|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2007 19:57:25 GMT -5
It was requested by Condon that John show evidence he had the baby. That is exactly my point I was making. Why is the suit acceptable to serve this purpose? It neither proves they have CJr. nor does it prove he's alive. So my point was/is - why does Condon request this? Whether John volunteered the Sleeping Suit or the Diapers makes no difference to what my point is.
Additionally, "John" goes on to tell Condon the note was left in the crib. So either "John" wasn't in the Nursery that night or Condon is making things up.
Once you go through just the 1600 files I'll bet you change your position about this (in a hurry). Nothing was "forgotten" about as it related to Hauptmann. Buried is possible - but after the fact.
I really don't see your point here. I suggest you show me by answering these very questions you pose. I haven't found ANY C. Tihy excepting the one mentioned in Dr. Gardner's book. Furthermore, I don't see where Dr. Gardner concluded anything, in fact, he offered another option as well. It was MY conclusion based upon what I believe. I think it can be challenged but with something other then the route you are attempting.
If you run a search simply on the last name Tihy in the entire US you'll only find about (5) names. Run a Death Index search and you'll find (1) [or (2) if you count the man's wife]. It's just not a common name even today.
I believe so, and I think we discussed most of it in the past.
;D
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 2, 2007 14:53:09 GMT -5
Taking into account there were no publicized details given about the make and size of the child's pyjamas, (Dr. Denton - No. 2) then it would seem to be a very strong indicator they had the child. I don't recall any account of conversation between CJ and Condon that dealt specifically with proving the child was in good health and in hindsight, this is an obvious oversight. A lock of hair or even a couple of toddler jibberish quotes would have been far more valuable. Agreed - once it was decided upon to prosecute Hauptmann as a lone perpetrator, I believe it's entirely conceivable authorities wanted nothing to do with the possibility of an accomplice. The rental application slip cannot simply be ruled out. And yes, they did continue to investigate Violet Sharpe for evidence of her involvement, as innocent as it might ultimately have been demonstrated. I think those actions though speak pretty loud and clear as damage control on the part of the NJSP following the stinging blows they were dealt as a result of the public and press frenzy following her suicide. Dear Sir! Let's cut to the chase.. OK, I now realize it is a very uncommon name and yes, a C. Tihy did serve in the Civil War. This morning I tracked him down through on-line records to determine he was Colomon (Coleman) Tihy who enlisted as a Union Private in the NY 14th Regiment Cavalry on September 9, 1864. The name "Colomon" would seem to be of Irish origin and derived from the Latin "Colman" meaning "dove." I'm all set to request a copy of his Civil War Service record, which will take 6 - 8 weeks, so if you have further information, please share if you're willing. They're might just be a way to connect him with the Crime of the Century yet... A couple of other things. Have you seen the actual binoculars receipt to confirm the name written down as "C. Tihy?" And thinking about this entire subject on a far more basic level, why would anyone else have bought a pair of binoculars for Hauptmann, but Hauptmann himself?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 2, 2007 18:40:42 GMT -5
Not sure I understand the relevance of C. Tihy to this thread, but in regard to the alias my first thought is to find out where Mr. Tihy is buried. Cemetery headstones and registrars are a prime source for an alias.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2007 20:18:10 GMT -5
Now, what do you mean by no publicized details? Are you suggesting the Lindbergh Family & their Servants, the Morrow Family & their Servants, the Police, and anyone reading the wire wouldn't have known this? If so, did any of these people tell someone else? Did Mickey Rosner know? Did Bitz and Spitale know? Owney Madden? Besides - Didn't the symbol prove that?
How does this suit trump the secret symbol?
Ruled out for what?
All we have is a receipt supposedly found by the notorious "AK" in the Bronx files. There is nothing to tie this in with anything excepting his overreactions and quite probably embellishments. These are the actions of an Amateur.
Anyone who has been to the Archives in West Trenton, and probably anywhere else for that matter, will tell you receipts, notes, etc. are scattered throughout many files. What do they prove? Nothing. One may sit back and attempt to find a connection but its absolutely reckless to draw conclusions without anything at all. It's what he wants it to be so whalaa... It just doesn't work that way and it is beyond being irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
I have notes written in Schwarzkopf's hand which implicates Elisabeth. Does that mean Elisabeth did it? Anyway, you will see what I am talking about once you make your trip down and see for yourself. This receipt is simply something to tuck away in the back of your mind in case you come across something which might reveal what it truly is....and even then.....I'd feel a lot more comfortable if someone else had found it. I don't trust a guy who literally has been caught inventing dialog in order to try and prove a point he's made.
All I have is what's in The Case That Never Dies and what Dr. Gardner and Siglinde told me personally. I've searched myself and never found anything in addition to it. Siglinde is a walking Encyclopedia as it relates to this case. Give her a name and in 10 seconds she has dates, places, people, and connections after connections to other dates, places, people, and connections to these people....all off the top of her head!
I have never seen that actual receipt that I recall but I have read the Police Reports.
Good suggestion. I simply look for patterns and see one with this and the J.J. Faulkner alias. I just don't see Hauptmann as the man coming up with these names.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 2, 2007 21:06:00 GMT -5
It would be something if C. Tihy and J.J. Faulkner were residents of Woodlawn or St. Raymonds! Has anyone checked?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 3, 2007 14:47:02 GMT -5
That it would! What do you suppose the odds are Colomon Tihy is buried alongside someone called Nelly? And as I've previously mentioned, I also think a thorough word search of the NY Times obituaries, announcements, articles, etc., from the same time as the binocs purchase might just be productive.
That's a lot of "if's" Michael, with no proof that I'm aware of, although I still believe the possibility of initial insider information existed within the Morrow household. The quality of lead is further diluted as you talk about the underworld having had some involvement here, because clearly they were without a clue and offered nothing but lost time and energy.
I think we would all agree by this time that the symbol was unique in that Lindbergh was confident he was dealing with the right party before the night of March 12. According to the accounts I'm aware of, CJ offered to send a "token" that they had the child. I believe this may have been in part due to his own feelings of being less certain of the symbol's ironclad authenticity of his symbol based on disparate news stories that talked about varying ransom amounts and false leads.
In any case, I believe the handwriting evidence speaks clearly of Hauptmann himself having had access to the real sleepinguit from the night of the kidnapping.
What conclusions have been drawn about the rental slip besides stating and attempting to expand on the possibility of a connection to Hauptmann? I think you're letting personal politics cloud your objectivity here, because as far as I'm concerned, the rental slip was not pulled out of thin air and represents an unanswered question. I thought that was one of the main reasons we're all here discussing and debating this case.
Without an actual receipt, we can only hope and pray the name "C. Tihy" entered in the report, was done so accurately by William Grafenecker. By the way, I just noticed Dr. Gardner's footnote on the subject and his reference to Fisch having lived at W. 84th St., which I don't think is correct. Fisch lived with Uhlig further uptown, around 156th St. I think, before moving to the Kohl's on 127th St., so I wonder where W. 84th St. comes in.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 3, 2007 15:58:58 GMT -5
Well, Nellie bly is buried at Woodlawn. I thought of her previously regarding the "boad". Interestingly her real first name is Elizabeth. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find C. Tihy and J.J. Faulkner there as well. Hene bier + cemetery = ? Too much wood dust today
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2007 16:31:46 GMT -5
It is a very good suggestion Kevin, and I've done this in the past finding the best sources for name are listed here: www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GScid=66202www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GScid=66788I am pretty sure though this isn't a complete listing so someone might have to pay Cemetery Associations for one. Exactly right. There are a lot of "ifs" which means the more "ifs" the more the possibilities exist. Your point seemed to be that no one but the Kidnappers would know and my point was to show that wasn't true. Not sure what you mean here... Are you saying you're not aware of Condon asking for proof? I'd have to disagree. I can't say Hauptmann wrote this and even if he did whether or not he had access to the real sleeping suit or not. One doesn't necessarily mean the other - which is why, in my opinion, Condon was asking for proof they had possession of the body. On the contrary Joe, I think you're letting something other then fact influence what you're writing here. I am basing it on my experience as a Researcher of over 7 years in the Archives. Please re-read what I have written above. Perhaps this example will assist, if not you, than others who are reading this exchange.... On December 18, 1934 an Samuel E. Wheeler, Inspector of Detectives in Philadelphia wrote Schwarzkopf a letter which specifically states that Hauptmann was known to frequent a man named Max Karnell at 143 West 53rd Street in NYC. Schwarzkopf immediately asked this to be investigated. From my hands-on personal experience this would mean that both NYPD AND NJSP would indeed investigate. They would then go to the area and interview people. They would then pull electric and phone bills from the dates around the kidnapping from this apartment and neighboring apartments. They would try to determine if Karnell lived there during this period of time and if not who did. Now, these documents might accompany the original investigation or may be located somewhere else. If, for example, this turned up to be "unfounded" as was in this case, original documentation such as I listed above may never be called for from the NYPD and simply wind up in a file somewhere. So here might be the origin of an electric bill from March 1st to the 15th with a name on it which turns out to be an alias. Now if Allen finds it the 1 or 2 times he ever does do real Archival Research then: "IT'S HAUPTMANN!!!" No it isn't. These types of things went on just about every day after Hauptmann's arrest. To even suggest what's being alleged by "AK" is reckless at best and malicious at worst. The man wants to be important so badly that of course in his mind he's found the "missing link" - and will hammer it day in and day out until people start to listen. You are smarter then that Joe. You have also been around long enough to know that I don't care who says something - if they're wrong I'll say so - and if their right I certainly wouldn't be trying to dissuade you from believing it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 3, 2007 20:45:40 GMT -5
Wow, are you serious!? Do you know which location in Woodlawn?
A couple of years ago, I posted some information on Nellie Bly's "Around the World in 72 Days" boat adventure in light of the possibility of any connection to the Boad Nelly note. The coincidence which struck me was that her trip began at Hoboken, N.J., the same point at which Hauptmann entered the US. I wonder if there might be some sort of plaque of recognition posted there that Hauptmann noticed or if he came to realize that fact later on.
As I understand the exchange to have taken place, Condon asked repeatedly to be able to see the child, to go with CJ to be sure the child was alive. CJ continued to rebuff Condon claiming him he was simply the go-between and the others would "drill him" and so on, for any endangering of their plan. I think CJ basically wore Condon down on this point and as a concession he offered the sleepingsuit which Condon tacitly accepted.
I guess you're still 50/50 on Hauptmann penning the notes? That's your call and I wouldn't put my own opinion at any less than 100% he did.
You feel Condon was resigned to the fact or had some prior knowledge that the child was dead and wanted proof they had the body? Are we talking "kidnapping for hire" here and some justification required by Lindbergh for forking over 50 extra grand after the already-paid kidnappers got greedy? Please don't tell me it's so.. especially in light of CJ asking Condon if he would "burn if the baby is dead."
Then I'm sure that over the past 6 years you've become aware of my enquiring nature and personal insights towards what I consider to be the core and relevant truths in this case, without getting bogged down in extraneous detail. I have concluded nothing about the rental slip application at this point and I don't even have a solid opinion yet so I'm a bit in the dark here as to why you're continuing to take this off on a tangent. I personally have no interest in anyone who hammers at a point or theory day in and day out in an attempt to lobby entirely personal beliefs into a position of universally accepted prominence. And I align with nobody in terms of compromising any part of my own beliefs for the sake of some good 'ole boy association. I guess I'm just at a disadvantage here in continually trying to understand your protracted personal grievances by not having my own personal LKC Lex Luthor.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 3, 2007 20:53:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2007 21:58:20 GMT -5
BTW - Although no J.J. Faulkner appears to have been buried in either cemetery there was a J. Faulkner who lived within walking distance of St. Raymonds. Did CJ actually say this? You see Condon is your source. And its exactly the reason you aren't aware of my source for the request for proof from Condon.... Because he wasn't consistent with his accounts and could not be trusted to tell the truth. No one trusted him. Inspector Walsh did not trust him. Keaton did not trust him. Sisk did not trust him. Manning did not trust him. Breckenridge did not trust him. And Lindbergh, despite testifying to the contrary, did not trust him. One thing for sure - Condon IS the source for "burning" statement. Now one has to decide whether or not "John" actually would be stupid enough to say this. The very first statement made by Condon: Condon: I made arrangements to go and get the money at anytime you show me evidence you have the baby.
Man: I will send you evidence. This is the same interview where "John" tells Condon the note was left "on the pillow" and that Gow & Red were "innozent." Here again is proof that either "John" wasn't the man in the Nursery that night or Condon was making up the conversation. It seems to me its one or the other despite your mind being made up on something that is neither. Because there isn't a conclusion, solid or otherwise, anyone could make based upon what was supposedly discovered. The fact you even mention it is contrary to common sense knowing all that I have outlined above. You could find a myriad of like receipts, bills, notes, etc. to the point of ad nauseam - am I to assume you assign them all the same amount of worth? It's important to understand how things worked, and how the Archives are set up. Additionally, context is extremely important. As I have said - I found notes written in Schwarzkopf's hand - that implicate Elisabeth. So why am I not yelling to the heavens that I found proof Elisabeth was the culprit? I do place more stress on the fact that AK cannot be trusted due to his past practices. When considering "facts" the originating person listing them should be considered. Have they lied in the past? Have they invented dialog? Have they plagiarized? Have they failed to properly cite sources? Have they embellished? Have they misrepresented newspaper reports as Police reports? Have they bashed with venomous attacks someone with a 1000% more knowledge about the case in a sick attempt to reduce book sales? Have they ever apologized for employing these dirty tricks? Shall I list them all? One of the worst I ever saw involved an attempt to ruin Rab's hard work on the March 7th post. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141561738Before Hirsh's log was known to exist "AK" claimed to have found a picture of him reading it in the paper. He further claimed to have blown it up AND that it did not contain specific information Rab was relying on. As much as I disliked the guy I did compliment him on this because I actually believed him and felt it was proof of errors in the Police Reports. Fortunately, Mark Falzini would actually find the real log and everything AK claimed was absolutely false. What did AK have to say about this after that? Nothing. He simply rolled along as if nothing had happened. Certain people turned a blind eye to it (a-hem) and others forgot or moved on. I have done neither. Place this on the huge pile of other indiscretions... Encouraging him to continue on this course is both sad and counterproductive. Anymore I find this board is the only safe place for differing thoughts and ideas free from bad faith and warped personalities. I've been wrong about things and I will be wrong. It's the nature of the case to be incorrect at times. Like I said, I have found reports which specifically stated something only to find follow-ups which retract that assertion IN A DIFFERENT COLLECTION. Another example: A key was found in Hauptmann's house (1600). The answer to what the key fits (NJSP Correspondence Files). If you don't research at the Archives you don't know this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2007 7:44:53 GMT -5
He is anyones problem as it relates to this case IF they're interested in facts and the truth. It's like running a conservative board and having to deal with David Duke running one too - then having to answer questions about whether or not the Holocaust existed because of Duke spreading nonsense that some people think might be true.
This might be a lead which could bear fruit. "Nelly" seems to be a common name but it might be worth our while to "collect" every Nelly (or Nellie) whose name became associated with the case and/or investigation OR was popular at the time. Of course this would be a long and tedious process which may turn up absolutely nothing. However, I think we have many of these like clues that if we start doing these things it may amount to something we can sink our teeth into. Or at least give up a pattern that perhaps we can "connect the dots" to.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 4, 2007 10:57:57 GMT -5
Asking whether he would "burn" if the baby was dead and if he did not kill it, was one of the first things CJ reportedly said to Condon. This would have been a pretty shocking first impression in light of Condon suddenly finding himself with the prospect of negotiating for a corpse and hardly the type of exchange one would be inclined to make up or be confused about.
Despite his known penchant for embellishment and melodramatics, I have great difficulty believing Condon, in this instance would have:
i) Made up something so potentially destructive to the negotiations process for the safe return of the child.
ii) Reported for the record, the content of the conversation to Breckinridge, if he was aware the child was already dead and he was only meeting CJ to request proof they had the body.
If you're referring to me among others here, I don't even have a recollection of the specific exchange you've mentioned. From your reference to Hirsch, I think you're talking about the lively but ultimately tedious debate between Rab and Allen over the question of whether Hauptmann mailed the March 7 (?) postmarked ransom note. In my opinion, it's an unresolved issue, the inclement weather of the day before and any disruption it might have caused normal mail flow, as well as the fact we do not know for certain if Hauptmann worked a full day and where he was working, being the main variables. My suggestion is if you feel that strongly about what the real evidence points towards, open up a new thread for discussion of this point.
What you seem to be implying here is that you are in a position to instruct others in matters of common sense based on your own opinion. I repeat and I'm not going to broach it again, I have formed no conclusion regarding the rental slip application.
There are too many questions in my mind which prevent me from doing that. At the same time, I retain the known information around its existence and a definite interest in it for future consideration. That future might be tomorrow or it may never come, but I have to wonder how many police investigations would never have come to fruition without dogged persistence towards a possible clue, no matter how seemingly insignificant it may have appeared in the minds of some. Now if you have no further objections, I'll continue to keep an open mind on this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 4, 2007 11:02:43 GMT -5
But he is by no means unique. And then there are other websites that have purposefully misleading "information". I don't really care to get into the middle of this, but I do think that whenever people start out with a conviction and then proceed to "prove" it the inevitable result is anything but the truth. That fact is irrespective of the side of the fence they happen to inhabit. To paraphrase David Holwerda's recollection of Colonel Pagano's advice, watch out for the fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2007 12:09:22 GMT -5
Actually, it was supposedly one of the last things he said before departing. I personally have no difficulty believing this was an invention. Do you believe "John" didn't know where the ransom note had been placed by the Abductor(s)? Was he indeed only the go-between? That he was a Sailor? That he was Scandanavian....just as Condon says he claimed?
I am referring to whomever it applies to. It's amazing to me that a person bringing up this abhorrent conduct receives more of a negative reaction then the original conduct itself. No one would ever get away with that nonsense here because you, among everyone else, would be all over it. Perhaps venue makes a difference as to the back-lash reaction to such behavior (shrug).
It's not what I am talking about at all.
I am talking about a man who lied about having something he did not in order to look correct, win a debate, and stop meaningful research which could potentially upset his position.
What I am saying is clear.
There are thousands of receipts, bills, and/or applications like this in the files. Anyone of them could be the topic of discussion if it was Allen who found it as I have stated above. What I posted was to enlighten people as to the true situation of the matter. I shared my experiences to impress these important facts. Conclude or consider what you like but you are wasting your time. To say anything other then its an application which has a snow-balls chance in hell to have anything significant attached to it defies common sense. Am I saying to forget about it? No. Place it in the category of the millions of other hodge-podge collection of items in the back of your mind in case something comes up where you might be able to discover what it really is.
Hauptmann applying for an Apartment it ain't.
Certainly I agree.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 4, 2007 13:13:49 GMT -5
Getting back to the original point of this thread, I say that there is no evidence that I am aware of that indicates that an actual kidnapping was planned or undertaken. In fact the method employed strongly indicates a lack of concern over securing a live and healthy hostage. Consider the multitude of ways that could have been utilized to grab the child by a more controlled means. A remote location with no armed guards is certainly fair game to a determined kidnapper and practically an invitation to a gang. Kidnapping is all about control. That is the nature of the beast. So why is this crime undertaken with so little regard for that control?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 4, 2007 13:37:24 GMT -5
I do. A fabrication of this sort on the part of Condon would have been damaging to both agendas, those being the safe return of the child, as well as discreetly obtaining proof the kidnappers were in possession of the body.
What is your source that CJ bizarre question was supposedly one of the last things he said before departing? Further, do you really believe CJ would have dumped this on Condon after continually reassuring him the child was well, and at the tail end of what was supposed to be a productive conversation lasting over an hour?
Then you might want to take my suggestion and start a new thread of discussion so anyone inclined to participate does know.
Yes, you've categorically concluded this a number of times now, but what you haven't done is show concrete proof to substantiate your claim. Michael, I'm not out to drive you bonkers here. I've simply presented what is known to date and stated that I have formed no conclusion on the rental application. There's no need to advise me on what I need to consider or not within this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2007 14:40:03 GMT -5
The note suggests it. I think there may just be too many unknowns to say for certain. One thing for sure, if they brought the bag to place the child into then I would agree they didn't plan on him being alive. We know he wound up there.
It certainly appears that way. A lot of preparation and little regard for control. How did they know Hurley had been let go?
They know too much and do too little.
We've always been on opposite ends as it relates to Condon.... It seems to me that Condon would repeat certain things he heard from outside sources in order to bolster or make his story seem real. He may also have done it to pre-empt any attempt to connect or associate him with the gang.
The FBI transcripts of the conversation of which I am sure you are aware of the origins.
I personally believe, based upon the exhaustive nature these transcripts were put together, that they are the closest thing to the true situation of events. Having said that, I don't trust Condon and therefore feel it may have been a comment which was never made in the first place or at a different time or place.
There's no need because everyone does.
You are asking me to prove a negative. Unfortunately, if someone presents "evidence" it is they who needs to qualify it as such.
I have a "moon" rock in my hand Joe. Prove me wrong and demonstrate it didn't come from the moon. It's so unlikely why would you bother? You wouldn't because there is no point to it.
That's an interesting statement. If I recognize flawed logic, or anyone else for that matter, we're not supposed to point it out? You seem more preoccupied in defending this find than considering anything else I mentioned to demonstrate the problems with it.
Normally you don't do that but then again this is a little different isn't it?
I knew you wouldn't accept the facts I had to offer but as I indicated above - its important for others who respect my knowledge about such things to be aware of them. So I used your post to do so. Honestly, are you now telling me you knew everything I outlined above before considering this item?
Nevermind - I already know the answer. Let's move on.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 4, 2007 15:49:29 GMT -5
We already know that the notes and their author are deceitful. Regarding the pre-meditated murder of a child, I would expect the note to exclaim kidnap. What other evidence is there to indicate kidnapping?
Exactly Now let's think for a moment about that bag. We call it a bag, but it is a sack. Quite a bit different from a Hefty bag. What does this burlap sack provide? What does it not? What is the point? The answers will reveal much.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 4, 2007 23:22:02 GMT -5
Awfully good debate/discussion going on-am riveted. Regarding the CJ "will I burn?" Is it known exactly when Condon reported this? It seems to me it could make a difference as to how we credit it. It continues to strike me as maybe some sort of cover for Condon-even if only in his own mind- in case the child wasn't recovered alive. It's a scramble for me trying to figure out how much "backdated" his claims were. From what I read, anyway, he doesn't seem to give an hour's worth of info after the hour on the bench with CJ. To me he knew more than he told and told more than he knew. As to the burlap sack--I don't think we know for sure, do we(?) that it was ever employed at Highfields.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 5, 2007 8:14:22 GMT -5
Mairi, you are correct. We don't know for certain if the "bag" was employed at Highfields. I do believe some fibers were found on a lower sill, but I don't think it was matched. My question still stands regardless of when CAL Jr was placed in it. What does a burlap provide and what does it not? I think it best, and I credit David Holwerda for the suggestion, to think like a 1930's person in this regard. The bag (sack) is porous and therefore it is not airtight or waterproof, so it does not contain odor or fluid. Nor does it provide much in the way of sound control. The sack is not rigid, so it does not really provide much utility in transporting a body. That would be true on a ladder climb especially if the child were alive and moving. Now, I have heard the theory that the bag was used in conjunction with a rope in order to lower the child from the second floor. Think about this scenario and all that it would entail. If that child were alive and kicking this action would be a house raiser. If the child is dead, what's the point? Again I ask, what utility does this sack provide?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2007 8:27:27 GMT -5
I have seen it suggested that burlap was used as a shoe covering but I don't believe that was the case here. The sack could have been used to transport something or to perhaps conceal.
Personally, I believe there was more then one person on scene. I also believe a few more items may have been brought along other then what was left behind. And I believe these items were left behind on purpose.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 5, 2007 8:51:16 GMT -5
Why? What? Is this consistent?
How, or why would this correlate to the use of a burlap sack?
I tend to agree if you are referring to the ladder, though I don't think we agree on the reason.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2007 11:15:35 GMT -5
Since I'm not sure what's on your mind or what you may be driving at I am simply being general. We don't know what else was brought with them or removed from the scene. I do recall a victim having turned up drowned from a case previous to this one so perhaps you were thinking the idea was to place and unconscious victim into the bag to be drowned?
I know that's how people used to rid themselves of unwanted kittens or puppy litters by placing them into burlap sacks and throwing them into the river.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 5, 2007 12:44:09 GMT -5
I will take it as a compliment that you think I am objective minded here. Honestly, though it is just the way I look at all of the evidence in this case. I don't and will never pretend to have the wealth of knowledge regarding the files in the LKC that you and some others possess. I just look at each and every bit of physical evidence and attempt to wring it out for all it's worth. I think too often some of these bits of evidence are taken for granted or, perhaps more correctly, are interpreted incorrectly. The ladder break/ fall is a perfect example of how 1 +1 does not equal 3. It seems to me that the burlap bag may have similarly fallen into this category, then again perhaps not. In any case I look at the mechanics of every step involved and try to understand the rationale behind it. The bag seems out of place in this context, IMHO. It doesn't seem to provide any utility that I can see at the crime scene. In fact it seems like an additional burden. It certainly wouldn't be on my short list for items to bring for a kidnapping. If we dismiss it as being present at the actual crime and relegate it to a later role, I still fail to see it's purpose. Here I am on shaky ground since I have never had the occasion to store and dispose of a body. Imagining this process is not easy I admit, but the utility of a burlap sack for this purpose escapes me. Perhaps others may have an opinion here. What I do know is that the sack had a purpose, it was picked by the killer and therefore I have to assume that the choice was made with an objective in mind. Maybe all of this seems insignificant, but I believe that these bits of evidence can reveal quite a lot if one has the patience and tenacity to keep examining them. I wish others would post an opinion as to why they might choose a burlap sack and for what specific reason.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 5, 2007 12:46:07 GMT -5
Michael says: John goes on to tell Condon the note was left in the crib. Either John wasn't in the nursery or Condon was making this up. _________________________________________________ Q: Could Lindbergh made a mistake or even lied where he found the note?
Kevin writes: Getting back to the point of the thread, There is no evidence that I am aware of that indicates an actual kidnapping was planned or undertaken. In fact the method employed lacks a concern securing a live and healthy hostage. __________________________________________________ Q: are you questioning the plan was not actually a kidnapping altogether and a hoax to conceal something much different.
In the discussion in general about the sleeping suit and Condon. Is someone bringing up a question, that the suit was to prove something to Condon and not Lindbergh, that the sleeping suit sent was to prove they had the dead child? Or was the sleeping suit sent to prove they had the live child?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 5, 2007 12:57:34 GMT -5
Gary, I am not questioning the purported kidnapping, I am rejecting it. If there is a "hoax" in this case I think it that it was ever called a kidnapping. And if you believe that BRH acted alone, then the "hoax" is multiplied tenfold. Where is there even a scrap or hint of evidence relating to the means of holding an infant hostage? I am all ears.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 5, 2007 15:56:55 GMT -5
Hi Kevkon~~ Was looking at the burlap bag. In the photo, I can't tell which way it's being held-with it's opening upward or downward. If that tear in it is close to the opening, I wonder if the bag could have been hooked over one shoulder for ease of carrying(?) One reason it may have been used is the limpness of a newly dead body or one which is unconscious. Neither is easy to handle (and I have handled both). I can't exactly see the child being murdered in it's crib (but can't rule it out, I guess). If anyone wants to elaborate there, I would be interested. Guess I've leaned more toward chloroform or ether. I can't see how either would take more than a few moments. Pour either on a gloved hand and it could be quick. The residual might have also made a dandy quick wipe down of any "guilty" fingerprints(?) To the best of my knowledge the odor of either would dissipate pretty quickly, especially with the window(s) open- also if the earlier time is valid.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 5, 2007 16:26:44 GMT -5
Thanks Mairi for that info Now if I understand you correctly you feel it would be advantageous to utilize a sack for carrying a limp infant's body. If true and there is a reason to bring this sack along then the perpetrator did so knowing that the body would be in such a state. So the body was either dead or unconscious and that was premeditated.
Regarding the chloroform or ether; Is the application of chloroform easy and safe for an untrained person? Do you feel it would be practical to apply to child in a darkened room under the circumstances? I have been told that this is a bit more difficult than often depicted. Is that true?
I still have a problem with the bag and stuffing the child's body into it given the conditions. Also, slinging it over one's shoulder would not be very practical on the exit through the window and down the ladder. All and all, the whole process doesn't give me cause to think that this was done with the primary goal of securing a living hostage. At best it reveals a brutal disregard for that child.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2007 18:21:21 GMT -5
I am getting used to your thinking "outside of the box" AND being right about what it turns up.
I think the best way to be effective in researching this case is to proceed in good faith, to be fair, and objective. Since everyone sees things a little differently, sometimes a different version of how one might see things is the true situation regardless of what research may have or may not have been done. For example, my knowledge of the files should be viewed as a resource and not an absolute AND I can be wrong just as much as the next guy.
With that in mind, I am a little passionate about the subject when I see someone feign knowledge they do not possess, pretend to know things they cannot, steal research, or speak in terms of absolutes when its simply a matter of speculation. That is bad faith and thankfully I haven't seen anyone on this board act that way.
We have a good crop of Researchers here and all input helps.
Now my flaws (or perhaps strong points) are that I am more reactive to a position then proactive to suggesting what a situation might actually be. I need to hear or see something before I can react to it. What I see is Lupica's eyewitness account of a Confederate with the ladder and burlap bag(s). Since I believe Lupica saw this AND this guy was involved then we know the bags were brought to the scene. I suppose its possible they were simply in the car but I doubt it.
Next we know the child would ultimately end up in the sack and decay therein and that the body would eventually come out of the bag leaving it on the side of road.
The way my mind works, the child was meant to go in the bag. Of course I am open minded but I need an alternative explanation before I can consider it.
I just wanted to quote this because I like how much it sounds. Its very important to think like this and I believe this is the type of thought process which may eventually help us find out the truth.
I believe this was implied in A&M's book (that the note wasn't originally on the sill and that perhaps Lindbergh placed it there). I really don't see the point in moving the note. We know Lindbergh didn't write it. Unless one believes he had the note in his possession and placed it on the sill himself - meaning he was given the note ahead of time. This still doesn't make sense. We know others were there so why wouldn't they leave their own note? Joe's suggestion was that perhaps it was moved in the confusion and forgotten about its original place having been in the crib - I don't personally see this as a possibility either.
The Police considered this and ruled it out due to the lack of odor. We know the child cried out whenever anyone other then Gow attempted to pick him up. No such cry was heard. Are we to believe the Kidnappers entered that room without the child hearing him? Or even if he was deaf....without being startled? Surely there was a plan to deal with this situation.... Even Condon testified at the Bronx Grand Jury that he was told the child was a "Crier." I keep thinking about another kidnapping where the guard dogs had been drugged earlier to prevent their interference. Perhaps the child was drugged?
Anyway.... I am open to suggestions about the burlap bag (sack). I know a lot of people have been reading the board and I welcome each and every one of them to give us a suggestion to consider.
|
|