|
Post by rick3 on Aug 15, 2006 13:38:21 GMT -5
As long as Ellis Parker remains the only homicide detective associated with the LKC to actually solve a murder case--I dont think we are in a strong position to discount his observations: The Case of the Over-decomposed Corpse? Ellis checked with the Weather Channel and discovered the t temperatures for Mt. Rose Hill for March and April and May. Then he checked with forensic pathologists on Charlies(? )decomposed remains. "It just doesnt add up" says Ellis! The decomp is that of 70F temps but the outside temps in the shade were more like 30s,40s and 50s? But since there is coal dust on the burlap, maybe Charlie spent some accelerated time decomposing in a coal furnace room? Can we be 100% certain it is Charlie? Not any more? CAL counted some teeth, Hicks checked some hair bumps, and Gow checked for the blue (or is it red) threads. Not very convincing in an age of DNA technology. Dr. Phillip Van Ingen said "not for $10 million could I say the blackened corpse was Charlie Jr" Cui Bon? Surely not BRH! In point of fact--why return the body to Mt. Rose Road as long as CJ and the Bronx gang has already pocketed the ransom money thrown over the hedge by JFC? It doesnt add up? Is it possible that Charlies rickets and/or putative "soft skull" was a red herring to cover up the oversized head with unclosed fontanelles discovered on May 12th? You cant have it both ways--20 month oldes have closed fontenells?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Aug 15, 2006 14:54:04 GMT -5
Hicks wasn't the one who checked "hair bumps". It was a forensic scientist who noticed the match between hair samples under the electron microscope. He talks about it on the NJN Documentary.
The size of the corpse matches Van Ingen's description in his letter to Mrs. Morrow
The corpse was wearing the homemade t-shirt that Betty made for him
The corpse was wearing the tank-top t-shirt under the homemade t-shirt that Betty had put on him.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 15, 2006 19:51:00 GMT -5
Good points Gismo.
Rick, I am curious. I notice that this theory of Charles Jr. having some type of deformity or serious medical problem is often proposed by you. What evidence do you possess or what source do you rely on for this claim? Is there a medical record that indicates this? I have never seen anything of substance in this regard and I am just wondering what sources it may be found in.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 15, 2006 20:31:28 GMT -5
One good point Gitmo/ I forgot that Hicks reported the hairs did not match. The remainder of your points were pure fluff--just about as fluffy as the Sleeping Suet Gambit? What class of morons would accept a common article of clothing as either the identity of a person or that it means "baby alive and well" [end quote] Oh, I forgot/ Now we might conclude that the Family removed all physical remains of Charlie from the NJSP Archives because of CAL's "extended family" in Germany, but the same DNA tests could just a easily and quickly be done on Charlies DNA.
Kevin/ well there is plenty of evidence to go around. Dr. VanIngen, who clearly was not willing to testify under oath, was quoted as saying Charlie having rickets and a "square head"? Not a great complement? The presence and disapperarance of the sun lamp adds intrigue? All the Vitreol or other vitamins suggests some serious metabolic deficiency likely misdiagnosed--as a milk alergy perhaps? Betty Gow was said to have told an aquaintance in Jones [Murder of Justice] "Charlie was deaf and dumb". Why all these bizarre reports pray tell? It also might be reasonable to conclude that there were no recent photos of Charlie available to the police or Press immediately following the kidnap because they revealed something odd, frightening or weird? And last, is "IT" a term of perfection?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Aug 15, 2006 20:55:23 GMT -5
I don't understand why the size of the corpse matching the size mentioned in his doctor's letter and the homemade t-shirt being found on the body are "fluff".
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 15, 2006 22:17:11 GMT -5
I read the new book. Doesn't The tone of the book seem to hint that Parker was mistaken in his suspicion of Wendel? Although I can't say he is wrong I can say it seemed the author focused on the confession in the determination of opinion. I don't think that is possible. What I find most interesting is Wendel's scheme and business ventures that he sought approval of and from Capone. Could there be a tie in with the Lindbergh kidnapping?
Parker was suspicious of Wendel totally independent and prior to Hauptmann's arrest. There were possible connections with Fisch and Wendel. If so, it woudn't it be peculiar there is this common denominator.
|
|
|
Post by gismo on Aug 15, 2006 22:58:15 GMT -5
I don't have the book, so I'm more than a little confused. Could some one please explain to me what the SOURCE is for the connections between Fisch and Wendel? And what is the source that all of these people belonged to that spiritualist temple or church or whatever it was.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2006 5:58:59 GMT -5
As a result of Scaduto's book, and the various people claiming to be Charles Jr., there began a "re-investigation" of sorts and a review team at the NJSP was assembled to look over the evidence and report their findings directly to Col. Pagano.
The person to whom Gismo correctly refers is Alan Lane. Mr. Lane was, at the time, a Senior Forensic Chemist in the Central Lab at the NJSP's Forensic Science Bureau. He made his findings comparing the hair (where he noticed the unusual nodes Rick refers to above) and relayed his findings to Lt. Peterson who, at the time, the Laboratory Director.
I know Joe has actually seen the NJN Documentary and maybe he can add to this discussion based upon what Mr. Lane actually said....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 16, 2006 7:33:39 GMT -5
A square head, rickets and a milk allergy? Surely there must be more than this to base such a grand conspiracy on. Would so many ordinary folk commit such crimes over this? Wouldn't the Lindberghs, upon discovering that their first- born had a major problem, seek the advice of medical specialists? Wouldn't there be some record of this? Or is a square head the end of the line, eugenically speaking? Here is Lil Square Head : www.imagecabin.com/?view=155732057142bf741af7ed2ee
|
|
|
Post by carol on Aug 16, 2006 9:54:04 GMT -5
These are State Police forensic scientist Stan Lane's findings on the baby's hair.
Lane: When I examined it under the microscope, I found nodes along the hair, little bumps along the shaft, and I had never seen this before. I've examined quite a few hair specimens and I'm not sure what caused this. It could have been from some disease or just some abnormality in the hair. I don't know why they were there, but they were present on the specimens that were taken from the house, prior to the kidnapping. The same nodes were present on each strand of hair that I looked at, that was recovered from the scene at the time the baby was found.
What's I think is of particularly significant about the hair is that, not only did it compare in all of the other ways, the color, the texture, the medulla and the cortex; all of those things compared. But these nodes made it so much different and what really is the probability of finding such unusual hair on a child along the side of the road, at just the particular time when you don't see this normally. So, I think it's quite conclusive that it, or certainly very strongly points that that definitely was the baby.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 16, 2006 10:52:17 GMT -5
Well it appears that there are at least (3) totally unrelated questions on board here:
1- Is the blackened corpse discovered by Allen really Charlie Jr?
Well, the timing is good (CAL is out sailing with Curtis)/ the location is "local"/ the shirts are similar and the age and body type are similar. Too bad even the sex cannot be determined? And look ma no hands? So the hair too is similar but only "strong" evidence. What are the bumps prey tell? Maybe common or endemic in Mercer County? Control hairs? None/Doubtful? Close only counts in handgranades and horseshoes. Not as conclusive as DNA or fingerprints? Dr. Van Ingen MD says he cant tell AND does not back up CAL and Gow? Or wont tell under oath? I find it fascinating that the corpse looks just like Charlie on his 1st birthday? Only hes almost 2? Autopsy says fontenelles not closed and Dr. Mitchell reports a gunshot wound to the skull?
2--Is Charlie Jr or the corpse subnormal, defective, handicapped?
Well, we dont know? Its a huge family secret? All we do know is that the Morrow side of the family, in the form of Aunts and Uncles, has some measurable mental and physical defects? So, who starts rumors about deaf and dumb. Not me? MM once opined the DNA evidence was removed from the NJSP to prevent analysis of defect or disease and that Charlie is sub-normal/ not perfect? Again, Dr. Van Ingen pleads the 5th? Hes the PED?
3. Has this blackened corpse been right there under everyone noses in the colde for 72 days? Answer: a resounding NO/ So where has Charlie been? Whos been driving him around? Where did Charlie get black and cooked? In a car trunk?
So what kind of human being (s) steals a corpse, or kills a baby, then dumps the baby out along the Hwy out of a burlap bag for his parents to find? A very sick or escaped mental patient like Jefferey Daiumer or Ed Gein. "A loner"/ Has few friends--emotionally distant? Cui bono?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Aug 16, 2006 11:07:41 GMT -5
Actually the homemade t-shirt by Betty Gow that the corpse was wearing was IDENTICAL to the homemade t-shirt by Betty Gow that the baby was wearing when he was put to bed. Not similar, identical.
Maybe you're confusing this with the sleeping suit that was mailed to Dr. Condon that the police and Lindbergh said was similar to the sleeping suit the baby was wearing when he went to bed that night?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 16, 2006 16:02:10 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I would really like to see something tangible regarding the alleged deformity / handicap of Charles Jr before we re-victimize the victim. It seems like scant offerings here. I know the anyone but Bruno scenario is appealing and irresistible to some, but building a massive conspiracy based on gossip and innuendo seems reckless and disrespectful. If that is not enough, such a conspiracy necessarily creates more questions than answers. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by carol on Aug 16, 2006 16:41:18 GMT -5
Stan Lane's findings do not amount to "scant offerings", they are forensic evidence of the strong possibility that there was something wrong with Charlie. I realize that for those who are only interested in a "Bruno scenario" this is very unappealing, but facts are facts.
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Aug 16, 2006 17:29:33 GMT -5
It's a fact that the baby had ricketts. However, I've never seen photos of the baby after the summer of 1931 so I don't know if he was deformed or not. But the fact remains the had a "moderate case" of ricketts and was being treated with both a sunlamp and medicine.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2006 19:08:15 GMT -5
As soon as the child was born of the Union of Morrow/Lindbergh there was talk he was the perfect child and an example as to why birth control and sterilization should be utilized to spare inferior types born of sub-normals. But the law would rightly uphold the good of the world against that of the individual. I firmly believe that such legislation is inevitable. Colonel Lindbergh is a splendid example of the best American type and his wife is an ideal mate. Their child, with all its wealth of promise, came into this world as a notable contribution to the ranks of well-endowed and useful humankind.
Against this child place the fourth baby of parents not quite normal, parents who are incompetent, poverty-stricken and socially so much deadwood. The child is unwanted and is clearly marked as a potential problem to society. (Dr. Clarence A. Barbour) [/b] www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=B0050 This sounds very much like something Lindbergh would later say himself, but this statement was made by President Barbour and it occurred very shortly after the birth of Charles Jr........Then very shortly after that the rumors began to come out there was "something" wrong with the child. Was this merely a rumor? Was it a coincidence the child's remains revealed an unclosed fontanel, and a slightly deformed foot? And what of Lane's unusual discovery? We know that Dr. VanIngen claimed CJr. had a "mild case" of rickets, and that CJr. was wearing a corrective piece on his foot in an attempt to correct this problem. Now rickets occurs mostly in children who were undernourished - nowadays in third-world countries where children don't get enough Vitamin D in their diets and/or proper amounts of sun-light. It seems a very strange affliction for Little Lindy, a child who probably had a better diet then 90% of children his age in the United States at the time. Yet, if CJr. was properly diagnosed then he had this affliction at 20 months. www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000344.htmI've got some issue with both Anne and Betty claiming the child was both "perfectly normal" and "very healthy." We know he wasn't very healthy by anyone's definition of the word - even if, in fact, he just had a simple case of "mild rickets." However, the evidence says otherwise.... In Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, on page 410, we see the child was both undergoing a strict diet and sleeping under a sun lamp. This diet included an inordinate amount of vitamin preparation, 14 drops of viosterol, or a dosage "equivalent to a bottle of cod liver oil" - per day! Mild case? The child was also noted as having very dry skin. This is either the result of too much exposure to the sun lamp or another symptom of whatever he was so afflicted. I say this because I have consulted an Expert on rickets who told me the dry skin and the hair nodes were not symptoms of rickets but most likely "some problem other then rickets." And so it seems Little Charlie is getting too much treatment - something indicative that he wasn't responding to the normal level of treatment. If so, what could be the cause of this? Some people with intestinal problems such as Crohn's disease and coeliac disease may also become short of vitamin D. (www.netdoctor.co.uk) There is also a "special" type of vitamin D-resistant rickets which could also account for this: www.mcw.edu/chorus/doc/00754.htmlI can only imagine CAL tossing pillows at his child in an attempt to knock him down in order to "toughen him up" and wondering how unsafe it was for a child with rickets. I can also wonder how someone could hide their child in a closet and tell people he had been "kidnapped" then wonder if that Father is sane or not. Then I imagine how CAL, the Eugenicist with the perfect mate whose son is also supposed to be perfect watching as his son's condition deteriorates instead of improving. Watching as these symptoms grow worse.... www.thachers.org/images/Frontal_bossing.JPGwww.thachers.org/images/chest_deformity.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Aug 16, 2006 19:27:35 GMT -5
Who is "Stan Lane"?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 16, 2006 19:29:11 GMT -5
Well everyone has the right to call it as they wish, but I find it difficult, if not impossible, to label a child "defective" and proceed to assign his parents the role of executioners based on a case of Rickets. endocrine-disorders.health-cares.net/rickets.phpWhy, if I might ask, do his parents bother worrying about such trivial issues as thumb-sucking if their child is so seriously ill? And is it reasonable to believe that the Lindberghs would not seek out the very best medical specialists before embarking on the "final solution". Is it reasonable to believe that such a major health problem in the young Lindbergh could be kept under wraps by the numerous staff members ? If I am so inclined to believe that Hauptmann is involved in this crime, it is because there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. So where is the beef with Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2006 20:02:36 GMT -5
I certainly haven't done this. I am laying out some of the data and asking questions. Lindbergh certainly wasn't a "normal" parent. Would anyone on this board hide their infant in a closet and claim it was kidnapped? Would anyone toss pillows at their child struggling with what has been diagnosed as a "bone disease" while they struggled to stand?
The thumb-sucking is an example of what the wealthy did. They addressed the issue. What did most of the poor do? Are we to believe they didn't address the rickets until this very late stage? What caused this affliction - Bad diet and/or lack of sun-light?
Was this child "very healthy?" Certainly no. So why were they saying he was?
Omitting the "final solution" part....they did seek the best medical attention.
How? They kept numerous secrets under wraps....excepting some leaks which could be attributed as "rumor." May I remind you and everyone else that the entire world thought Elisabeth had left the country but she never did. This is a perfect example of how secrets are kept. Springer ran a very tight ship.
I think people resist that CJr. was sick because they don't want to believe Lindy had anything to do with it. Well its obvious he was sick but why does that mean Lindy had anything to do with it in order to accept this?
One doesn't rely on the other in order to be true.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 16, 2006 20:31:27 GMT -5
I will just mention this casually in passing, but I consider the sunlamp a dangerous appliance? My father, a WWII Marine fighter pilot, loved his sunlamp in the 1940s. I suppose it reminded him of Guadalcanal. I sat under it many times to cure acne. I only fell asleep once, and my back turned into a sheet of pus. I hope noone forgot and left it on Charlies rickets too long because he would be toast in about 20/30 minutes? My dad died of skin cancer in 2006 3 miles from the NJSP Archives? He worshiped CAL all his life/ life is full of ironies? [not unlike Lawrence Block burgler mysteries]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 16, 2006 21:07:09 GMT -5
Perhaps, but the converse is also true. It doesn't, at least I don't think so. Hey, I can believe Lindy has a twisted ( or worse ) personality. He has never been a particular favorite of mine. I can also believe that Charles Jr was not a "perfect" child. However, the issue at hand is whether these two separate issues have somehow coalesced and manifested themselves into the "crime of the century". In that regard I have not heard any viable explanations. Thanks for the sunlamp tip Rick
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2006 5:45:10 GMT -5
Agreed.
It simply goes back to my original point, that is, I believe more then one person was involved. I am trying to re-evaluate the case on the basis of the totality of the circumstances. It's my position that everyone should have been a suspect until properly eliminated.
CAL never was. He was then promptly given the reins of control over the investigation. Again I say this was a huge mistake in more ways then one. Who would now expect to find "the beef" when no one is looking for it or allowed to look? In fact, if an investigation path came anywhere near CAL or the Morrows it was promptly terminated.
This of course doesn't have to be because of the kidnapping but it demonstrates to me why certain angles should not have been eliminated until properly and thoroughly investigated to their logical conclusions. The return of the child should have been the most important thing and personal embarrassing matters should have been a casualty of this - but weren't - if that was in fact the reason.
I have not eliminated CAL as a suspect and I don't see how anyone could. He had both the means, the motive, and the mind-set. He did a lot of suspicious things. He did a lot of strange things. And I can't shrug off the fact the child was ill and the evidence there was more to it then just a "mild" case of rickets.
Again, none of these things means he had anything to do with it, but I personally find it improper to say he didn't without attempting to do what everyone else refused and refuses to do - especially when it appears clear to me there was indeed an inside connection - directly, indirectly, or otherwise.
As far as CJr. being "deaf and dumb" I do not make that claim and have never seen any evidence to support it. Although rickets may have been a mis-diagnosis, I don't have anything which supports the "deaf and dumb" so while I keep this in the back of my head I simply cannot accept this notion except as an after-thought.
I understand the frustration when some theories come out that seem outlandish, wild, and impossible but we have to be careful to judge everything individually as it comes from whoever says it. The board is much too diverse for me to lump people and their ideas together.
I can't, for example, disagree with point #9 in Rick's list solely because I don't want to be associated with points #1-8.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 17, 2006 6:49:36 GMT -5
Michael, I think it is all a matter of individual style and personality when it comes to the method (madness) we chose when investigating or theorizing about this mystery. I agree, as a matter of course Lindbergh and Co. should have been prime suspects. But, as we are now seeing with the Ramsey case, the closest kin are not always the perpetrators. More to the point, though, it would be a welcome addition if "theories" were accompanied with some type of evidence and a coherent integration of the known facts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2006 9:09:51 GMT -5
This is something I don't understand. Who ever said closest kin were always the perpetrators? The other issue which should be remembered is that I know nothing about the Ramsey case other then we had handwriting experts who disagreed about whether or not Patsey wrote the ransom note.
I look at this case and remember there were many people confessing and suspected so I wouldn't be surprised if this man isn't guilty. There's too many unknowns at the moment, but even if he is I see no direct relationship to this case other then what I've listed above.
It should be remembered that the Ramsey family were suspects at one time while Lindbergh never was.
I agree and its why I posted what I did above. You will always have less on someone who wasn't investigated, steered the investigation away from certain angles and people, and loved by the entire world. Now throw in things being said which simply were not true - the child was not "very healthy." I think my position is clear and I've done my best to make sure it isn't skewed by the debates which will follow it.
I cannot exclude Lindbergh from the list of suspects. Anyone who I notice that does never gives a reason that I can find acceptable enough to do so. It's possible that day will come - its not as if I want Lindbergh to be a suspect but the suspicion is very hard to ignore.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 17, 2006 13:53:49 GMT -5
["More to the point, though, it would be a welcome addition if 'theories' were accompanied with some type of evidence and a coherent integration of the known facts"]
Perhaps you could apply for a job as posts screener?
|
|
|
Post by Guess Who on Aug 17, 2006 15:12:09 GMT -5
Perhaps not a job, but just a volunteer? Like a bagger at WalMart. ( Peter, it looks like you have been missing alot of work lately? Well, I wouldnt really say I've been missing it Bob.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2006 15:43:50 GMT -5
I know, I can't get the thought out of my head now. (ouch) You have also jogged my memory concerning the comment as to why the Lindbergh's switched nurses. It was, in essence, the baby 'declined' while in the nurse's care. I have often wondered what was meant by that. I think of both Gow getting caught with her pants down in public (lol) and Marie Cummings sneaking in and out of the house at night neglecting the child - also pretending to be 10 years younger then she actually was..... but they did say she was a "looker."
Anyway, we have really strayed off the topic of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 17, 2006 16:02:48 GMT -5
Hi Michael--straying off the topic is no sin. Can you clarify the tenure of Marie Cummings. Wasnt she let go once when caring for Charlie Jr. and then hired back? My first thought was that she was let go from the Rosedale farmhouse prior to the completion of Highfields and then hired back to help with Jon when Betty Gow bailed for Scotland before BRH got arrested? Is that correct?
How did Anne and CAL keep track/touch with her during the interim? Was she related to someone in the family as well? Charlies minders stay closely knit.
We found two locations for the Rosedale farmhouse....Federal City road and Colde Soil road....maybe the same road?
One last thought on the accelerated decomposition: Everyone has heard of retarding decomp with AC or a freezer to fool the gumshoes. But what about the opposite? Accelerated decomp in a heated environment would speed up all the enzymatic processes alot and possibly cause a soupy brain in a very short amount of time....liken to death in the tropics? This too would throw off the "time of death" and could be an attempt to appear like perfectly normal outdoor decomp of 72 days? Theon Wright also mentioned the possiblity of embalming...due to remaining liver and heart? Is there evidence of something clever here? A trifecta of gunshot, unclosed fontenells and a reburial?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 17, 2006 17:25:27 GMT -5
Well I will readily admit that this subject is outside my expertise, but it seems to me that the issue of decomposition is dependent on many factors. I know under some conditions a body can be well preserved even after a hundred years. On the other hand, rapid decomposition can occur if the conditions are right. The problem, as I see it , regarding Charles Jr, is that we simply don't have enough info on the period from the kidnapping to the discovery. And with all due respect to Parker, I don't think the meteorological records can tell us what happened to him , at least not without additional information. The micro climate, particularly at that time of the year and in that Sourland region, can vary greatly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2006 18:07:27 GMT -5
I agree. Joe posted a link in the "Links" section which is perfect when discussing this topic.
Again I agree. We just don't know where CJr. was the entire period prior to his discovery. Some may believe he was where he was found the entire time but its my position based upon the existing evidence that he was moved there. Exactly when is another important consideration. For example, if the body was in a basement very near a furnace I believe his body would have been found in an advance state of decay as opposed to being buried somewhere.
From what I know about Parker - he would have taken these very things into account. The problem we encounter when someone mentions something Parker concluded is 'when' he concluded it. In Master Detective, John is absolutely correct when he explains Parker was, in essence, investigating with both hands tied behind his back. There were basic facts that weren't shared with him and Parker did as we do here - he learned more and more as time went on and with that knowledge certain positions changed.
At one point he was 'sure' that corpse wasn't the child because, as he called it, the body found was of a "sub-normal" child, and therefore could not have been the Lindbergh baby.
I am still not finished with the book so I am going to try not to say too much on Parker until I am finished.
|
|