|
Post by rick on Feb 10, 2006 9:55:01 GMT -5
drylan....good thinking. I wish it were only this simple? In addition, Im pretty sure that the original photos show the body "face down" thus the "protection of the face"> Unless Charlie is pulling an excorcist twist on us, "the body cavity is also face down"? So how do the animals get to all those internal organs...heart, kidneys etc with the body face down?
1. Were the organs already missing when the body was dumped in the shallow grave? 2. Did animals remove the organs and then turn the body over face down? 3. Did the body reside in another site first? I cant imagine anyone putting it back into the burlap bag for transport. 4. Was there any evidence of medical procedures, embalming or surgical removal of organs? 5. I agree, its hard to imagine that animals could drag the body from the roadsite to the shallow gravesite. 6. There were bones and hair inside the bag so we know for certain Charlie was inside recently. 7. The motive for the bag being separated from the body by "XYZ" sure escapes me? Unless to insure finding? 8. If you can dig a shallow grave, then you can dig a deeper and more permanent one. 9. It appears this body was meant to be found here.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 10, 2006 10:32:56 GMT -5
Rick and Drylan your points and questions are very good. One problem with the shallow grave is once again a lack of more documatation. Was this definately a man made depression or a natural one? As for the body position it was found face down a factor which led to the theory of why less decomposition occurred there. As for the moving around of the body who knows? I recently had a dead deer on my property and two days after I found it it had been dragged about 15 ft over an embankment. Once again it would be prudent to consult with a forensic anthropologist on this whole issue. I am taking it that the theory of the body being dumped at Mt Rose would somehow have to coincide with the ransom payoff. I still think that bag holds a few undiscovered secrets, perhaps even carpet or fabric fibers of the time.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 10, 2006 10:59:09 GMT -5
One could argue that the perp was actually repulsed by what he had done, and simply stopped, grabbed the bag out of the back seat and walked quickly into the wood and dropped it. "There, it's gone. It's not part of me any more." (And, as Kevin rightly says, if this was simply a depression not man made, that's where it lodged, rather than that's where it was placed.) The trouble with that is, the person(s) removed the sleeping suit to use for proof. And that leads down another trail. You (the kidnapper) wants to keep secret the fact of the child's death in order to collect the ransom. You take the sleeping suit -- then, beyond all reason, you dump it out in a shallow depression or dig a shallow grave. Then, once the payment is made, you have to reveal the body -- but why do you have to do that? What difference does it make to you if it never surfaces? You have your money. The only reason one can imagine is: if I "release" the body to be found, maybe that will cool down the search for the ransom money. So we are led to ask, what was the pattern of money showing up? We know there were a few bills right away, but is there a hiatus then until a period after the body is found? It is argued that BRH was a) desperate for money and b) quit work because he had the money. Either he had in mind a quick way to launder the money before the crime, or pressing financial need was not the only motive. If the former, again, why worry about the body never being found? Wouldn't the kidnapper fear -- even if he (they) were not the sharpest minds around -- that the more clues one leads the greater the danger?
The leisurely pace of the ransom negotiations suggests that he could wait out the Lindberghs, not fearing the body would be found. Wouldn't the perp have been convinced that either he had it well-hidden, or, one must always allow, he was essentially beyond reach in terms of normal emotions.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 10, 2006 13:17:41 GMT -5
Dryan, you make excellent points. I, personally, have serious reservations regarding the theory that the body placement on Mt Rose was meant to be discovered. Imagine carrying around a baby's corpse in that area, stopping, and carrying it 75 ft into the woods. That scenario sounds more likely to lead to the disposer's discovery than that which he disposes. On the other hand it might be possible that the body was left along side the road ( similar to the thumbguard) and that animals dragged the body to the spot that it was discovered. That scenario would make a lot more sense if discovery was the intention. The big problem with that, however, is that the case is automatically elevated to murder and all that it portends. Why raise the stakes? Is this suppose to be some perverse gesture of kindness towards the Lindberghs?Once again it is too bad that better recording of evidence was not done here. Recording the exact depth and location of the bone fragments and any disturbed soil would have left some very good evidence as to what occurred.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 10, 2006 14:16:29 GMT -5
Its my opinion the body was dumped there very early. I think its possible other things happened such as a return to the sight of the crime.
My reason is some of the face tissue was still in tact. This is because the face portion is facing the ground and is against the moisture and the coldness of the ground.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 10, 2006 16:40:00 GMT -5
You may be right, but would you expect a small body like that being torn up by wild animals to be in the same ( undisturbed) position for all that time? Also what about the petroleum jelly Betty Gow applied to the babies chest that night, was any trace of this found?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 10, 2006 16:46:06 GMT -5
Another issue not considered yet is snowfall in NYC and NJ in March and April. Snowfall would severely retard decomposition, but at the same time reveal animal mutilation of an abandoned corpse rather readily. To say nothing about revealing footprints. www.geocities.com/donsutherland1/nydailyrecords2.html
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2006 22:11:08 GMT -5
I still plan on putting something together on the burlap bag but for now I will try and post enough to touch on everyone's points made above. It's a great discussion... The first point I wanted to raise was that when the emergency telephone lines were run by the telephone men to Highfields after the kidnapping these lines went right past this "burial site." In fact they ran on the ground and were within 75ft. of where CharlesJr. was found. This was early March so I don't believe they had the visual obstacles that existed once Spring set in. Now was the was hole dug out or not? From the 5-12 Wire: The body was lying in a depression as though there had been 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. Inspector Walsh, 5-12 Report: Body, while partly buried, was clothed in two shirts, which were subsequently identified by the nurse in the Lindbergh home as the shirts worn by the Lindbergh baby at the time of its kidnapping. Orville Wilson Statement 5-12: We stayed there about five minutes or more and in looking over the little body we noticed that it lay in a sort of a shallow hole and sort of covered up with dirt and leaves. It seem to me as if somebody had put the body there and attempted to cover it up with leaves and dirt. I can't find a quote I know exists but I am going to mention it anyway. A person who was there said the depression appeared to have been "scooped out" .... It's one of those things where I don't think it can ever be said with 100% certainty, but I think a case can be made for about an 85% range. So now I look at the bag and how Rab was so interested in the fact that one of the child's bones was found inside of it. As Rab said "bones don't fall off of fresh corpses" therefore, the baby came out of the bag after decomposition to where it was now found. I also think its important where the burlap bag was discovered too in relationship to the body... Deputy Chief Williamson 5-12 Statement: The only other thing I can say is that Officer Wolf and myself found a bag (burlap bag) along the highway, about where we stopped our car and directly opposite to where the body was found. Anyone who has been to this site knows the child was found on a "V" that is, he had a streams on both sides...front and back of where he was buried. So if the bag was thrown onto the side of the road then animals dragged the body diagonally south and then diagonally north OR they drug him across the stream and then buried him without finishing off all of his internal organs. Regardless, would an animal cover the child up in this way? Or if you believe the animals dragged the bag toward the street and left it there I would have to ask is this is a likely situation and does it explain the scenerio?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 11, 2006 0:23:34 GMT -5
Michael has hit on all my points. If a bone was found in the bag that was definitely identified as belonging to the body, we are faced with a true problem.
I have been persuaded, as Michael says, 85% that somehow the body was moved to that location. But why in hell, then, leave the bag? If you have taken time to bury it at least partially. Second, why bring it there unless you want it discovered? And, for the life of me, I can't see why you would want that, except to bring an end to any bogus ransom negotiations.
Did someone order it be taken there? If so, why bury it at all? I can't, again for the life of me, see Hauptmann coming down to that area after his negotiations are complete in order to drop off the body?
Where does this leave us?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 11, 2006 3:12:42 GMT -5
When you look at the corpse scene photos you dont think burial at all--its above ground so you think "dumped". Even the slight depression didnt require digging or a shovel. For my two cents i would guess "dumped along the road" guick and dirty to avoid parking or getting out. (just like the thumb quard in the drive) Whoever dumped the burlap bag wanted Charlie to be found. I can only imagine that some carnivor dragged him into the woods for a meal. Occams razor/
|
|
|
Post by rick2 on Feb 11, 2006 3:23:03 GMT -5
PS/ maybe whoever found Charlie in the woods was looking for Charlie in the woods and wondering why his body hadnt been found along the road where it had been dropped a few days before?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 11, 2006 8:20:26 GMT -5
Rick, Michael , and Dryan all have excellent points though they are all at odds with each other. It is a real shame that the we can't even be certain that the "grave" was natural or artificial as that in itself would say much. From my point of view I would have to say I could see it either way. I have seen enough strange sights regarding dead carcases while hunting or walking in the woods. I think the best hope here lies with a new examination of the bag coupled with some opinions from forensic scientists regarding the possible exposure of the body, time of death, and photo analysis of the burial spot to see if it is possible to determine if the grave was man made. At least this might exclude certain theories or narrow down the time frame. How to proceed with this?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 11, 2006 11:16:49 GMT -5
another reason the body may have been returned is to provide closure for someone. A point in time to begin to grieve and go on.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 11, 2006 16:33:14 GMT -5
to Rick, Michael The measurements mean to me that they were a grab bag of left over bones from some institution, or crematorium of more than one child. The foot bone from a younger child maybee 18 months, and the hand bones from a 20 month child. This only demonstrates how corrupted the evidence in the case was, and sems that the law did it's best to shift the case one way only.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 11, 2006 16:39:38 GMT -5
To Rick, Michael There is a large difference in size between 18 and 20-24 month children, because that growth age produces the largest montly increase in human growth. The two different age groups given may have seemed close age wise but the physical appearance would have appeared as a chimpanze wrather than a human child.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 11, 2006 16:54:03 GMT -5
To Rick, Michael Heaven help people who depend on doctors who make examinations with such slight discrepencies, as I can just see one of their transplants coming out of surgery with one tiny little hand or foot, or maybee even a left on the right. Most research I have read has amazing errors on it if you will recall the fusion reseach claim a few years ago. I shun our medical system, as those wrong amputation jokes are no joke, and even my brother died from being left on an x-ray machine while the doctor went to lunch with the nurse.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2006 18:40:25 GMT -5
Rita,
Dr. Krogman and Bass both independently came to the same conclusion concerning the age of that child. I think if you want to argue it was a replacement then it must have been about the same age.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 11, 2006 19:45:22 GMT -5
To Michael Dr's are very defensive of each other, and they obviosly thought that since no one ever reads every word of others research and that the mixed bone combination might not need interfere with identification of the intact body parts they concurred. They gave the hand bones normal for 20 month old and foot bones normal for 18 month which would be normal body height difference of 6 inches, and I think they skipped over this hoping that everyone else would typicaly as they did in most every other aspect of the case. I think they possibly were pressured also as doctors are by their insurance companies not to allow a plaintiff the upper hand in court. You must realize that court casses are won and lost by judge and jury not understanding, and being misslead on such details, as everything does not always appear relevant on first reading. Another thing I just thought of after re-thinking the significance of mixed animal bones with human was this body used in an experiment, and you can see how with re-thinking there might be other questions it might pose?
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Feb 11, 2006 23:22:04 GMT -5
I have Dr. Bass bone report and as I stated earlier I was disapointed by its limitations. Pretty much measured the bone sizes/ consistant w/ Charlie? I wonder if the animal bones got mixed in there from the outdoor site? this simple depression in the ground mite have been a carnivore feeding site used before? I dont really know how far the NJSP will permit testing now with the advent of DNA. This technology is a threat to all cases like this/ and denied so far. The family sure isnt promoting alot of extra tests? Liz Pagel did pretty well on the dirt though? Its hard to say what further testing on the burlap could do but I know Julia got to examine it at Wilburtha. The bones may be gone forever? Most puzzling to me is Dr. VanIngens refusal to corroberate Rielys pass on the bodys identity? What was his motive? Secrecy i presume. He would have disproven the "perfect son" myth in 5 min.
|
|
|
Post by rick2 on Feb 12, 2006 7:30:23 GMT -5
1. You dont really start grieving with a half eaten corpse thrown out along the Hopewell=Mt.Rose Road! Hello! this is a horrifying experience and should have alerted everyone to the cutthroat murderous means of the gangsters who show no concern or compassion to anyone but their own devious schemes. Feels like a horsehead to me? 2. A photograph of Charlie was taken by a newspaper photog who broke into the funeral home. Jafsie even had a copy selling for $5. Who took the photo and who has a copy today?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2006 11:15:59 GMT -5
A reporter named Pat Candido, who worked for the Daily Mirror at the time, claimed to have taken the photo.
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 12, 2006 13:04:40 GMT -5
The initial reason given for the kidnapping had to do with bootleggers and the alleged fact that Lindbergh was reporting stills to the cops. If bootleggers were responsible -- and I'm not saying they were -- they certainly wouldn't have shown any compassion.
I also think the body was meant to be found. But why?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 12, 2006 14:42:16 GMT -5
Rick, you start grieving WHEN YOU KNOW SOMEONE YOU LOVE IS DEAD! that is why natalie hollway's mom is still searching , so she can at least know. If this was a bogus cover-up for soomethng experimental that went wrong and the mother didn't know, maybe the baby was placed there to end the search. Anne was pregnant and not in good shape mentally. The baby's bone was in the bag and didn't get there by itself. Someone carried the body there after it had deteriorated and it was probably moved by forest creatures. Maybe the the bag wss left near the road to be found like the thumbguard was left in the middle of the drive.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 12, 2006 22:37:20 GMT -5
To kaneedwards, Rick Most of the normal kidnap indicators, and the actions of the family and staff point to the suspicious kidnap and it's follow through to the body discovery happened within the 4 to 5 mile radius around the house. Everything from the days events Don (flying Saucer) Keyhoe's visit with Anne telling her of mysterious figure in the window to CAL's forgetting his New York Lecture, but not forgeting to sign papers at Rockefeller foundation. After missing this important event his story to the police are of normal everyday routine where nothing unusual happened. The orange crate crash was about as inventive a story as that of a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. To top off all the irregular police activity CAL turned down hundreds of thousands of dollars of ransom money aid, so that he could thow out his personel secret 50k offer that seemed to turn into an hours long tea party discussion with the aid of Condon. The evidence which Wilentz and Court ignored was more powerful than anything that could possibly be connoted from the ladder, handwriting, or even the money that Hauptman was owed by Fisch. Schippel said he procured the ladders from the Skillman remodeling project, and they are construction ladders. The Pig lady who had cottages within walking distance was living with a doctor from the Skilman facility, and her story was that she had rented cottages to New Yorkers that were casing the Lindbergh Place, another convenient corroboration. Note that friends are trying to point to New York, and that CAL passed on many crackpot ransom notes to settle on the ultimate crackpot CJ and Condon, and this bizzare duo's tea party conversations. I say the only believeable possibility is something happened perhaps earlier in the week that brought CAL to seek advice of friends and lawyers that brought the case to a close within that small circle. rita
|
|
|
Post by Elyssa on Feb 12, 2006 22:47:22 GMT -5
A body being found so close to the home yet far enough away to not be found soon has always baffled me. I personally believe CAL searching for the child so far away that day was planned. I never believed there was a real kidnapping, I think CAL was behind it all, the ransom note was strange in itself, and even stranger the fact that JOHN answered the ad in the paper and met Condon, who by the way just jumped aboard the train while it was moving. CAL must have been freaking out, and thinking to himself if I just play this out I'M HOME FREE. I think that's just what he did and it worked so well for him that he named his second son after the man that saved his a--. Then when Hauptman became involved it came back to haunt him, so to save his a-- again he pointed the finger at Hauptman, then got out of the country as soon as possible to keep any thing else from popping up in his face. I'm still not sure what I believe about the body, it could have been Charlie, but it may have been another child. It just seems that the body being found that day wrapped up the nice neat package CAL was after.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 12, 2006 23:58:58 GMT -5
To Elyssa You said it package too neat is a perfect explanation of the case outward appearance. They had to give that ransom to someone to take the heat off Lindbergh, becausethey couldn't keep the body permanently in the Skillman Refrigerator. It sems to me Wilentz and the Judge had to be complicit with the coverup to accept such a contrived set of un-believeable evidence, and to ignore stories that sounded so incredible as if CAL was experieneing his second childhood. How could a judge bypas the fact the nursery had no fingerprints, and I wonder if he ever wrote any explanation, like maybee the Lindbergh's were just being tidy?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 13, 2006 0:15:21 GMT -5
The child found on May 12, 1932, was Charles A. Lindbergh., Jr. No dispute there, although early conspiracy theorists argued that one long and hard -- and a remnant do today.
There was a child taken from the nursery on March 1, 1932. The motive for that crime according to Dr. Shoenfeld was not simply money but jealousy. The planning for the crime must have taken someone with an intense sense of frustrated self-importance. That criterion does not rule out a conspiracy. When all factors are considered, it may increase the likelihood of a conspiracy. We pick on Betty Gow quite a bit in these discussions, and she does provide a target. One could even say she never imagined that the child would be harmed.
The same is true for others. Condon had a terrible need to be recognized in everything he did. He finally asked J.Edgar Hoover for a medal for his role in the affair.
Richard Hauptmann had a need to be seen as a gentleman. He was like the elite gangster heroes he saw in films -- perhaps tossing a $5 ransom bill to a ticket seller at a movie, with his hat at a saucy angle -- just like Jimmie Cagney, or, in real life, Legs Diamond.
Suppose Richard had a way worked out to launder money. Or suppose, even, that he had money up front before the kidnapping to tide him over until he could get rid of some of it.
Suppose that he was told -- tonight's it, finish the ladder. Then the child dies. Panic sets in, get rid of the body. But confederates assure him it will not be found, and so their promise is good. So, then, suppose, finally, he can go ahead with the ransom negotiations, because he knows the body is safely out of the way.
But this can't go on -- Condon says at one point that the gang has broken up, and CJ may be dead. Condon even stages the weirdest encounter on a boat with the supposed gang-- that is all but neglected in all the books and articles on the case - yet was it to write a final chapter?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 13, 2006 2:41:44 GMT -5
To dryan Is that the way you would have done it? You are prtraying him in the vernacular that realy depicts CAL's alter ego. There is more legitimate evidence that CAL had episodes of harmful play, that may have been more than just a danger to the child,but may have been cause of death.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 13, 2006 7:39:05 GMT -5
Dryan, I am sorry to say this but I don't think the shallow grave mystery can be solved unless the issue of death and re- burial are first answered. If the kidnapper(s) disposed of the body that night I think anything is possible as panic was probably the overwhelming influence. On the other hand if the body was deliberated placed there at a later time, then that opens up a whole different aspect. The key here, as I see it, is to see if more can still be determined about the time of death and exposure.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 13, 2006 7:54:26 GMT -5
Once we have concensus that Charlie was dumped along the Hopewell-Princeton Road after the ransom was paid we can move on to where he was taken and stored the nite of the snatch. I still contend his return was the cruelest kind of disrespectful violence usually reserved for gangland slayings. JonBenet Ramsey was all wrapped up neat and clean by her intruders. Since we are now dealing with a local crime and not one that extends to Mexico, New Haven or even the Bronx, we should look around Hopewell for appropriate places where Charlie could have become so decomposed in some heated interior location like a furnace room: Skillman Village, Wendels house, Shippels shack (the one without precise GPS yet?) Maybe modern forensics could turn up some microscopic evidence on the burlap bag? One account portends that at the initial crime scene there was some blood evidence on the burlap? That might be a place to start w/ luminol? PS Dr. DUDley S. was just that...a delusional crackpot dud perfect for the prosecutorial homophobic lone-wolfe theories.
|
|