|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 18:17:06 GMT -5
Assuming the foul odor of decomposition and covered with maggots what is the maximum possible time that Charlie could have lain there without detection? 48 hours? Why would anyone take the chance of returning the body to within 4 miles of home/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2006 20:14:29 GMT -5
This is in an area I think the odor of say - a dead animal - wouldn't really attracted too much attention. I believe the corpse had been brought to this location some time after the kidnapping.
Why is the $50,000 question.
I say he was returned and placed there to give the appearance he was dumped in this spot on the night of March 1st. A staged situation to suggest something happened which did not.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 5, 2006 11:17:27 GMT -5
This has always been a troubling question for all parties and points of view. Some say decomposition was too far advanced for the temperature records of those months. If the body was placed there after being somewhere else it would have had to have been days later, after the searches were complete. Who would have come back with the body to place it there? And where could it have been, because the smell would have been terrible. Could it have been buried and dug up? One theory has been that it was indeed buried and placed there in order to bring finis to the case.
That would suggest the child had been killed deliberately -- because, one could argue, the most logical reason for it being there was panic after accidental death. Otherwise, a safer burial place would have been chosen if it had been planned to kill the child from the outset.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 5, 2006 23:19:01 GMT -5
dryan...we all ran the "who benefits" game last year on the dead bored. #1 benefactor is the beer runners because the cops stop looking for Charlie in every truck and car. So if the mob has the body/ they give it back. #2 CAL benefits...no more wacky ransom extortions and if there is a trust of millions from Senator Morrow then CAL and Anne are in line to receive it BUT ;there sure isnt any benny to CJ if its Fisch, BRH and Wendel. The real murderers would be better off without any habeus corpus. So based on that...the mob had Charlie all along to put certain pressures on CAL to either release Capone or stop messing with the rum runners. (or CAL returns Charlie?) Take your pick. Maybe the body was returned immediately following the payment at St. Raymonds as promised?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2006 9:58:36 GMT -5
It seems to me that just about every major event connected to this case is surrounded by a real mystery. Illusions of sorts to show one thing when something else actually happened. Believe me, the Police see and recognize it when they first evaluate the situation but eventually let their suspicions go.
Again, why? And who do this benefit?
For reasons suggested originally by Ellis Parker, and added to by Rab's tireless research, it seems obvious this body was returned. Just to add the exclamation mark consider Cemetery John is defenseless in both Woodlawn and St. Raymond's and we know this child is dead. If he lays in that shallow grave in Mt. Rose at the time its basically a suicidal act for CJ to make this meeting with "Jafsie" regardless if there is inside information. At any moment the corpse could be found without the information getting to him in time.
Now Dryan's point is a good one. This body is decomposing no matter where it is and would definitely create a very bad smell of death in the air. This is confirmed by those who were present in the morgue.
I just can't forget about Garrsson checking out Lindbergh's basement and furnace then thinking about the gloves found near the corpse with coal dust on them.
Regardless, like Rab said: "bones don't fall off of fresh corpses" and the baby's bone was in that bag which was found along that road....while his body was found in a shallow grave.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 7, 2006 0:55:53 GMT -5
rita The case has too many unbelievable events, and each event appears staged as with the body, since bones do not turn black from animal actions. If a body was exposed as claimed for a three month period everthing from eagles, to buzzards, to hawks, plus rodents would have done more damage than what was apparent?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 7, 2006 12:35:20 GMT -5
When we discover the secret location of Charlie from the day/nite of his disappearance to the later time his body was deposited onto Mt. Rose Hill then we will simultaneously know the MOTIVE behind the entire LKC-- and the reason his body was returned. Our choices are only as large as our imaginations: New Haven, Conneticutt, Skillman Village, Wendels house, Knickerbocker Pie company, Rockefeller Institute, CALs basement, Boad Nelly.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 7, 2006 14:45:14 GMT -5
"Each event appears staged as with the body."
It is hard not to take this argument seriously. We know that the surrounding area was searched, as we have Schwarzkopf's word for it that the search was thorough throughout the woods.
The timing is so precise -- and avoids the danger of interference by any person not wanted in the nursery; the shutter and the window; the placement of the ransom note. Skillman Institute seems to me to offer the best option for where the body might have been kept for a time. Does anyone know about the car sightings that night in the vicinity of the Institute?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 7, 2006 16:17:52 GMT -5
It is an interesting theory to propose that the body was re-located, but to what end would this be done? Considering the danger of transporting and dumping the corpse there would have to be a substantial purpose behind such an action. Bear in mind also that if the baby was stored someplace else, presumably safe from discovery, relocating it with the intention of discovery carries with it the penalty of murder as opposed to extortion and kidnap. Assuming someone was fully aware of this risk and in fact wanted the baby discovered why re-locate it to a place where it might not be found for months or years? If, however you are convinced that this strange action did occur it might be possible to prove through microscopic examination of the burlap bag. The existance of spores, micro organisms, and other matter is probably still there even though it has been subjected to previous blood tests. I believe that 2000yr old fabrics have still contained material trapped in the fibers. Recent criminal cases have been solved through this type of examination.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 7, 2006 16:54:54 GMT -5
Yes, that is always the problem with such theories. Why? The only explanation that one might give is to bring finis to the whole episode. With the money collected, the only way the situation could cool down would be by such a discovery. But, then, one is confronted by the second why. Why there - of all places? And yet, where else? It was only a short distance from the road, and perhaps one could figure hunters or somebody else from the orphanage out walking might see it.
The alternative, that it was there from the beginning, also has problems - not least the incredible risk that CJ took in spending so much time "negotiating" during both cemetery encounters. If the child had been found before then, the jig was up.
Does anyone know if the burlap bag was ever tested?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 7, 2006 17:41:10 GMT -5
Julia spent a huge effort tracing the burlap bag in 2005. She concluded that it was made at Levenworth by an inmate whos initials (O.C.F?)were stenciled on the bag. She later traced the inmate to the Bronx. Actually, this might have meaningful significance. If this case connects in any way to Al Capone and his quest for parole, it just so happens that Scarface was transferred from the Cook County Jail to Leavenworth " after the kidnap while Charlie was missing". So, sending Charlie back in this bag might indicate "we warned you CAL"? Another reason for the mob wanting to return Charlie is so that the cops would stop looking into every car trunk and delivery truck for Charlie and let the Mob resume their answer to prohibition: eg bootlegging. Millions were lost during the 72 day hiatus. It would make great logic to return the body near to where it was taken to indicate beyond a reasonable doubt "it is Charlie". It may not have been there long after placement, days or couple weeks....just a bit longer and nothing would be left to find.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 7, 2006 18:47:44 GMT -5
Max Allen Collins in "Stolen Away" theorized it was Capone. Mickey Rosner sent emissaries to Capone, and Capone sent one to Lindbergh. So the fascination with the big time gangster angle continues apace. No doubt he would have the capacity to order such a hit. Condon's probably bogus comment that he heard Italians in the background on CJ's phone call naturally adds to such speculation.
But why would an ex-con carry a burlap bag with his initials on it all the way to NJ to carry out the hit? I suppose that just as someone never thought wood could be traced, how much less a burlap bag. But there is still no evidence, is there, that the child was ever in the bag?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2006 6:38:48 GMT -5
An interesting theory Dryan, and yes there were witness accounts of strange cars in that area....The Police seemed to have been out there several times during the early stages of the investigation but I don't know how thorough they checked out every building etc...
Kev makes some great points. Again, its another bold move to bring this child back. This was a spot where you could see Lindbergh's house. The child was in a very shallow grave and the bag was right on the side of the road in line with where the body could be found. This seems to have been done on purpose. One of Parker's investigations revealed that this bag may have actually been placed in the road. Also, the World Telegram March 1st paper which was crumpled up and found a short distance from where the baby was found is suspicious.
The bag was tested in '32 by Squibb Labs and was again tested in the late '70's during the NJSP's review of the case. If anyone wants specifics let me know and I will post them.
I think Julia made a mistake here Rick. While her theory is interesting it differs with my findings. My research has this bag originating with Kraft and contained powdered milk. The bags were usually sold by the recipients and used for other purposes. This bag was purchased and then re-used as a sack for animal food.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Feb 8, 2006 6:59:52 GMT -5
1. Well, if the bag had all these stenciled markings...most notably...O-224 OJC and Animal Feed then whats the point? Was the powdered milk for animals? 2. Another conundrum with no place to stick it is Miss Alva Root. Even Bern was fooled into thinking she was "just another Morrow maid". But this too is a huge lie. She was the debutante 20 year olde daughter of Breckenridges wife--father Senator Root. I think she should be added to the list of persons of interest who saw Charlie for the last time at Highfields over weekend before his disappearance.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 8, 2006 7:48:40 GMT -5
I would still bet that regardless if the body was moved or not that bag could still yield some interesting evidence if examined using modern forensics. With so little actual evidence left to examine I would jump on that.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 8, 2006 9:44:27 GMT -5
The placement of the corpse has assumed real importance here, just as it did at the trial. The questions are many: 1. If it was there all the time, why wasn't it even more ravaged by animals? 2. What happened to the other clothing, the diaper and rubber pants? Shouldn't there have been remnants of them? 3. If it was not there in the beginning, what was the purpose in bringing it back there? 4. Is Harry Conover actually right, or quoted correctly, about being able to see the house from the location? 5. What would prompt the kidnapper(s) to place it there? If it had been intended to kill the child, why not a better hiding place? 6. Related to this, is it for certain that the hole in the skull was not caused by a gun shot? 7. Where is the burlap bag today?
|
|
|
Post by rick or dylan on Feb 8, 2006 11:13:38 GMT -5
Yo Dylan....although the mob bosses may not have arranged any kidnapping, and although enlisting Mickey Rosner, Bitz, Spitale and Owney Madden had little or no obvious outcome, maybe in effect the Mob wanted the case to come to a close with the return of Charlie? Also, the family itself brings closure to the incident with his cremation. I see no way outsiders would have returned the body unless threatened by the MOB to do so/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 8, 2006 13:17:45 GMT -5
What did Dr Bass have to say about the body?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2006 19:22:23 GMT -5
Here is a link to Dr. Bass's report which is on Ronelle's site: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/bassreport.pdfHere's my two cents on Dryan's questions.... 1. Surely it would have been. 2. Yes, and as Rab has pointed out in the past...animals surely didn't eat them. 3. Good question. It seems it was put there to be discovered. This ended any further extortion attempts (concerning this child). 4. He wasn't the only one to say this and I've seen it from various sources which I'll have to look for if needed. 5. Not there that night. 6. Unknown. All we know is there was no evidence of blood on either the clothing or the bag. I would suspect some would exist for either a gun shot or a blow to the head causing this type of trauma. 7. At the NJSP Archives. I agree with Kev that this bag should be given a 2nd round of testing. There might be some testing today that wasn't available in the late '70's.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Feb 9, 2006 11:49:47 GMT -5
After reviewing Dr. Bass's paper it would seem to add further evidence for Charlie Jrs ID. I'm willing to accept that. My biggest disappointment is that Bass, currently famous for the Body Farm at U of Tenn, did not comment in any way about the state of decomposition. Why Bass did not read the autopsy report is a mystery to me??thus half a loaf. Why did JonBenet end up in the furnace room? Why did Charlie end up on Mt Rose Hill? Try looking out any window of your own house and see if you can see 2 miles into the woods?. What a crock of crap. Its baloney like this that derails and debases intellegent dialogue & serious examination of the evidence. If I accidentally killed Charlie on Tuesday nite I would hide/store the body somewhere else where it could never be found. Or at least not until I collected the ransom? Isnt it simply amazing that after 75 years of speculation "no one-single element of the kidnapping has been clarrified"? Apparently, there is some motive to be gained by "fogging and obscuring each and every issue" in this case forever? eg. Is it really Charlie? How long did he lie there? How was he killed? Is it a bullet hole? Is his head too big? Yes/No/Maybe/ I dont know? Blah blah blah/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 9, 2006 13:42:49 GMT -5
"Isnt it simply amazing that after 75 years of speculation "no one-single element of the kidnapping has been clarrified"? "
Not really when you consider so many people are clouding the reality by starting off with theories and then selectively culling the "evidence" to support them. You will only arrive at whatever truth remains possible to ascertain when you go back to square one and examine the evidence which remains with an unprejudiced and scientific methodology. There is still much that can be determined if one is willing to expend the time and effort. Unfortunately, despite Fischer's assertion to the contrary, I don't think the police investigating this crime adequately recorded and preserved the evidence in a proper fashion. I have so many question which I can not find answers to, even though they should be readily available.
I agree about Dr. Bass. Perhaps he felt there was too little information to provide a reliable report. Too bad, I would have been interested to see if he could have used the photos and autopsy combined with meteorological data to make a time of death assessment.
|
|
|
Post by rick for kevkon on Feb 9, 2006 16:53:54 GMT -5
Well, we have to use some common sense, science and logic to get over at least one of these many hurdles. Ellis Parker, a real live detective, actually checked all the temps for March and April 1932. It was his expert opinion that "the body could not decompose to that severe an extent at those low temps". Lets just agree with him and accept this as FACT. You see, the VDers cant think of Charlie living for a few days because he had to be killed in Hunterdon County to be tried in Fleminton. Therefore, working backwards as all good VDers do/ they MUST assume Charile was killed immediately in the nursery by choking, smothering or bludgening or by a fall from the ladder. That ways, so simply, his body could be dumped "the nite of the snatch" and just overlooked for 72 days? Any other possible scenario confounds their now-mystical Lone Wolfe Theory. Dont bore them with any facts....like it was too colde, or the skeleton was blackened or that too many persons could NOT have walked right by and missed it? Thus, we should conclude that if in fact Charlie was snatched on 1 March 32 he was taken to some other location by car for some period of time and then returned to Hopewell to be discovered later. Sounds like a reasonable plan.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 9, 2006 17:47:04 GMT -5
"Well, we have to use some common sense, science and logic to get over at least one of these many hurdles. Ellis Parker, a real live detective, actually checked all the temps for March and April 1932. It was his expert opinion that "the body could not decompose to that severe an extent at those low temps". Lets just agree with him and accept this as FACT. "
This is exactly what should not be done. Ellis Parker, for better or worse, was not and never was an expert on decomposition of human bodies. You are taking a position anf finding a source to prove the point. We can go on like this forever and sometimes I think that is what some people want to do. If you feel, as others, that the corpse was or could not have been exposed for the length of time from the night of the kidnapping then do the research. Check all of the weather data for Hopewell at that time. Consult with forensic examiners or even delve into the subject yourself. Maybe you can conclusively prove ( or disprove) this theory thus enabling everyone to get one step closer to the truth. But don't use inappropriate sources like Parker to make this case. It constantly amazes me how there are so many theories flying around and only a handful of people willing to do the actual research. It is no wonder that this case becomes more mysterious rather than less.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2006 19:48:11 GMT -5
I think Kev is right when he says a position shouldn't just be based upon one source, that is, unless other sources have been considered and discounted. He also correctly points out that most of us take up a position - then try to prove this with what only compliments it.
I think I am guilty of this myself from time to time although I do think I try to ask questions to defeat my own position in order to test it. I've been criticized for this tactic but I think every position needs a "control" to keep it "honest." It's another reason why I will try to list something even if the possibility seems remote to me at the time. Also, I think those of us on this board won't pull any punches and are willing to challenge what doesn't seem legit from our perspective. I invite people to do this when I post because I don't want to be wrong by omission or just a lack of awareness.
Sometimes all it takes is someone looking at the exact same thing in a slightly different way for progress to be made. I don't know how many times I look at things over and over again only to learn something new off of our board or elsewhere.
As far as Parker goes....
I think his life-time of achievements were totally ruined by the perception of failure in this case. I personally don't think Parker is inappropriate as a source of consideration given my knowledge of his abilities and the sources of some of the information we are considering concerning the topic at hand.
I think it should be noted what Parker did investigate in order to come to this conclusion. From there we could evaluate it and consider it against other information we may have, or he did not in order to determine if more research is necessary in order to know for sure.
I do find it important that Parker believed the child had been placed there, ex post facto, for completely different reasons then Rab did when he concluded the exact same thing....especially when one considers that Rab did not know Parker ever drew this conclusion until much later.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 9, 2006 20:11:24 GMT -5
Michael, my intention was not to cast doubt on Parker. He may have been a great detective. However, whether fair or not, his credibility has suffered in many peoples eyes. In addition much research has been undertaken in the study of decomposition of bodies since his time. Why not try to apply some of that new found knowlege to this case? It is similar to the map situation we were discussing, it seems at times everyone is going in circles.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 9, 2006 21:35:50 GMT -5
Who among us is qualified to do years of study on t temps and body decomposition? Kelven, nee Gameboy salesrep, did years of study on the wood evidence and just look at the results...eg BRH is the lone wolfe? Dr. Bass was a good candidate but he dropped the ball? What Im saying is get off the dime and take a position. If its VDer all the way then take a hike. We dont need any more of that? Show some guts and common sense...every issue cant be hedged for another 75 years. Take some stand and make some contribution. Just dont talk on and on to nowheres in cirles. Thats already been done. I dint say to buy into Ellis Parker hook line and sinker...I said he studied the temps and said no ways. The VDers want it all neat and tied up with Valentines bows...Charlie died, Charlie buried, BRH fried. Case Closed. If you are a mommas boy then sorry I made you cry. Dont just talk, make a contribution.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 9, 2006 22:49:29 GMT -5
"Who among us is qualified to do years of study on t temps and body decomposition" Obviously your not, though I bet you will probably spend as much time as that would take talking about it "Kelven, nee Gameboy salesrep, did years of study on the wood evidence and just look at the results...eg BRH is the lone wolfe?." You may not agree with Kelvin and his methods ( I don't} but who are you to criticize him. At least he has put his money where his mouth is and done something tangible.
" Take some stand and make some contribution. Just dont talk on and on to nowheres in cirles. Thats already been done. " Yes and you are doing an excellent job, keep up the good work.
"If you are a mommas boy then sorry I made you cry. Dont just talk, make a contribution."
Ok, here is my contribution : increase your dosage
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Feb 10, 2006 6:37:31 GMT -5
1. The location of the burlap bag becomes an important piece of evidence. How many theories abound as to why it was so close to the road. We must assume that Charlie was originally in it therefore the body was dumped 10 feet off the road. It certainly wasnt there for 72 days. 2. Likely animals separated Charlie from his burlap coffin? The damaged to the body by animals could have occured in a relatively short time. 3. What arguments did Rab give for the body being returned to the Mt. Rose site?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2006 6:43:51 GMT -5
I find myself somewhere in the middle here. I think all information should be considered and evaluated especially in the absence of what we don't have. A limited amount of people saw the actual corpse. If these people had an observation concerning what they saw then I am interested.
I also do think we can take this information concerning their conclusions, or others drawn from it, verify the climate and variable "facts" they put forth and then email a couple of Experts who are around today and see if they are willing to give us an opinion. I have had many people get back to me who I thought would simply delete my emails. The problem that I have run into is this.... Since the case is so controversial most of the Experts ask they not be mentioned by name.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 10, 2006 9:15:25 GMT -5
The bedeviling issue about the degrading of the body evolves from a couple of things. We don't know if the body was originally dumped in the burlap bag or not. But consider this: The discoverers talked about a shallow grave. How would the bag get off the corpse, and it still remain in a shallow grave? Here is scenario one: kidnapper approaches the site where the body is found. he digs a shallow grave, and puts the body in it. Why take it out of the bag? If you were hiding it even a few minutes, a very few would allow you to dig a better hole and place body in the bag in the ground and put some dirt over it.
Scenario Two: kidnapper or his agent returns the body to the spot. He dumps it out of the bag. Why? The he half-buries the corpse, and leaves the bag out in the open. Why? In all the time, for some reason, it does not blow away very far.
Scenario Three: The body is dug up from some other place, and to insure that it is found rather quickly, it is taken out of the bag and dumped on the ground.
Since all these operations in one to three are probably done at night, there would obviously be reasons why it would be so sloppy - or one could argue that. A shallow grave might be the result of simply having no tools to dig, but that bothers me.
Hence I understand the call, that we all agree should be done, for the burlap bag to be retested using the latest TV-style (!) CSI tools. But since we don't know even whether the bag was used, or how, we would have to try to evaluate the state of the corpse in terms of it being, or not being, inside the bag. And then there are other problems as well pertaining to the soil conditions. Etc. Michael is absolutely right, if you bring in a forensic anthropologist, the person would know how the case "turned out." It is natural for all of us, scientists included, to be influenced by information about outcomes. When things change in science, they are often called a paradigm shift. People will not give views on hypotheticals, fearing the inquirer is trying to sandbag them.
But what about what I have called here the "shallow grave mystery."?
|
|