. I question whether the opening in the bag had been closed or tied. if that had been the case, an animal would have had to claw the burlap bag to reach the corpse and take it out, presumably to carry it to another site to avoid challenge from another animal also looking for a meal. Rootlets in the burlap would not have germinated until April, and the bag would have had to have lain on the ground for the rootlets to penetrate through the small openings between burlap threads. It's possible that the kidnapper wanted the body to be discovered, given the close distance to the Lindbergh residence and the act of leaving the body out in the open. The kidnapping and death may have been planned as an act of retaliation against Lindbergh, and the kidnapper wanted to make Lindbergh aware of the intention--which he made have known but chose not to reveal. The removal of one thumb guard and tossing it into the Lindbergh driveway (discovered March 29 by Betty Gow) also carried a message. The child's body may have been dumped near the site of its discovery about that time. We can also recall the profile offered by Dr. Dudley Schoenfield: a man feeling powerless and occupying a low station in life was envious of Lindbergh's success and status and wished to teach him a lesson that the hero could not have it all and so made him endure a terrible pain. Discovery of the body would enforce the message the kidnapper was sending. It was not just about money.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 14:35:50 GMT -5
Post by bernardt on Jun 2, 2022 14:35:50 GMT -5
I have long considered that the kidnapping and death of the pilot's child could have been performed to retaliate for the death of the German hero and pilot Baron Manfred von Richthofen. He was a hero to the German and killed in action in 1918 during the action of WWI. He had shot down 80 planes while Lindbergh had only flown solo across the Atlantic Ocean. The "signature" on the ransom bills resembles the insignia of the Royal Air Force planes. The Red Baron was brought down by two RAF planes from Canada while flying over France. Richthofen's plane was red which could represent the red circle in the middle.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 14:56:14 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2022 14:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 20:46:11 GMT -5
Joe likes this
Post by Wayne on Jun 2, 2022 20:46:11 GMT -5
I have long considered that the kidnapping and death of the pilot's child could have been performed to retaliate for the death of the German hero and pilot Baron Manfred von Richthofen. He was a hero to the German and killed in action in 1918 during the action of WWI. He had shot down 80 planes while Lindbergh had only flown solo across the Atlantic Ocean. The "signature" on the ransom bills resembles the insignia of the Royal Air Force planes. The Red Baron was brought down by two RAF planes from Canada while flying over France. Richthofen's plane was red which could represent the red circle in the middle. Bermardt, This is way off topic, but Richthofen was not brought down by two Canadians flying for the RAF. Captain Roy Brown (of the 209th Squadron) was not in a position to shoot at Richthofen (and he never claimed to have shot him down) and fellow Canadian Lieutenant Wilfrid May was in front of Richthofen's Fokker Dr.1. General consensus is that Richthofen was brought down by an Australian gunner on the ground... Cedric Popkin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedric_Popkin
|
|
|
V4
Jun 3, 2022 5:28:05 GMT -5
Post by bernardt on Jun 3, 2022 5:28:05 GMT -5
I recognize that there is considerable controversy re: the facts of von Richthoven's death, but he was engaged at the time with two RAF planes. OK, this is off topic, but I would comment that the Red Baron was a pilot and a national hero in Germany, as Lindbergh was a hero and national hero in the US. The young Hauptmann fought in WWI and probably shared in the national admiration of the Red Baron. I note that there is a physical resemblance between the two and will try to attach a couple of photos to demonstrate the point. Also I will attach a photo of a Sopwith Camel with the RAF insignia.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 3, 2022 5:34:27 GMT -5
Post by bernardt on Jun 3, 2022 5:34:27 GMT -5
I apologize for the duplication. The first photo is of the young Hauptmann at about 18 years of age in uniform. The second photo is that of von Richthoven, and I suggest that there is some physical resemblance between the two men, prompting Hauptmann to form a identification with the national hero. The insignia of the RAF does bear some likeness to the "signature" on the ransom letters.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 3, 2022 9:27:16 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jun 3, 2022 9:27:16 GMT -5
I apologize for the duplication. The first photo is of the young Hauptmann at about 18 years of age in uniform. The second photo is that of von Richthoven, and I suggest that there is some physical resemblance between the two men, prompting Hauptmann to form a identification with the national hero. The insignia of the RAF does bear some likeness to the "signature" on the ransom letters. Well, since we are going there, there is a much better "singnature" likeness than the RAF cockade. Friedrich Altemeier (FA67, Jasta 14, 24) was a 21-victory ace and like all German aces was highly publicized in the German papers of the day. Before the war, Altemeier worked for Krupps. When he became a fighter pilot, he adopted the Krupp logo for his plane. There's the "singnature" with the bottom 2 inter-locking circles.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 3, 2022 19:31:29 GMT -5
Post by Sue on Jun 3, 2022 19:31:29 GMT -5
What was the name of the "soda clerk" in George Pierson's car? A soda clerk may have had the same occupation description as a soda jerk, except that the soda clerk served fountain drinks in a pharmacy? Fifteen days prior to May 12, 1932, Pierson noticed a bundle of some sort on the roadside in Mount Rose near where the baby would be found. He related this story to J.B. Hill. I don't believe Hill saw the bundle, is that correct? (Dark Corners, IV) The Hopewell Valley History Project has pictures and much information about people and businesses connected to the area. Many of these people from the Hopewell area knew each other well. J.B. Hill had a well-established business in Hopewell. hopewellhistoryproject.org/2021/05/01/jb-hill-sons-railroad-place/A booklet from The Hopewell Pursuing and Detecting Society from 1924 lists the surnames of members. Hill, Pierson, Van Neste were some of the people connected with the organization. These "neighborhood watchdogs" were there to protect against criminals in the area, to be the eyes and the ears of the community when things seemed out of place. data.genealogytoday.com/search/Hopewell_Pursuing_and_Detecting_Society_Charter_Members.html(Sorry if this is not cohesive. I'm sending before it disappears again!)
|
|
|
V4
Jun 3, 2022 20:04:41 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 3, 2022 20:04:41 GMT -5
As to why the extortion was allowed to continue, I have my own theories but would love to hear Michael theories. What are your theories? Do we agree anywhere? What was the name of the "soda clerk" in George Pierson's car? A soda clerk may have had the same occupation description as a soda jerk, except that the soda clerk served fountain drinks in a pharmacy? I wish I knew Sue. The source doesn't give his name. I always had the impression it was someone from Hopewell that worked in Princeton and was hitching a ride. Pure conjecture but its what popped into my head reading it. Fifteen days prior to May 12, 1932, Pierson noticed a bundle of some sort on the roadside in Mount Rose near where the baby would be found. He related this story to J.B. Hill. I don't believe Hill saw the bundle, is that correct? (Dark Corners, IV) Exactly right. Thanks for the links. Great new sources to explore!
|
|
|
V4
Jun 3, 2022 20:57:13 GMT -5
Post by stella7 on Jun 3, 2022 20:57:13 GMT -5
Thank-you for these links, Sue, although I couldn't get anywhere with the 2nd one. My husbands great-grandfather, William D. Hill was Joseph B. Hill's brother. William D. sold the family homestead which was a large Peach Farm in Woodsville in 1908 and opened Hill's Market on Witherspoon St. in Princeton in 1909. Many generations of Hills lived on the farm which dates to the early 1700's. John Hart lived on the adjoining farm. My late father-in-law loved genealogy and really enjoyed when Michael mentioned his family in V4!
|
|