Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2008 14:37:57 GMT -5
Kevin, as I said, it's just a faint hope for me now that it was original intention for the kidnapper to return the child alive. I agree with your points, but let me ask you this: How do you think the child was killed?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 15, 2008 14:50:39 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Of Critters and Thumb guards----Someone else ( I forgot who) mentioned the possibility that a dog came along, found the T-guard, carried it a way and dropped it there. The crow flying in and and perching on the crib - an odd happening. Ravens as harbingers of death and all that(!?) *********** To those of you who feel the event was just to be a straight murder: Won't you please " s'plain" that better for me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2008 15:10:50 GMT -5
Mairi, in addition to everything else, this case is not without a dose or two of mysticism. In that light, the crow on the crib rail was significant for a number of reasons. In native North American culture, crows are thought to be the smartest of all birds, they are shape-shifters and "keepers of spirit." They encourage us to hold onto our faith in difficult times and to be prepared to accept impending change no matter how cruel fate might ultimately seem. I believe this was the message brought to the Lindbergh home that afternoon.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 15, 2008 16:18:51 GMT -5
Quickly and silently in the crib.
I'm not sure I believe 100% it was to be a "straight murder", but I sure know there's never been any proof that the intent was to hold the child and return him unharmed. There's nothing, absolutely nothing that indicates a plan was in place to take him safely from his crib, hold him safely until a ransom was paid, and return him safely to his parents. You can call it kidnapping, but no matter how you look at it, it's murder. That child's fate was sealed before the first nail was driven into the ladder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2008 18:37:10 GMT -5
Kevin, I guess it's taken me a while to accept that possibility, that immediate death was intended. And I believe the child was smothered, probably with hand over mouth and nose pinched, in order to effect a minimum of noise and disruption within the immediate surroundings. Certainly the most efficient way on the part of the intruder.
That being said, why would it then be necessary to also fracture the child's skull in such a brutal manner, an act which due to the presence of the internal blood clot, was Dr. Mitchell's official conclusion for cause of death? Surely the killer would not have risked spilling blood right in the crib. I believe what actually happened can be better explained by exploring this some more.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 15, 2008 21:04:27 GMT -5
I don't know Joe, there doesn't seem to be enough reliable info for me to go further on the specific cause of death. The only thing I'm sure of is that it happened quickly and in a manner which avoided noise and blood.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 16, 2008 10:19:43 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Going along with your thought that the child was smothered in his crib: Cruel -heartless, drag child by feet out from under bottom of blanket, place in burlap bag. Why then bother or risk going down the ladder with what is now a corpse? Perp leans out window and drops the load to the ground-likely resulting in skull fracture -- fracture which now becomes only incidental (i.e. postmortem).
Wanted to say-thanks for relating the legend of the crows. Had not heard that before and found it to be interesting. I made a copy of it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2008 10:22:22 GMT -5
I guess the question for me is, when and for what reason does the fractured skull happen? It doesn't seem likely it would have happened in the crib, for fear of leaving a grisly and telltale calling card that would have essentailly voided any hope of ransom payment. I have to think this occured as the result of an accident or that the child was initially rendered only unconscious and was later dispatched in order to silence it for good.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 16, 2008 10:44:21 GMT -5
Burlap bag
In the photo (NJ Archives), there appears to be a tear/cut on the side of the bag. I can't tell if this is near to the top (open) end or toward the closed bottom end. Can anyone, who may have actually seen it, tell me? I'd like to consider whether this may have been fashioned for a handhold or for putting one's arm through for ease of carrying (maybe while also carrying off a ladder?). Thanx.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 16, 2008 15:38:25 GMT -5
Seems to be a lot of effort in making a case for the child being taken out alive. Why? We are talking about a 1 1/2 year old. How much effort would it take to fracture his skull? What evidence warrants the notion that an effort was made to take him alive? Where is it? Please show me. You just don't grab a child of this age and stuff him in a bag like Santa Claus. You don't use a ladder like this if you have any concern for the child's safety. And you don't risk his exposure with a run through the brush on a cold March night. It just doesn't work that way. You might just as well argue that Leopold and Loeb didn't mean to kill little Bobby Franks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2008 15:28:01 GMT -5
I believe CJr. was either dead or heavily drugged before he left the Nursery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2008 10:47:32 GMT -5
I believe I promised to post if I found reference to a truck..... This concerns Charles Leonard who I am sure some will recognize as the man interviewed by Police for stealing tires and hiding them in the woods. Police later had him re-interviewed, courtesy of the PA State Police in Doylestown, for a description of the "car" he saw when hiding the tires: Leonard stated that when he hid the tires it was about 4:00 A.M. in the morning and it was raining. 1 light truck with a stake body pulled up to him and inquired if everything was allright. Leonard thought it was a milk truck. He left this place which was about 1 mile and a half from the hospital where he had been employed at Skillman N. J. he came back t this spot about 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. the same day and heard a car coming and he hid in the woods and the car went up the mountain it was a high powered roadster with New York tags on it. The color was light blue or green. There was a man driving the car and thought there might have been in a woman but was not sure of that. The road was very muddy at this point. That being the reason Leonard had hid the tires where he did being afraid to get stuck in the mud. ( G. Sauer, Pvt. Trooper, PASP, 10-28-32) [/blockquote] Obviously the truck has nothing to do with this but I did want to point out where one was mentioned in the reports since I had such a hard time finding one up until now.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 3, 2012 19:59:30 GMT -5
I realize this thread is almost four years old, but I only now noticed the reference to Franklin Park.
I've lived in Franklin Park; I now live only a few miles from it. I still work there; my family and close friends live there, and I know it extremely well.
I've also been to Highfields, and it's roughly a 40 minute drive, give or take a couple of minutes, from FP. I found the place without a GPS or Mapquest driving instructions, or anything like that. People around Franklin Park told me how to get there.
Even in the middle of the day, with directions from people who knew the area well, it's a royal PITA to find easily. How someone from the Bronx could find the place on a dark, crummy night, baffles me.
But the reference to Franklin Park struck me, obviously. Why would the kidnappers want to go THERE?
(Just a reminder: The notorious Anthrax letter sent to Tom Brokaw around 9/11 had a return address of Kendall Park, which borders Franklin Park. What IS it about this damned area?)
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 5, 2012 19:56:00 GMT -5
Hi JD. It's good to see your interest has been kick started by the Zorn Book.
As you know, one of the earliest angles of the Investigation which led Police to Franklin Park was the "Lightfoot" Angle.
Here is a Report from that Investigation:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2012 6:04:05 GMT -5
And of course, I will use this subject to do what I do best. To give a little background - Alfred C. Hawkins was the Assoc. Prof of Geology at Rutgers University: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 6, 2012 10:36:37 GMT -5
I often forget that the Brunswick area was the region where the infamous Halls-Mills murders took place. That case was legendary for how badly it was bungled.
It was no doubt still fresh in the minds of the residents, and, of course, the police. Not a heck of a lot of time passed between it and the Lindbergh kidnapping.
It wouldn't surprise me if people in the Brunswick area tried to help law enforcement, even if only to help bolster its reputation.
Jd
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 10:45:11 GMT -5
Interesting thread. We have the kidnapper burying Charlie in Franklin Park and then going on to the Bronx. How do we tie the couple mentioned in the attachments to the kidnapping then? The mud on the soles of the shoes suggest the possibility that one of them was on the grounds of Highfields. Was the mud on the car ever tied to Highfields or Featherbed Lane?
The postings about Charlie's condition when he was taken from the nursery are intriguing also. I have always assumed that Charlie was alive when removed. I thought this belief was supported by the skull fracture and bloodclot that existed when they found Charlie's remains. I didn't think that blood clotted postmortem. How and when his skull was fractured is another thing. I don't think it happened because of the ladder fracturing though. I wonder if it could have happened when they were transporting him away from the scene. They could have placed him in the car's trunk. Maybe he was injured while the car was going through the ruts on Featherbed Lane and something fell on his head in the trunk. Just guessing about all this.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 6, 2012 11:35:42 GMT -5
The consensus among many here seems to be that the baby was dead (that is, killed) before he ever left the nursery. This would suggest murder rather than a kidnapping, but while there is certainly a need to "dispose" of one's hostage sooner or later, it makes no sense to me to do that by willfully killing that hostage--particularly one so high profile and who, as a toddler, could never identify you afterwards. At that point, the murderer has needlessly set himself up for the electric chair, with the whole country calling for his blood. Even if it would be difficult to hold or conceal a hostage until the ransom payoff--well, I'd figure SOMETHING out, way before even considering having blood on my hands. Now, I suppose the baby's death didn't have to be premeditated: He could've been about to cry out and was accidentally suffocated when a hand was clamped over his mouth too tightly, for instance. Just an idea I'm throwing out there, though, if only because I find the possibility of willfully murdering the baby unnecessarily dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 6, 2012 12:05:52 GMT -5
I can't help feeling the death of the baby was an accident, regardless of whether Hauptmann was the sole participant in this crime, or if there were conspirators.
If it were Hauptmann by himself, where did he plan on keeping the baby? If he had conspirators, who would keep the baby, and where?
If the conspirators were not aligned at all with Hauptmann, then the same question applies. Who would hold onto the baby, and where?
The only way I can envision a scenario in which the death was premeditated in cold blood was if a staff member was in on it. Why do I feel that way? Because my gut tells me the motive would be revenge, or getting even with Lindbergh, or some sort of jealousy. A servant could carry the dead baby in the car wherever they went, because Lindbergh would deem his servants off limits to law enforcement.
Of course, I'm probably wrong about all of this! The problem I have with Hauptmann killing the baby on purpose is the location of the baby's body. If Hauptmann HAD placed the body where it was found, and placed it there immediately upon leaving the grounds of Highfields, then he'd have to double back and pass Highfields again, ostensibly returning to the scene of the crime. That would pose an incredible risk of being spotted, and perhaps caught. Why there? It's the main reason why I think the body was moved, and not the night of the kidnapping.
And because I am compelled to believe it was moved, I do not think it was Hauptmann who did it. Hauptmann, returning to Hopewell from the Bronx, driving around Highfields, after the world has discovered the Crime of the Century, to dispose of the baby's body so close to the scene of the crime? That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Does it make sense to any of you?
Jd
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 13:01:55 GMT -5
LJ, I noticed that many who have posted about Charlie on this board think he was already dead when he was kidnapped. Why would anyone enter a house to kidnap a dead baby? That would mean, as JD says, that someone in the house killed Charlie. It is hard to wrap my mind around that one. Who in that house would have hated the Lindberghs so much that they would do something like that??
If the death is not staff related, whoever entered that room to take Charlie would have needed to be sure he wouldn't cry out. If the kidnapper's intention was to dispose of the child and never return him alive to begin with then I guess he would have suffocated him while he slept. Then he could put him in the bag and leave.
If the kidnapper was going back to the Bronx he would have taken the body with him along his escape route to dispose of it at a prearranged spot wouldn't you think? He would want to get out of New Jersey before the child was found missing. I think the body was moved from its original burial spot also. After the ransom was paid the child was "returned". That makes me think that there was a personal motive in all this. A kidnapper out for money would never have bothered to return Charlie.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 6, 2012 13:20:11 GMT -5
From both the evidence at he time and years of serious research by highly capable researchers there has never been any indication of anything in the way of a means to abduct a child safely and keep that child in good care for the duration of the negotiations. Now we can all postulate over the possibilities that a means existed but was just not discovered, but without any indication of such it's just conjecture. When you couple the hazardous means of abducting the child with a household of inhabitants, the weather conditions, and the complete lack of any indication to care for him, you are left with only one plausible explanation. This was not a kidnappping, it was a murder with extortion.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 6, 2012 14:06:17 GMT -5
Or, perhaps either a practical joke gone horribly, horribly wrong somehow, or an incident involving a family member (or family members), gone horribly, tragically wrong...resulting, in either case, in a subsequent cover-up. And the cover-up got way, way, way out of control.
Perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 6, 2012 14:47:26 GMT -5
Well, the final note did say something about the boy being held on a boat called the 'Nelly', off Martha's Vineyard, cared for by two women. I think I've suggested before that while this obviously didn't happen, it could've instead represented the plan of what was SUPPOSED to happen--suggesting that maybe the original plan was not to kill the baby, but, in fact, to hold him somewhere. But as no boat called 'Nelly' was ever found, the whole thing could've just been completely made up out of the blue. Also, I freely admit that this angle is something I could just be clinging to because killing the baby still just seems insanely unnecessary to me: I mean, even setting aside the blatant cruelty of murdering him, come up with SOME plan for holding the baby before you do something that'll get the whole country after you...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 6, 2012 16:10:31 GMT -5
Yes, and the notes also contain assurances of the child's well being. That's usually considered to be a clear indication of just the opposite. Who knows, there may have been at one time a plan or thought to safely hold the child, though the whole boat idea has many faults when you consider the realities of such an operation. No, I'd say the the perilous removal via the ladder when so many safer options were available ( just look up any of the plentiful kidnappings of the era) and the disposal of the body as if it were trash, pretty much indicate no concern was afforded to this child by those who abducted him and I doubt very much that they would have felt much guilt about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2012 16:30:21 GMT -5
It is. But what's even more dangerous is moving the body after the fact. Cemetery John (as told by Jafsie) shown himself to be very emotional and conscientious. Bringing the body to a place close to Highfields in order to be discovered - brings this to the next level.
The Police always felt a Local had been involved. I think we're seeing reasons why develop before our eyes.
What do you think the motive was to actually collect the money?
This is true. But for arguments sake consider the following.....
Most also believe there were Confederates. However, its assumed they cannot be named because supposedly we don't know who they are. But does that mean they did not exist due to this?
Koehler himself wrote in one of his Official Reports that he believed there was another place where the ladder was worked on. If such a place existed, and I do believe there was "another" place - then couldn't that place be where the child was supposed to have been kept?
Additionally, some believe the corpse was moved. So where was he before he was moved? Perhaps that place is where it was intended to keep him alive.
The intent is laid out in the Ransom Note. However, we can choose to believe it was a ruse - but I would think in order to completely embrace that we must be able to prove it with the same authority that is lacking concerning the evidence of a place to keep the child.
Are you sure it wasn't a murder with disguised as a Kidnapping/Extortion? Following through with the Extortion solidifies a legitimate Kidnapping then helps to neutralize the "Insider" speculation.
Just playing Devil's Advocate.
If its a joke of some sort, which was done twice before by Lindbergh himself, it would still have to involve at least one Outsider - probably more. The odds get worse for a "tragedy" of some sort because the death occurs first, then they would have to seek assistance after the fact.
I think it a coherent theory to assume they would follow the original plan despite the fact the child was dead. Just tell them what they were going to do as if its being done - aside from them who would know the difference?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 6, 2012 18:27:30 GMT -5
I've never believed the Boad Nelly hoax was based on anything real.
The Nelly thing was a total fabrication from the get-go, as far as my perspective is concerned.
Jd
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 20:32:29 GMT -5
If the kidnapping was actually a cover-up of Charlie's death then the motive for collecting the "ransom" was how the accomplices were to be paid for their assistance.
If the kidnapping was legitimate, with money being the motivation for the crime, why would the kidnapper bother returning the body of Charlie so it could be found? What kind of kidnapper does that? Did he want to provide closure for the Lindberghs? Afterall, Lindbergh was on a boat with Curtiss looking for his son. Finding Charlie's body would be the only way to end all the searching.
The big question is: WHO wanted the body returned to the area so it could be found???
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 6, 2012 20:59:25 GMT -5
The possibility of a “local asset”—a helper who lived near Lindbergh—has been coming up more on this board recently. I suppose one possible role of such a person, in addition to being a guide and a pair of eyes on the Lindbergh estate, might have been that, by prearrangement, he would have a grave, hole, or other place ready and waiting to quickly stash the corpse. This scenario would assume that the intention was to kill the child on the kidnap night.
I am not advocating this scenario, just thinking out loud here. There would be two advantages to it: (1) the kidnappers could drive back to New York without any concern about being caught with the kid; (2) if the intention was to punish Lindbergh, by dumping the kid out in the open after the ransom was paid, this would eliminate the risk of a long ride back to Hopewell with the corpse in a car. The “local asset” could simply drag his body a ways during the night.
This inevitably conjures the image of Charles Schippell, who has been discussed at some length recently on page 13 of the thread “Did Lindbergh’s arrival alter the kidnapping?” The body was found a few hundred feet from Schippell’s shack. Of course, if Schippell was the “local asset,” one would have to wonder why he would leave the body that near his home, which could potentially incriminate himself.
Michael, I believe I read somewhere that Schippell started to crack up when he heard BRH was getting the chair, is that correct? Then again, Schippell was, from I’ve read, delusional anyway—probably not the sort you’d want to rely upon in a criminal conspiracy. But if you were going to have a “local asset” in Hopewell, who COULD you rely on? Schippell supposedly had an alibi for the night of the kidnapping. I wonder if that could have been part of an arrangement—for him to be out of town on the kidnapping night (airtight alibi), then wait for a signal to dig the kid up and deposit him.
Yuck—sounds like something out “Night of the Living Dead.”
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 6, 2012 22:22:29 GMT -5
Amy, I too have been meditating on the whole thing being the result of a personal grudge against Lindbergh for two major reasons: A) the ransom was, even for the time, not that high, so it never seemed to me that money was ever really the motive, and B) why pick such a high profile target, guaranteeing maximum attention being called to your crime? After all, kidnapping was a major racket at the time, and there was no shortage of targets from much wealthier families, so why pick the Lindbergh family specifically, unless it was for some personal gripe against them? I believe these points where raised at the time, but no one ever seemed to want to deal with them, so they just kind of dropped below the horizon. Either way, as to what that personal gripe could've been against the Lindberghs or who hated them enough to do something like this--I have no idea...
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 7, 2012 7:08:18 GMT -5
Regarding the revenge angle. Sorry for the redundancy, LJ, but as to who might have had a grudge against Lindbergh, I presented a possibility in detail in the thread called “A Theory in Development.” In a nutshell, Lindbergh’s Congressman father had waged a bitter war against the centers of power on Wall Street and at the Federal Reserve. He tried to halt the Federal Reserve Act, and then tried to impeach the entire Federal Reserve Board. After Lindbergh’s death in 1924, Wall Street probably heaved a sigh of relief—only to see Lindbergh’s spirit almost miraculously resurrected three years later when his only son improbably rose from being an unknown airmail pilot to the most admired man in the world.
Lindy was too young to run for President, but it was not lost on these people that when he "came of age," there was an excellent chance that if he ran, he would win, and if he won, a "President Lindbergh" would make the his father's dreams a reality--which would be a disaster for them.
In truth, at age 25 (when he made his transatlantic flight), Lindy was far more interested in aviation than politics. But even before BRH was arrested, Lindbergh was at the center of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first major public relations defeat (the airmail controversy of 1934), which began a long era of warfare between himself and the Roosevelt interests, summarized by Patrick Duffy in his 2010 book Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt: The Rivalry That Divided America.
In short, there was no lack of animosity between the Lindbergh family and the nation’s most powerful financial and political interests. I believe it is within those interests that you will find the revenge motive, as well as a power so great that it perhaps believed it would be able to keep itself above the radar screen of any law enforcement agencies who would pursue the crime.
|
|