|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2010 16:31:04 GMT -5
Good list of things to ponder Jack.
I personally don't believe Hoover was a homosexual, but honestly I don't see that as being an issue which affects this Case one way or another.
The Betty Gow/Red Johnson lewd behavior is an example of a reason people act suspiciously. Here's something Betty has to hide, so acting evasive or suspiciously could lead one to draw inferences about involvement in the crime - when its only really about this embarrassing situation.
So consider everything but weigh the possibilities that something else might be going on or is the motive. Know what I mean?
I agree. Is Lindy the right opponent? He's running the NJSP as it involves this investigation. So Lindbergh trumps Schwarzkopf but Hauptmann trumps Lindy?
Also consider these guys may have been holding some cards. One being the child isn't where he could be stumbled upon at any moment. Operating as if they have him, whether dead or alive, may have been the case after all.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 16:32:37 GMT -5
Thanks, Kevkon, because after all of these long many years YOU have finally revealed the motive.
It wasn't for $ 50K - it was to have Cal Jr. dead!
Then it didn't matter if the child's body was found or not. And the ransom didn't even matter - the fact CAL paid it means to show he had no clue what was going on. NSDAP!
Now the Lindbergh question is very different - who would care if CAL Jr. was alive or dead and what would that mean to Charles? NSDAP!
The only winner regarding TLC, and I've posted this before and it's been totally disregarded, and I don't doubt that it will be disregarded again - is NAZI Germany. Noso died broke, Hauptmann had some success but was eloctrucited. Fisch bailed to old country and died hospitalized.
It is a very very simple crime but a little more complicated than the simplistics want to admit. What, for example, do the simplistics say about Lindbergh's not bring Skean to Hopewell on 3/1?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 19:00:22 GMT -5
Why after the crime was discovered (some ransome notes calleed) did Fisch bail Gomany?
Why did Noso bail out to who knows where and remain so for the rest of his life?
Why couldn't Hoover find Noso?
Why, if Noso was innocent, didn't he implicate the corrct persons?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 19:06:10 GMT -5
"I personally don't believe Hoover was a homosexual."
Michael comment.
Gawd - are you a for real person?
I like you Michael, but because of that, you are very questionable as a source.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 19:07:29 GMT -5
Now we see? - Read above!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 19:17:04 GMT -5
I don't want some things to happen. I don't want boxing to be fake - yet I watch it and it surely is. I don't want everybody to be yellow, but someday we all will be.
And I don't like what Michael just said about J.E.Hoover - you be the judge!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 19:37:53 GMT -5
And now it can be seen - look obviously above on another site - how the government and Michael in particular are trying to cover up homosexuality in government. This has to do with the Lindbergh crime because Dr. Noso was a blatent homosexual and child molester. He was the Lindbergh child killer and faded into oblivion because of homosexual fanatics.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 22:39:27 GMT -5
My take is this is all bad crap.
To my mind, do something good for yourselves and send cash to Scott LeDoux fund and make a name for yourselve!
So, Kevkon, I saw Scott win the GG when he got out of the army and he fought both Larry Holmes and big George and man he's a man. Now down. So he deserives some cash from us friendlies!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2010 22:59:57 GMT -5
OK you cool - fo right now I just want to send to Scott LeDoux. I knew him in MN and just that's the way it now is. Man he was tough. I was actuelly at ringside when we were catching teeth - NS! I'm very sorry for Scott - as a real life he was an asshole but maybe I'll send money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2010 5:47:00 GMT -5
A source for what? I am skeptical about this. And there were people in the know who dispute it. That's my position. I am not going to accept something as a fact because I want to or dismiss it because I don't want it to be true.
I know nothing about it, and wouldn't care if I did. So there's no "cover-up" .... and while I know you are joking you have to realize there are people who would read this and not recognize your style of humor.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 19, 2010 6:14:38 GMT -5
Are you OK Michael?
Maybe if you sit down and rest for a while.
I have cute girl nurse friends that can help you - there, there, just relax.
Speaking of hot buttons - nurse, did you see that last post?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 19, 2010 6:30:36 GMT -5
Gawd - is Michael of this planet?
Is this where Kevkon breaks from him?
I have been on your side for many years Michael, but you and I cannot meet on this issue.
If you're gay - hey I don't give a S!
But then you should say that that is reflective regarding your views of TLC, and especially about the possible gay molester culprit - NOSO!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 19, 2010 6:36:51 GMT -5
I'm not joking - I'm poking, and like good detectives do, sometimes pokes ring true.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 19, 2010 8:32:09 GMT -5
Exactly, Kevkon - it would be a no winner.
But somebody had to be holding cards.
Two scenarios: One that they didn't give a S and weren't concerned if the child was found - would mean, of course phony ransom. Two (maybe three) that it was known where baby was and burlap bag was an indicator as to have found body or not. I glean towards having the body myself because I don't trust unknowns. So to my mind the child is dead and in a room somewhere and later is placed near the Lindbergh home. Why? The only answer is a warning and as stated earlier, a message to Charles that "they" NSDAP can and will do whatever to and with him (and family) that they want to.
There is no other logical answer!
Open your windows - this crime hasn't been solved by your way of thinking for ninety years - doesn't that tell you something?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 19, 2010 9:03:06 GMT -5
You sound like a poker player.
Of course they didn't have an unharmed hostage - how long will a baby last? couple days?
So why stall?
So it has to be said that the baby wasn't really the issue. The issue was, you do it now, Charles, or more to follow.
If he didn't like taking his first child, his mom is next.
If he didn't like taking his mom, then his wife.
So, listen Charles - this is simply a BS beginning - we want your soul and we have it!
Open your windows - you havn't solved this crime in ninety years of your thinking so look anew!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 19, 2010 13:08:59 GMT -5
It sure would be nice if you detectives could provide a reliable source or a single piece of evidence as a foundation for all of these extreme claims and theories. What's the point otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2010 16:10:36 GMT -5
I am fine Jack. We just don't agree about JEH. You seem to be the one who got upset about it - for whatever reason that may be. No need to bring up female nurses - where'd that come from anyway?
Regardless, its not germane to the subject. If it is then please explain it without doing the exact same thing as it pertains to someone else. Then my reply will be the same and we won't be getting anywhere at all.
I am having a hard time following the discussion. Are you replying to yourself or is there something I am missing?
We're both independent thinkers. I don't understand what you imply here.
We agree the child wasn't there the whole time. There have been, and will be counter-arguments for us to consider.
No two people will ever always be in agreement. But I'm not certain what you don't agree with. Is it the JEH issue? Again, I am skeptical. There are sources that say this was "bunk."
But again, does it really matter as it relates to this Case? I don't think so.
I'd say just list a source. The term "reliable" could and probably should be debated.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 19, 2010 21:57:15 GMT -5
i think the baby was there all along.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2010 7:04:06 GMT -5
I think there's just too much by way of circumstances which say he wasn't. There's also something I don't think many people are aware of.... "Buzzard Patrol"
That's right, the NJSP as late as March 20th would follow, then dismount then go into the woods in attempts to locate the source of the buzzards' attention.
So its not just that he was overlooked. People were looking - not just the NJSP. It was their focus, or their beliefs the child was in the area.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2010 8:50:04 GMT -5
It wouldn't be possible for the child to have been in that exact location all of the time. Look at the weather records for snow and rainfall at the time. Then look at topo map, or better yet just go down there when the early spring thaw and rains have commenced. This past week would have been perfect. You will see why that body was not in that spot from 3/1.
Michael, let's say a primary source.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 20, 2010 8:52:33 GMT -5
kevkon, how can you detemine that it was moved there? who in there right mind would go back in that area to risk getting caught and dump the baby there, it makes no sense
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2010 8:59:57 GMT -5
If you mean moved by a person, I don't believe that at all. Like I said, if you go down there at this time of the year, you will see what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 20, 2010 10:22:32 GMT -5
its not proof that it wasnt in that spot. like i said does bringing the body back where police and people are swarming a good idea?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2010 10:59:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you would consider proof then. Look at the rainfall and snow for 3/32 & 4/32. Where that body was found is lowlands and at the intersection of two streams. Those streams carry all the runoff from the Sourland Mts. What we just experienced this past week would be proof for anyone. No way is that child's body going to resist the power of that water.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 20, 2010 11:59:15 GMT -5
i know there were streams there but its obvious the body wasnt effected
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2010 14:11:20 GMT -5
i know there were streams there but its obvious the body wasnt effected How so?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 20, 2010 15:28:28 GMT -5
of course the body was exposed to the elements rain, snow whatever, but i still dont see any proof the body was moved at that spot. i think it was there all the time for2 months
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2010 16:03:19 GMT -5
But we know it was moved to that spot. It didn't grow there. So if it was placed there by human hands, how can anyone say when? What would you feel would be different if it were moved a second time?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 20, 2010 20:29:34 GMT -5
i dont think it was, i dont care what hands had it. the facts remain that it was there the whole time
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2010 6:47:08 GMT -5
According to Walsh the body had been "buried." The burlap bag with his foot bone was found on the roadside almost on a direct line in from the body in the woods. There's a huge amount of evidence concerning animal activity.
So, at what point does the corpse become separated from the bag? Wild animals usually stay clear of human activity whenever possible (unless to get food). What are the odds that this bag gets removed from the corpse, by animals, then drug to the side of the road toward human activity rather then further into the woods? What are the odds this body doesn't get disturbed when separated from the bag AND while its limbs are being torn away by wild animals?
The entire area was searched and the "grave" was the only place, other then the bag, where any evidence whatsoever existed concerning the corpse.
Doesn't the fact that both the bag and body are still within very close proximity - despite the level of decomp & animal acitivity -prove the separation occurred very recently? Why recently if his little body lie there since March 1st?
|
|