|
Post by rick3 on May 6, 2006 18:45:00 GMT -5
Top 10 ways to tell Charlie is "alive and well and present":
1. Photo and todays newspaper headline 2. Lock of hair 3. Describe some birthmarks 4. Call on phone talk to CAL/Anne 5. Repeat some words he says 6. / footprints/ handprints 7. Tape recording mailed to CAL 8. Blue-thread tshirt 9. Tell what Charlie can do or play 10. {add your own--also not discussed}
The Dr. Denton #2 was the weakest of the weak...why did CAL pay $50K for clothing you can purchase at any 5 and 10? Was it laundered so it wouldnt look brand spanking new? Beyond a shadow of any doubt this proves the Hoax of the Century and Charlie is dead!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2006 8:05:32 GMT -5
Very good Rick, you have just shown how careful we should be when interpreting the actions and mind set of characters in this case. Here you, a well educated , highly intelligent person with the dual advantage of objectivity and hindsight, have identified 9 items that you would accept as proof of a live kidnapping victim and 6 of them would do no more than the sleeping suit to actually prove this point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2006 13:08:42 GMT -5
Enough cover in the Spring. I don't think someone would bring this corpse to this site and dig a shallow grave where they could be seen doing so. If its a hasty drop on the night of March 1st they couldn't have been able to judge this at all, in fact, I would assume a reasonable person would conclude they were too close to the road. It wasn't affixed to anything. This was probably just a slip concerning how I view the events. I don't see the bag getting there any other way then by human hands and I don't see why anyone would separate it from the child's body other then to place it where it was found. It's possible it was in the road and someone moved it to the shoulder. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/burlapbag1.jpgI think if it was placed there in between the phone-line checks it could have but would have been discovered when the next check occurred. Also, if it had been in the road when the Police drove there it would have been achieved the desired results. Well this is guess-work and you could be right but I see it differently. That's not to say it couldn't have been overlooked, but as soon as the Police arrived at the scene they immediately scooped this bag up due to the exact reason I mentioned above. I think that's somewhat impossible.... but I do think our collective thoughts and ideas form a check and balance to a one-sided approach that tends to occur. I just don't see it. The symbol proves they were the one's who left the note. The sleeping suit proves nothing other then they knew the child had one on that was similar. Neither prove whether or not the child is alive. I am in agreement with Rick.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2006 13:34:03 GMT -5
I
Yes of course, I agree as well. The suit proves nothing in reality. I am not even sure that it was required for payment. The point I am trying to make is that what we can properly identify as false through our reasoning, objectivity, and hindsight is a bit different than what an emotionally involved parent in the midst of such a kidnapping would. Also, I think it is reasonable to consider that from Lindbergh's perspective the thought that his child was murdered or would be might seem hard to fathom. After all why do such a thing when the ransom is paid. There are still kidnappings which occur to this day where the parents or spouse refuses to believe that they will never see their loved one alive again. The police were and are more circumspect regarding kidnap victims, they know all too well that a kidnap victim may very likely be killed ( or already dead).
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 7, 2006 14:38:50 GMT -5
Kevin....this above is all just fluffy logic (fuzzy math) and a bunch of 1/2 baked excuses:
1. the dog ate my homework 2. the stick poked a bullit hole 3. only the 37th guy sees the floorboard missing--hes trained
CAL doesnt live inside a cave/ hes married to a bright woman; he has the council of the 4.5 Colonels at his fingertips; plenty of bright and talented cops. Maybe noone wants to tell him that Charlie is dead? Maybe noone wants to tell him the sleeping suite can be bought at Kmart for $4.99? Maybe noone wants to tell a National Treasure the obvious truth? Maybe he doesnt want to belive its true no matter how logical? Maybe noone wants to tell him his plan to get Charlie back is driving up a dead end road? OK I accept that. CAL never seeks others advice. My only point is that we can see it now!
We can also see all of Condon's lies as they are recorded in history. Maybe CAL and Breckenridge, his attorney, cant see that either. Breckenridge should be more clear headed? Its his job.
"The emperor has no clothes"
Now as for my Top 10.....well some at least prove that CJ has seen Charlie or knows where he is/ some prove hes alive too. The Dr. Denton proves absolutely no-thing for $50K--except the double-double cross. Wishful thinking at its low ebb.
Maybe CAl is tryng to prove something to Anne: there was in fact a kidnap and he will get Charlie back singlehandedly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2006 15:07:54 GMT -5
So Rick are you saying with absolute confidence that you, under those circumstances would have responded differently? I don't think anyone of us can be sure how we would react to the abduction of our child. Do you think Lindbergh was super human? Can you not at least consider that he was acting with extreme emotional prejudice? Don't you think some around him did voice their concerns?
Yes, 3 might. Did the kidnapper have a camera and more importantly a darkroom? Was the tape recorder even available at the time. Would the child speak on a phone and would it be identifiable? You see you are doing exactly what you are accusing Lindbergh of. It is called wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by rickII skepticIII on May 7, 2006 19:45:48 GMT -5
Kevin--please be so kind as to not blow smoke up my skirt about absolute confidence in CALs wacky behavior.
CAL blew the recovery of Charlie big time from 10pm 1 March 32 all the way to 13 May when he Ided the corpse.
He sent out phalanx after phalanx of NJSP and Feds but impeded thier every moves all along the way.
Thats not to say that Charlie wasnt dead right from the getgo but hiring a senile and demented go-between that lies day in and day out is just plain loopy. Even the cops thought hiring the Mob to find Charlie was loopy.
If CAL gets Charlie back all safe and sound, alive and well then I eat my own shorts. As it is, CAL got back only a Dr. Denton and one thumb guard.
Efforts=A Competency=F If all these persons know that a distraught dad cant handle this task--then tell him cause its only Charlies life at stake. Revenuer Irey insists on recording the ransom money or even BRH would have been home free/ maybe that was CALs plan all along? Everyone gets away?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2006 20:43:33 GMT -5
Keep your skirt on Rick. I was just making the point that Lindbergh"s "loopy" actions are not necessarily the result of calculated design. Being immensely famous or powerful doesn't make someone invincible either. In fact it often turns out to be a double edged sword, that fame can intimidate and prevent constructive advice and criticism. In any case, I don't see any alternative outcome regarding his son.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 8, 2006 4:24:42 GMT -5
Kevin--hold onto your hat/ i totally agree with you! I have always figured that CALs ego was stung to its very core upon Charlies disappearance. He took it very personally (duh?), and thus felt obligated to run the search all by himself. In a period news article the cops are accused of interferring in "CALs recovery efforts"? On the other board Charlies Angels are working off the theory that bootleggers snatched Charlie because of CALs puritanical vendetta against their livelyhood. This fits pretty well. CAL sends his hoards of go- betweens out to find out who holds Charlie--pretty soon he finds out and that Charlie is dead. The bootleggers and rumrunners know all about boats and sealanes up and down the East Coast. So does Curtis.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 8, 2006 6:37:54 GMT -5
There is a lot of talk here about the burlap bag but if you read the report from E.R. Squibb & Sons who analyzed the items found near the body it looks like there where a whole list of things found there - most of which appears to be junk.
Does anyone think anything else found there was connected?
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2006 6:45:57 GMT -5
Yes I think this is probably true. Think of the constant accolades he has received over the past few years. I think from his perspective he actually thought the murder of his son was inconceivable. The police, of course, knew otherwise. There was only one possible way to carry out the ransom exchange with a guarantee of success and that is a direct exchange, child for money. Other than that , there is no way to insure a healthy victim will be returned or found.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 8, 2006 10:21:01 GMT -5
kevin--in most kidnappings the parents/family waits patiently for the perps to contact them with the place and time. But not Colonel Commander Take-charge! Within 24 hours he has mobilized the 4 Colonels, theNational Guard, the NJSP, the Army, Navy, Air Forced, Mairines, BOI, Treasury AND organized Crime to turn over every rock looking for Charlie. Oh sure, he finds him OK--just not alive and well and identifying his captors. CAL says "someone may have to die"? Apparently he did not mean hisself?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2006 11:39:47 GMT -5
I am not completely sure of that, do you mean that the police are not contacted? The law enforcement agents know all too well that the chances of an unharmed victim being returned are not good. They are caught in a dilemma which places them between the safety of the victim and the apprehension of the kidnapper, which is often the only hope of finding the victim. The other victims in these cases, the parents, spouse, etc. are naturally hoping for the best and can understandably be ignorant to the probable outcome, believing that full cooperation on their part will guarantee the same by the kidnapper.
Once again, if it were your child would you not utilize all the resources at your command? Would it not be easy to believe that no one would be so criminal as to harm or kill a baby?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2006 16:16:09 GMT -5
It's really hard to say without knowing exactly where the items were found and armed with the little information we actually have. I had always been under the impression they were found very near the body, however, I recently found a hand-drawn map marked "Leon & Coar" (so I believe one of them drew it) and it shows spots where gloves were found that are in line with the child's body as far as depth into the woods but further south.
I see potential in these items but I think if they are connected then we must assume they were left behind on purpose. The 22' piece of burlap with the handle on the end is a curious find. The shovel, often questioned as a hoax perpetrated by Reporters in order to create a story seems irrelevant either way because the report says it hadn't been used in a very long time. The other interesting item was the World News Paper found 50 yards aways shoved under the roots of a tree.
|
|
|
Post by rickIII skepticII on May 8, 2006 21:04:48 GMT -5
Kevin--are you reading too many posts! You are becoming totally dellusional in your pursuit of BRHs garage alarm and ice box.
Lets look at the score card:
1. After law enforcement chasing their tales for 2 and 1/2 years Walter Lyle finds one guy spending Gold Certs.
2. After another 75 years all the BOI- police efforts came up with zero/ a dry hole! A Lone Woof Theory for a gang with 4 shoes?
3. All the 4-5 go-betweens including Breckenridge, Rosner, Spitz, Bitale, Madden, Capone, Curtis and Means--the only thing lost is the money spent. Gain is zero.
4. The family goes on a phishing expedition and hooks Condon. Condon goes on a phishing expedition and hooks CJ? Who remains unknown to this day! Loss= $50K for a sleeping suite.
5. Most of kidnappings, even in Irag today, quietly pay the ransom and sometimes get the family member back. Everything else scares the crazies and quarantees a dead relative. Not round the clock Hearst News Central.
6. All the Kings horses and all the Kings men, can never put Charlie back together again!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2006 6:52:25 GMT -5
Definately. But I am cutting down. Maybe I should get a patch.
I have always been a little delusional, it helps with this case. (What icebox?)
I wouldn't say that to the Special Ops boys or the FBI for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 9, 2006 10:06:42 GMT -5
Michael: if you are correct that the Body Dump benefits CAL and the Family then I would also think it would equally benefit the rumrunners and bootleggers....ie Big Business. Even Curtis admits to knowingly building ships for them.
Between the road blocks in March and the Search and Sea missions durning April and May the East Coast must be nearly dry. Wouldnt it perk up the booze shipments for Charlies half consumed body or "any similar body" to be found so Anti-Prohibition speakeasys could get back to normal?
As for the B urlap B ag--mark down my vote that it is left along the road so that Allen and his buddy know where to go in a take a pee. Its the road sign to discovery. Its too far from the body to be just an accident or dragged by animals--the topography vetoes that speculation.
Charlies decomposed remains were in the bag--who ever dumped him out in the woods brought the B urlap B ag back to the road sos it could be located. Like a GPS on a map.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2006 10:31:21 GMT -5
Great! Finally we are on our way to including the long neglected minorities in the suspect pool.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 10, 2006 5:57:53 GMT -5
Michael -
I suppose I just do not know enough about your ideas on this case but why must we assume the items were left on purpose?
By whom and why?
I, myself, am less intrigued by the newspaper found a day after the body was discovered than by the similarity between hairs found on the t-shirt and on the inside of the cotton gloves. Similarity is as far was one can go, of course, since it appears no additional examination took place. <grrr>
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 10, 2006 7:02:05 GMT -5
Do you know if these gloves are archived or lost?
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 10, 2006 7:24:29 GMT -5
I do not know. You would have to ask Mark.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Thomas on May 10, 2006 7:56:30 GMT -5
anyone consideredthat if Bruno was CJ and ruthlessly killed the lindbergh bby why he didn't just kill condon after the pay-off? no one checked on conodn during the first hour long meeting in the cemetary. Lindbergh was with him the second night and he sure wsnt going to come looikng. he could have stabbed him, run off and no ID ever.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 10, 2006 9:29:20 GMT -5
I want to make sure I understand what some of you are suggesting here. Someone - kidnapper, bootlegger or whomever, wanted the body found. So, he enlisted the aid of William Allen and maybe Allen's boss. He told him to look along the side of the road for a burlap bag and decide that here is the place he is to answer the "call of nature". He also told him to go way into the woods to find (something? a body?).
To me that seems overly complicated and risky - after all Allen and/or the boss may tell someone. It seems like it would be much easier, faster and safer to simply place an anonymous call to the police, or even a newspaper.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on May 10, 2006 10:40:13 GMT -5
mjr--good points!
And consider this angle which I have posted before. Allen was an Afro-American back in the 30's. It would not do at all for a proper White lady to seem him urinating in public--that is my view why he went so far back in the woods.
In the same post I also mentioned a transcription of a meeting chaired by Inspector Walsh which I can no longer find. Someone made the comment that the place where the baby was found was the first logical place from the abduction site for a car to pull safely of the road. Does that make it all fit nicely together? No, but it does show reasoning at the time that can get lost among all the conspiracy theories.
Also, I have never put much stock in the supposedly elaborate grids that were kept of places that had been searched. As anyone ever actually seen them? I still think it is possible the grave could have been walked near and not discovered.
Dick
|
|
|
Post by rickIII rookie PI on May 10, 2006 15:15:19 GMT -5
Just sos as to make my own self clearer, I'll try again:
As far as we can guess, only 2 parties appear to GAIN from the Baby Dumping on Hopewell-Princeton Road:
1. Bootleggeres and rumrunners
2. CAL, Morrow and Lindbergh families
By the same token there are only 2 big huge loosers:
1. Charlie Jr. who wont see his 2nd birthday
2. The kidnappers and/or murderers due to habeus corpus delicti
From the above we can therefore conclude that only the winners and not the big loosers would dump Charlie out of the burlap bag to be found.,
|
|
|
Post by Thomas on May 10, 2006 16:45:15 GMT -5
like i said, why wouldn't cj just have done away with condon as the onl eye witness after the ransom was delivered? we know cj didn't play fair.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2006 19:38:28 GMT -5
This is a very good point Thomas... If you register remind me that you have a karma point coming to you from me. You are the first (to my knowledge) to ever make this observation and to me its a solid one. One must consider that Condon made several statements as to what he saw, how much he saw, and how long he saw it. So either Condon didn't get a good enough look or CJ trusted him. I am convinced the corpse was not originally where it was found. I have weighed all the possible circumstances and evidence to include the contrarian opinions but see nothing that over-rides the position the child was placed in this spot at a later date. The only real debate now (for me) is exactly 'when' he was placed there. He was obviously decomposing when this occurred so I believe it was much nearer toward his discovery. Now since the child appears to have been dumped out of the bag into a shallow grave then I believe the bag was placed very near where it was found by whoever placed him in this spot. I also find the newspaper dated March 1, 1932 found very close to this grave as an attempt by "someone" to date its burial. It's my opinion that if the gloves were left behind it wasn't an accident since leaving the bag was obviously done on purpose as well. Squibb was the only examiner to mention the hair in the glove. Even the NJSP's re-examination by their Forensic Science Bureau did not include this glove. The good news is they appear on an inventory taken in 1953. My guess is they still exist. The first mention or insinuation of this that I ever saw comes from Bob Mill's Lindbergh Syndrome : www.wheatmark.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=BS&Product_Code=1587364735&Category_Code=I certainly don't believe Allen was "tipped off" and think it was purely an accidental discovery on his part. I also firmly believe this was Charles Jr. Again, like with my points above concerning when he was placed at Mt. Rose.....I have examined everything known and see nothing that supports it really wasn't him outside of wishful thinking. I do believe the child was "meant" to be found but not stumbled upon by Allen as the corpse was. You can search any members posts, to include your own, by simply clicking on the Members name. Once the profile comes up, you can choose how many of their posts you want to view....this should enable you to find your missing post. The meeting I believe you reference is linked (partial) on Ronelle's site here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/mayconference.html
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2006 5:55:03 GMT -5
If there are "maps" of these grids then I haven't ever run across them. All I have are reports expressing areas that had been searched. There were a lot of claims by locals they had been in that spot and the child wasn't there. One off the top of my head said he had his dogs there and they definitely would have hit on a dead child. The other thought is all of the Suspicious Cars sighted along side of the road during the period of time after the Kidnapping and before the child was found. It could be that you could indeed see Highfields from this area and they were curiosity seekers, but it also could be "they" may have actually been seen. I see (3) options for Researchers to consider: - 1. The child was left in that spot at Mt. Rose on March 1st, in haste, but they had removed the garment before he was dumped.
- 2. The child was left in that spot at Mt. Rose on March 1st, but they returned to the spot to remove the Sleeping Suit.
- 3. The child was somewhere else but later (probably sometime after the ransom payment) placed in the spot at Mt. Rose to be found.
As I said above - for me its #3 hands-down.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 11, 2006 10:55:50 GMT -5
As usual Michael your post shows good thought on the findings recorded. Finding the newspaper as a deception is a good hypothesis however I do find this similiar to the thumbguard finding. Finding why a later drop off of the corpse and the thumbguard and believing it is baffling to a reason why.We all can make a stab at this but making sense of it is difficult. What is troubling to me is the apparent fragility the corpse when found and the ability of setting the corpse there at a later time and not crumbling before them as they placed it there. My thinking if the corpse was disturbed it was to gain the suit but perhaps there all along. To believe a later drop of the body could suggest a local accompliss but I think it would be tough to believe someone from the bronx would try to achieve such a trip back except maybe for the suit.
For those that think Lindbergh has a chance to be involved why would Lindbergh stage the grave scene? Finalization is all wrong especially in light of cremation of Cal Jr. .....Unless of course he lived on and the child found is not Cal Jr.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 11, 2006 11:03:38 GMT -5
Well, just for the sake of clarity and completeness I want to support Michaels Re-drop theory. Primarily this is supported by the distance (50-75') and the gulley wash between the B aby's B ody and the B urlap B ag. Too far for an animal to drag either way. So that leaves the B ag out on the B oad as a marker.
BUT also, we can surmise without challenge that BRH did not drive over from the Bronx and move the body after the ransom toss in St. Raymonds. So we can now assemble data to differentiate between 1) B ootleggers and 2) CAL. Who else is there.....Shippell?
|
|