|
Post by rick62 on Mar 25, 2006 16:00:08 GMT -5
Elyssa/ Yikes--you are really nailing CAL to the Cross on this one and Easter comes near after April Fools Day! If CAL throws out a thumbquard as a Joke then its the lowest of the low? Even lower than drinking kerosene!
But an opposite take would be that if Gow drops the thumbguard then its CAL that is playing the Fool because he doesnt know where Charlie and his trust account lies. Maybe the women of the household trumped CALs plan?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 24, 2007 15:53:50 GMT -5
Have hesitated to bring this back up, as I'm guessing some will see it as a another rehash. It's just something I keep thinking about because I have problems with it and that is the baby's remains/burlap bag/grave. 1. Bone in bag: Am unconvinced bone fell off in bag. pzb63/reply#14/Aug 25, 2006 made what I think may be a better interpretation of this. 2. Body too decomposed for weather and length of time: If we could just do more to separate between the natural decomp from animal/insect damage, we may see it in a different light. "Badly decomposed" as compared with what? Twenty more days would be badly decomposed---found twenty days earlier would also match badly decomposed. From descriptions or testimony(?) ,when the remains were first turned over facial coloration and tissue tone were relatively well preserved. After a few minutes the face darkened/blackened. Had the body been in the bag for any length of time the whole body would have darkened, I believe. I also believe that much of what has been referred to as "skeletonized" would have been both animal/insect plus autopsy damage, as opposed to natural decomp. Although I've given consideration to the body having been brought back later, I find myself still in the corner that the body was there from the beginning. What happened to the rubber pants and 2 diapers? Hard to say , but maybe conceivable that this too was animals. It was said that the diapers were pinned to the undershirt--more likely the second undershirt. This was described by Squibb--as best I can read it, as "woolen" and there were several small woolen scraps also referred to. Could this suggest that animals may have torn off diapers, with pins intact , though the little shirt(?) and dragged them plus rubber pants away too far to have been found(?) There would have been body purging to the diaper which may have drawn the animals. Then, too, the perps may also have removed them along with the sleeping suit (at whatever point) for future purposes(?) Was the burlap bag used as a marker(?) Perhaps for the perps. Did one come back just before cem meetings to verify that the body had not been found(?) Seems like a possible, to me. I daresay that at that time there was no police grid-search being done through the woods at Mt Rose, (if ever, for that matter). Was this also a time that the sleeping suit may have been recovered as "proof" and needed to be scrubbed clean. (And there was the delay in being able to send the sleeping suit). Anne asked why it was washed. -----Thanx to those who were able to bear with me, here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2007 8:44:22 GMT -5
Please don't hesitate to post any thoughts.... I think sometimes re-hashing things brings out information overlooked in the past. I think frustration sometimes rises when we appear to be spinning our wheels in the mud. We also have to remember that new people read these threads everyday and may inject observations we never considered..... Ok, here is Pam's post you referred to: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=1156194172&post=1156489409I think whatever was found in the bag at Squibb was in that bag as found. I draw this conclusion because other leaves and dirt were transported to Squibb in other containers. If they "scooped" leaves, dirt, and the bone from the site into the bag it wouldn't make sense it wasn't filled since the other (like) material was headed to the same place for analysis. The rootlets growing through the burlap.... I don't know how fast these things would grow. Perhaps a botanist would? I personally believe the child was in bag and perhaps buried somewhere else before being dug up and relocated to where he was found. If this occurred that maybe these rootlets came from the other place and not the grave site where he was found. I do not believe animals would drag or eat the diapers and rubber pants to the point they wouldn't be found - especially since there were parts and pieces of the corpse which hadn't been consumed. This area was supposed to have been searched and I do believe the bag would have been picked up during such a search. Locals were claiming this corpse couldn't have been there. And others saw strange vehicles parked on the side of the road some days before the body was discovered. On a side-note, Wendel said he moved the child there and found a hole which he placed the child into then covered him up with dirt and leaves. The source for story that acid was used to destroy the corpse came from him. In fact, it was the one instance where Weiss, Schlossman, and Bleefeld actually admitted he was struck. According to their testimony, Weiss, being a Father himself, became outraged when Wendel was bragging about "emasculating" the child and gave him a whack. As far as I have been able to determine - this was the only time Wendel ever suffered physical abuse.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 21, 2007 15:34:36 GMT -5
Ten days after the kidnapping, Trenton Chief of Police, William P. Walter, received a letter sent from Buffalo, New York, that said the baby's body could be found by following the Lindbergh telephone wires. news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Chief+Walter+wrote+across+The+face+of+The+The+paper+and+&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=usAccording to a New York Tiimes article for December 7, 1935, "Hauptmann Not Lone Slayer," the writer said the baby was brought to Elizabeth, New Jersey, and that the kidnappers broke into the lines, eavesdropping on phone conversations at Highfields. Detective Ellis Parker believed the letter was authentic. This letter, said to be written in New York but mailed from Buffalo, was never investigated. Where is this letter today?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2007 18:22:27 GMT -5
Ellis Parker wound up with a copy, and as a result, now I have one. Let me know if you want me to post it in the Member's section.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 25, 2007 16:04:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. I'd love to see it!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2007 19:46:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2007 20:04:23 GMT -5
Sue, To answer your question you asked in the Member's Section..... I never found this letter anywhere other then in Parker's material. If it had been forwarded to Schwarzkopf, as I suspect it would have been, then I haven't been able to find it. Because of this, I cannot say whether or not they found any importance in it. Obviously, there's no way wires were run to where these guys supposedly were...if that is indeed what was meant. But Parker in writing to the Governor about it admits that while it is rambling it..... ....speaks about the baby, stating it would be found along the telephone lines leading to the Lindbergh Estate. This letter was dated March 10th. The baby was stolen March 1st. In talking with the Telephone Company, I learned the lines were started to be laid on March 3rd. The person who made that statement could not have told about the baby being along the telephone lines unless the lines had been laid. ( Parker to Hoffman 12-5-35)[/blockquote]
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 27, 2007 11:56:25 GMT -5
Michael,
Thank you.
So these telephone wires were put up after March 1st so more people could man phones at the Lindbergh estate, otherwise the wires weren't needed?
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 27, 2007 18:01:17 GMT -5
Exactly right Sue. These were the new lines for those numbers.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Jun 14, 2007 1:18:14 GMT -5
Michael! Please tell me about the furnace & gloves. Since I have been reading on this case since I have been 8 years old I cannot imagine I have not read about this before. But it honestly rings no bells with me. Could you please elaborate on this for me when you get time? I am just bursting to know about this. Of course, since I hit 40 three years ago it seems as if things I MUST know are all new again. Grin. But seriously, I cannot for the life of me put this story in any context.
Thank you, Dena
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2007 6:53:48 GMT -5
Refresh my memory as to the reference point to which you came up with these two items. I am thinking the gloves found at the "burial site" and the furnace being a key word from the Murray Garrson investigation....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 8, 2007 8:47:01 GMT -5
I am not going to say that I know what the exact fate of CAL Jr from the night of the kidnapping to the discovery of his body, there simply isn't enough evidence. All I can do is give an opinion based on what I believe. I do believe that his body was always in the vicinity of where it was eventually found. I do believe that that the search for him, which I am sure was extensive, did nevertheless fail to discover his body. There could be many reasons for that failure. If, as I believe, he was inside of that burlap sack it would be quite easy to overlook. That would be especially true if it was partially covered or submerged. Also a variety of environmental factors such as the weather and lighting conditions could well have contributed to this failure of discovery. An overcast day, for example, would soften shadows and hinder the recognition of the sack and it's contents. Now reading through some of the previous posts I see the discussion regarding the utility ( phone lines) which ran near the discovery site. So how could these linemen as well as the searchers have missed the body? I think that part of the answer may well be a result of what they were looking for. Here is a personal example which I experienced only a week ago. I was hiking on a local trail and was about 2 mi into the woods when I came upon a burned out stone cottage. Being interested in such things, I examined the remaining stone walls in an effort to determine it's age. I soon discovered the remains of the electrical meter which had once serviced this house. But I was surprised that I had not remembered seeing any power lines or poles on my walk in. After walking a bit further, I returned back and sure enough there were the lines and a pole covered in vines but still clearly evident. Evident, that is because on the return trip I was looking for them and in doing so their linear form was now apparent to me. It's easy to miss such things when you are not aware of their presence. Another point of consideration is the topography of the area where the body was found. This is bottom land and small brooks and streams can easily turn to raging rivers after heavy downpours. If you look at the precipitation records for the period that the body was missing there are some significant amounts recorded. In Spring that combined with previous snow melt combines to provide a heavy runoff. Interestingly, some of that runoff comes right from the mountain Highfields is located on and the stream by Featherbed Rd. It would be very possible for these runoffs to scour the lower lying areas. Such an event could easily dislodge the body and carry it to another location such as the discovery site.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 11, 2007 18:57:07 GMT -5
I was just thinking about that Nursery note and the first letter specifically in regard to the warning about going public or notifying the police. I always thought of these primarily in regard to the crime and the ensuing ransom negotiations. But what if the warning ( and the admonishment for it's disregard) was meant to keep any search of the area from being conducted? You see where this leads? www.conservationresourcesinc.org/documents/stmikesmap.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2007 14:07:56 GMT -5
It's not just that the Police didn't find him. There were many other situations which could have turned him up too. Just look at how he was found.
For me, the evidence is both clear and convincing the child was brought to Mt. Rose, emptied out of the burlap bag into a hole scooped out by those placing him there. Where the body was found convinces me a stream could not have deposited it there. By all accounts it was a shallow grave. I realize it doesn't make sense that someone would return to bury the child there but neither does negotiating for a dead child which could be found at any moment.
There's something else going on here. I've seen both Rab and Joe suggest it was something psychological or the true motive for the kidnapping in the first place.
Personally, I believe he was placed there to give the impression it had been there so that history could record exactly as it has.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 12, 2007 16:37:08 GMT -5
What evidence might that be? God only knows that no one has more knowledge of this case and the reports than you. What evidence of grave scooping exists? Where there telltale signs of soil disturbance? Where there severed roots and mixed soil?
Well if you divert enough attention away from the body and luck is with you, it can work.
As some kind of gesture toward Lindbergh it falls awfully short of the mark. I mean if you are that driven by some peculiar demon that you will drive down to Hopewell with a decaying body, I would say nothing short of depositing it on Lindbergh's doorstep will suffice. Leaving it 75 yds in the woods isn't even a half measure.
Well thank God Flomax hadn't been invented yet or history might not have any record of this event. ;D
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 13, 2007 9:54:41 GMT -5
Both are good arguments.
It seems ludicrous to negotiate for a month of living on eggshells with the kidnapper probably believing that realistically, heaven and earth were being moved to locate the child.
Within the scope of risk taking employed in this crime beginning with the very act of stealing the son of Charles Lindbergh, the close-to-home burial may also have been perceived by the kidnapper as a lesser and necessary risk if it did occur on the same night as the kidnapping.
Another thought: Could the kidnapper have simply believed the story would have hit the headlines if the body had have been found, perhaps thinking less of the possibility the gruesome find could have been contained in order to set him up for capture?
I don't think I've ever had a clear impression of the kidnappers' motive here and I don't know if Rab has. I know Allen has postulated the child was "returned" as a token gesture the kidnapper was "keeping his end of the bargain."
And I have great difficulty believing this kidnapper would know or feel anything about the devastating consequences to the family of making this kind of debauched gesture, if in fact that was his intention.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 13, 2007 10:25:29 GMT -5
Joe, I don't think the "kidnapper" had many options regarding the disposal of the body. I think his window of opportunity is severely restricted and he needs to get out of Dodge ASAP. He has to make due with a very bad situation and hope that the note buys some time. No nursery note means an instant and extensive local search. Later he plays a slight of hand trick, redirecting the focus of attention to the Bronx. It worked.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 13, 2007 12:14:02 GMT -5
Kevin, you present some pretty sound reasoning here. Collectively it seems our discussions have included a kind of full circle return to what was commonly accepted to be the truth and as presented at the trial. I also believe it's conceivable the kidnapper(s) was constantly gauging his own prospects for a successful ransom score by the lack of any publication of a grim discovery outside of Hopewell, despite the fact the police might have withheld news in an attempt to set up a sting.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 1, 2008 17:52:24 GMT -5
Does anyone think it possible that the thumbguard could have been drug back & been deposited in the driveway(without it being noticed at the time) by one of the Lindbergh dogs? Or even a neighboring dog that just "visited". This was a rural area & dog owners in rural areas tend to let them roam more. A dog surely would have picked up on the smell of a corpse & would have wanted to check it out . Whoever had let the dogs out or was walking them might not have noticed this or if they saw something in dogs mouth would not have realized the import of object at the time. Esp if it was getting towards evening or already dark out. Dogs are known for running off or wandering off to "explore" and they might have gone quite a ways before being called back.
Just something that occurred to me & seemed plausible.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 1, 2008 21:04:11 GMT -5
Hi Dena~~ That's a great thought about the thumbguard(s)/dogs. Seems quite possible to me. Would go a long way to explain the puzzle of how it was found-what-a whole month later?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2008 19:01:19 GMT -5
Honestly, the first person I ever saw make this suggestion was Allen. Next Liz, and now the both of you. I personally don't believe this could have happened. I think if it had been on the property it would have been found during the numerous searches in the area by a multitude of people. Now if it hadn't been found then I believe someone put it there after the fact. The only other option would be that it had been dropped the night of the kidnapping and somehow overlooked - it was "flattened" so at least one car had driven over it before it was found.
And again, this is my opinion only - it certainly doesn't mean I am right.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2008 20:09:41 GMT -5
For what it's worth, my dogs pick up a lot of objects ( they are terriers) but I have never once seen them pick up anything metallic. If it was there all that time given the activity at the guard house, I'd say the only realistic possibility would be that it was picked up on tire of one of the vehicles that were off the driveway.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 2, 2008 22:29:08 GMT -5
Maybe the dogs in the mountains of VA have some different skills (or aggros!) My neighbor's dog drags off my cat's metal feeding dishes all the time. Have bought every size and shape - metal- hoping to deter him. He drags off my metal plant stand. Now, in my yard lays a plastic snow sled-type thing and there are no children anywhere near here. I believe the metal thumbguard still had the ribbon attached. I can see a dog pick up something like that. What interests me about it is that it could change some of our thinking about in which direction the child was carried off.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 3, 2008 2:56:51 GMT -5
Michael! Are you putting me in the same category as Allen?! LOL
The only reason I ever even started thinking about this was because periodically I have to check out my dogs little "house" (a kennel) because my dog collects "treasures". Usually just the cat toys. But this time, amongst several cat toys, was a big gold hoop earring that I have been missing for some time. My dog is only 6 lbs so it would have been huge in his mouth. I checked the house only last week to so earring hadn't been there for that long. He obviously found it somewhere. So I guess it would depend upon the dog. But obviously some dogs will drag metal around in their mouths.
So just suggesting an alternate thumbguard theory that I thought of after my own dog went on his own jewelry heist.
I too have always tended to think that the thumbguard was planted in driveway. Because somebody would surely have seen it had it been there in the days immediately following the kidnapping especially. And of course we will never know for sure. But in the time between baby went missing & thumbguard showed up, who would have been foolish enough to carry around this object & not worried about what it would look like had it been found on their person? That was very risky. Did they carry this around like some "trophy"? Stash it somewhere? What if Anne or staff had come across this hidden thumbguard in the house? Surely this would have made them suspicious of other household members. If someone who was not in the Lindbergh circle, an outsider, had returned thumbguard to the driveway this would have meant that this person had had to return to the scene of the crime carrying an object that could immediately finger them as the kidnapper of the baby if caught . A pretty risky & daring move on their part. Just foolhardy. Could bring too much attention to themselves and a gang if caught.
I guess two scenarios possible then if not dogs. CAL had had it all along. Just hid it in the house. He would have been the only one with reason to hide it. And he had to have hid it because to just carry it around with him would have been to risk having servant find it while doing laundry,dusting, hanging up jackets etc. Although I feel sure CAL must have had a desk drawer he kept locked & he could have hid it there. (anyone know this for fact though?) I'm sure Anne would not have pried open a locked drawer of her husbands. The servants would never have done that either.
But this really makes no sense that he had hung onto it just to then hide it. Unless he got some perverse "thrill" from hiding what he thought of as a trophy. Personally, with what I think of CAL, I am not disregarding this. He enjoyed besting others & feeling smugly superior. Exact kind of personality to enjoy taking a trophy.
Or whoever had placed thumbguard in driveway had retrieved it from where it had been buried with baby, exhumed baby, retrieved thumbguard while placing baby where he was eventually found, and then placing object in driveway.
Who would have risked this but for Lindbergh himself? Would a servant have been THIS stupid? And again, what outsider is going to RETURN to Hopewell to do this?
Frankly, as abhorrent as the second scenario is, the first scenario bothers me more. Because to carry around the thumbguard as a trophy is more indicative of a deliberate homicide then an accident that was just attempted to be covered up & then snowballed out of control. And nothing would ever make me believe that CAL would have carried around the baby's thumbguard because of some sentimental attachment he had had to his baby.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2008 8:09:06 GMT -5
I' ll concede to the canine caper. Still the problem with the thumb guard is that there are too many possibilities and I doubt much can be discerned from it's final location due to the compromised crime scene. It's very possible, for example, that the abductor inadvertently buried the thumb guard by stepping on it and pressing it into the soft earth. There was considerable rain and snow between its' discovery and the crime so it very well might have been exposed at any time. In its flattened and dirty state it might have easily been mistaken for a meaningless piece of debris. Who knows? I think it becomes another one of those points that one views in a way that fits whatever you feel occurred in this crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2008 8:59:35 GMT -5
I certainly don't think anyone on the board is a "nut" Dena, and I am absolutely not placing you, Liz, Mairi, or anyone else in the same category as Allen. My reasoning for mentioning that was two-fold: - To give Allen credit for his idea (despite his lack of doing so when it comes to anyone else).
- To show there was (4) people on board with this possibility against, at the time, just me.
I never put much stock in Allen because he's more of a side show artist then a Researcher. But hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. So I suppose my point is that I could be wrong. I still don't see it though. If the dog found it to move it around all of those people should have found it first. If it was dropped where it was found, that night, then I think Kevin's idea is probably the best bet .... that cars buried it by running it over that night. But if that's the case what do we do with the circumstances that provides us? Bush and the State Police followed the Criminals in the opposite direction.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 4, 2008 10:08:22 GMT -5
I was only joking about Allen. Honest. ;D
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 4, 2008 10:27:58 GMT -5
Now I just went & looked at the photo of the thumb guard again & it didnt look that flat to me, but then again the picture was not 3D & Im not sure what a thumb guard looks like while in its pristine state anyway. Also, if the ground had been softened with rain & it could have become easily buried without become too flat also I would think. So I think Im leaning towards Kevins analysis too about it not being seen earlier. But since a lot of tend to think that it was also planted, how would we reconcile that belief with it being covered up & flattened? Could the kidnapper (Really weird to not say "But would CAL.." but Im trying not to do that anymore lol) have become impatient when no one found it, but him or her, knowing where it was, gone & kind of uncovered it , with their foot perhaps? But then again, the nurse sort of did do that, I guess. Ahhh I think I just answered my own question maybe. I'm starting to get it now.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 5, 2008 12:32:38 GMT -5
I have a question I wonder if anyone knows the answer to. I read that the hairs found by baby's body were approx. 3 inches in length. Yet the baby had supposedly just had his hair cut. I would think if the baby had just had his first "big boy" haircut, it would have been much shorter. So if little Charlie's hair had been cut shortly before the kidnapping, why was the hair found 3 inches? That is a pretty substantial length of hair for a 20 month old to have grown after it being cut. Or a pretty substantial length of hair to leave uncut if he had indeed had it cut shortly before he disappeared.
Any ideas thoughts opinions on this one? Or am I understanding this incorrectly?
Dena
|
|