jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 24, 2010 16:12:57 GMT -5
Keep raggin' Rick. No matter what they BS say that body was not denuded. Michael and whomever can clime about that forever, but a deado in the woods isn't going to last for more than a few days. So all the BS is long gone - another stupid distracting thing.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 24, 2010 19:30:09 GMT -5
Oh me oh my...its all so confusing and contradictory...it just cant be sorted out.....its overwhelming? It is not my sense that these issues cannot be carefully sorted out scientifically one-by-one and effectively determined possible or impossible under the circumstances....time/temp/decomp/location/burlap bag/maggots etc. I think we can conclude quite comfortably that the skeleton was NOT laying in the woods uncovered for 72 days!
Au contraire'...self serving is throwing up ones hands in frustration, so as to leave the original default conclusions "in tact" for another 75 years.
It should be pretty obvious by now that any deviation from AG Wilitnz' habeus corpus will throw the whole LKC completely off kilter....and require a whole new Theory of the Crime.
The entire case hinges heavily on the identity of the skeleton, its origins and travels from March 1st ...and how it got so conveniently dumped and found, out of a burlap bag, on Mt Rose Hill in a day or two in May?
Each person connected with the families/servants should have been asked under oath..."Where and when did you last see CJr alive and well?" That would have helped.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2010 21:21:42 GMT -5
I guess that makes sense if one starts from the position that those "original conclusions" are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2010 8:46:40 GMT -5
But what exactly were those "original conclusions?"
I think the whole matter was left open ended because absolutely no one wanted to tackle it. Perhaps if Reilly didn't admit the body actually was Charles Jr. we may have a little more by way of testimony.
I've seen it stated:
The heart is the first to go. But here it's still there. That the child should NOT have been as deteriorated due to the climatic conditions. I've seen where the face should have been "gone." That a child's body goes much quicker then an adult. That a body in a shallow grave goes faster then one dug deep.
At what temperature do blow flies not exist? If blow flies had been present, why did they selectively attack some areas and not others?
If they weren't - why not?
Like Kevin said, there are many variables to explore. If you really want to tackle this one its going to take a very long time to examine each and every possibility then compare it to what we already know for a FACT.
If someone ever does this, my money is on the odds. Whatever has the highest odds of being the true situation is probably the right answer.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 27, 2010 0:00:40 GMT -5
There is one other caveat to consider: "...bodies decompose from Head to Toe!" Given the "reverse" plus internal organs remaining we are pretty much left with the conclusion:......protection of tissues by embalming! [and a more careful reading of In Search of the Lindbergh Baby by Theon Wright is in order]
If it IS CJr (Gardner)....that would be whole new scenario A? [Family?]
If it ISNT CJr (Wright)....that would be whole new scenario B? [mob/rumrunners?]
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 27, 2010 0:12:54 GMT -5
Your comment about the crows makes sense, if nothing else does. A body will just be ripped apart by shaking dogs even in cold weather even if nothing else intrudes. Seventy two days is really a long shot to be left fairly well intact. I'd guess it had been there perhaps a week. Even with frost worms work in the first few inches of soil, and they certainly look helpless but they do devour flesh. So, as I and others have stated before, perhaps as big an enigma regarding who did the crime, is who would care to bring the child's body back? For Anne's benefit? Your guess is as good as mine. Would Charles bring it back for Anne? Hard to imagine anyone else except perhaps her brother. And, of course, whoever brought the body back would be responsible. It doesn't seem Charles gave much of a rip about Anne or her family but he may have expected some closure regarding the intense investigation at that time. So he brings the body back and things certainly did die down for a long while. Then when things got hot again he scoots to England/France? If a true detective were looking at this crime without the glaring recognition of CAL, it would look quite badly for Charles. Not really so many variables - try shalowly burying a dead pig out in the woods in March and see what you can find of it in a week, much less much less ten weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2010 6:23:26 GMT -5
The question about exactly where the child may have been prior to its final resting place is in an important one. Someone emailed me a portion of a post from someone on another board and asked me if that area had been searched....
Look, if someone makes a "matter of fact" remark about something this important - call them on it. Inventing explanations in order to solidify a position seems to be the norm on that venue.
I have files on the grid searches which are about 5 inches thick. Does it specifically state it searched the spot where the child was found before it was? I can't say an Officer walked over that exact spot. But these files show they where in that area. It also shows they looked for buzzards as a signal, for something dead, then looked for it. It also shows the emergency phone lines were extremely close to where the child was found. These lines had to be laid by someone, and were routinely patrolled by the NJSP looking for people attempting to tap them or anything suspicious.
If they "missed" the body, how does everyone miss a burlap bag, which remained on the road like an arrow for where the child laid in the woods all of this time?
I don't know. But saying "they didn't search there" is taking a position of ignorance and twisting it into what you like. When the odds are against your very position in the first place. It's why research trumps fantasy. Unless your writing a novel, we need to focus on facts being accepted as facts.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 30, 2010 9:17:40 GMT -5
im still not convinced the body was put there later. just because lines were put near the body dosnt mean it was supposed to be found. besides i said many times, who in there right mind would go back to that hot police patroling area swarmed with reporters and people and dump the body later. it makes no sense to me. if i did the crime that would be the last place i would have dump the body if it was later
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 30, 2010 13:36:37 GMT -5
I usually slant w/Wolf but this does create more of a mystery.While I can't fathom bringing the body back - it just doesn't seem sensible that it could have been there for so long. In just I guess we just have to conclude that it was there all that time, but why wouldn't someone of the thousands and thousands which had driven past the bag have noticed it? Mysteries within mysteries. Michael certainly shows a lot of excellent writing, as does Kevkon, in his posts. There are quotes by both of them which could be used forever.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 30, 2010 14:49:55 GMT -5
jack, i cant believe sombody brought the baby to that spot later
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2010 17:28:29 GMT -5
I believe the corpse was somewhere else for several reasons. However, it can always be challenged. You have to look at it like a crossword puzzle. Somewhere, somehow, the evidence has to inter-connect.
This means an argument applied in one place has to be applied everywhere else too. If someone wasn't going to "return" to this place, with the Police around, then how do we explain all the eyewitness accounts of "strange vehicles" around this place NOT having been seen by the Police?
How do we explain the sleeping suit? Did someone "return" to get it?
If one argues it was removed the night of the crime, in order to "explain" the thumb guard on Lindbergh Lane, how does that fit in with the Featherbed Lane evidence?
And how does it fit into someone leaving a ladder behind in haste? They stop to remove a garment there? Why? Because they knew then, in their moment of escape, they would need it for proof of having the child?
If so, then why did it take so long to send?
You see how things twist and turn?
We have to stop "finding" evidence to "fit" a personal theory and let the facts point us to the truth. Whatever "works" for all the circumstances is probably the closest to what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 30, 2010 19:18:28 GMT -5
Philadelphia Daily News Friday May 13th 1932:
LINDY BABY MURDERED, BEATEN WITH A HAMMER Curtis, "Jafsie" turned over to NY Authorities
HOPEWELL. Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr, worlds most beloved baby, was brutally mutilated and murdered, it was disclosed early today following an autopsy on the tiny body found late yesterday in the woods above Hopewell.
"The autopsy was performed by Dr. Charles H. Mitchell, Mercer County coroner's physician, in the undertaking parlor of Swayze and Margerum in Trenton. The examination of the tiny body disclosed that a gaping hole had been punched in the forehead, apparently with a hammer and the left leg was torn away.
"In his report Dr. Mitchell disclosed that the body of the 22 month olde infant was badly decomposed and both eyes were gone. The long-sought child had lain in death for at least a month, he said. Death was caused by a compound fracture of the skull, was the official pronouncement."
"It was certainly something to be proud of--drilling a hole in the head of the helpless infant, causing his mother and father more than two months of untold agony while you or others of your ilk went through the motions of negotiating for the 'return' of their son, bleeding parents already drained of all but hope".
[it is faulty thinking that the body must have been there for 72 days "simply" because noone would risk dumping it back there. We are dealing with unknown persons here and it is possible Garrett Schenk saw the return or two cars?] [it is faulty thinking that the sleeping suite mailed to Jafsie was the one CJr was wearing--it was only similar--easily available] [who washed the sleeping suit and mailed it from Stamford,CT?] [ it is faulty thinking to identify the blackened skeleton by the blue-thread t-shirt or teeth or toes or location if VanIngen wont agree] [it would make alot more sense if the eyes were gone--it only takes 2-3 days] [Ellis Parker said it best..."everyone involved wanted to believe it was the Lindbergh Baby!"]
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 30, 2010 22:03:27 GMT -5
its a known fact a babys body decomposes faster then a adult. mike talks about twists and turns they didnt fit anything it just at this time it makes no sense to me sombody dumped the body there after that day
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 1, 2010 1:48:43 GMT -5
Factually there is simply no way the body could have been in that spot for seventy-two days. It might have been there a week, but that's about the fulsome. So in my mind the only looney enough to bring the body back would be Condon. He's the only one who cared enough about the child to "put his arms around his mother's neck" And much more. So Condon eventually brings the baby back, he also earlier had access to the sleeping suit and is this a bingo? That would answer the why too, because to Condon's mind he would be fulfilling destiny. I can see it too - Condon suddenly smarter than anyone in the world! And perhaps he was - he got away with it. Sorry A. it comes down to not so nice looking at your uncle.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 1, 2010 1:54:59 GMT -5
The bag is the key, Michael, he put the bag out there when he wanted the baby to be found - and the timing of the bag is that there is no more money to be gotten - it's actually a pretty cute crime. Like Dave says (with a bit of fillabuster) pretty simple.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 1, 2010 2:24:31 GMT -5
So M, wouldn't it be a horror if suddenly it came out that Condon was behind the entire thing? S - I've got people in prisons looking at this stuff. They don't have much else to do of course. The only logical conclusion is that Condon did the works. So it doesn't matter man - we all were F burned.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 1, 2010 11:17:55 GMT -5
How does the thumbguard found on Lindbergh Lane relate to the evidence on featherbed Lane? Still coming up short with knowing the truth its not hard to understand the probabilities. Lindbergh Lane was either the exit of the kidnapper or someone trying to extract the evidence away from the scene. If there are footprints coming from the house to Lindbergh Lane what can you think the thumbguard found represents? Factor in the condition of the nursery makes you believe (if I can football terms a free safety) behind the play. Factor in where everyone is during the course of the crime there is only one free safety I can explain.
I don't see how Condon could be behind the actual return of the baby especially if you think it wasn't in its found location very long. Condon was watched intensely . I believe the baby was there a while although I don't discount a second visit. The baby's face when turned around was a milky white which makes me believe the face was flush in the ground for some time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2010 6:03:56 GMT -5
LL is a "left" from the Estate, and Featherbed Lane is a "right."
I think it depends if one can accept the thumb-guard was missed by investigators & press who were all searching for clues.
I am thinking a 3rd "option" might be there are more then one involved (the night of the crime) and they took different directions.
Sure looks like a Free Safety is roaming around - are maybe a giant spider.
I agree with you Gary that Condon wasn't behind anything. I do believe he was brought in though, and whoever decided to do that made a good decision. Publicly, the Authorities, Breck, Lindy, etc. all said he was just someone interested in justice.... but privately they all viewed him with suspicion AND thought he was either in league with the Kidnappers or mentally unstable.
When you read all of the reports it gives the impression that Condon's house was always being watched by someone at any given time. However, there are too many things that happened where the Police are trying to investigate. If someone was there I don't think that would be necessary. Silken's account of dropping off that mysterious woman is a good example. I have some proof of Condon being in bungalow in the mountains where he meets up with Reich. There is nothing in the Official Reports about this, yet, the proof comes from someone else who was there. It looks very much like the Police had no idea about this place.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 2, 2010 13:42:03 GMT -5
Condon was watched only by a Lindbergh accomplice. The Bureau, according to their own testimony showed up "an hour" (oh ya!) too late to witness any happenings. If you buy that Rick's got some land in Nevada you will be interested in. I've looked at this for a long while and things keep coming back to dorfy Condon. Smarter than everyone else - perhaps. If the baby was accidently killed, or intentionally done (Noso style) then if you factor in Condon all things fit. Condon simply let others have the cash and he had the HaHa, but I'd imagine by his nature that he wouldn't have wanted Jr. dead.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 2, 2010 13:46:07 GMT -5
Very nice to see Gary trying to figure things out. Thousands of people bump this site, and it seems almost nobody gives a rip about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2010 7:14:53 GMT -5
It all depends exactly when you are talking.
I don't know what this means but I think I get more emails then I see posts. I try to encourage posts so they can field a variety of responses. We all know the Case but its interesting to see how everyone can sometimes view it differently from their individual perspectives.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 3, 2010 8:21:00 GMT -5
So you are your own grand tihin, Michae. I was with a guy last night who doesn't think so much of himself - but he's trying to do better. He's so far just a kid staying outta jail and being correct, but I can't be his guidance for all things. So the issue here really is that there ain't no issue. We each owe something back and that's what I've been trying to say to Kevkon and to Rick too.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 4, 2010 0:06:59 GMT -5
My point was the probability of movements other than a quick snatch and exit . There seems to be a reasonable consideration that the kidnapper went in one direction but something else was going on the opposite side. Now maybe there were two kidnappers. Maybe not. To the point I don't like the idea Whately was sent to get a flashlight in town or that CL was outside driving LL with Whately flashing the headlights to find the child. If my child was kidnapped I would do the same thing but what I mean is purely after the fact suspicion. That these moments were opportunity to cover up rather than discover. Now I am not saying Lindbergh dropped the thumb guard but have always wondered if you believe the nursery was tampered with what makes you think the outside ground by the same person wasn't as well ? Many believe you can't make more out of something that can't be entirely explained. I agree with that but you have to ask these questions continually if something by itself doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2010 10:22:29 GMT -5
Jack- I am merely someone who has been researching the Case. Call it what you will. I find interest in those dark corners that most others who came before me decided wasn't worth looking into. I've look at just about any angle so that I could either support it or disprove. I've been wrong and I've been right. I think Gary and I think alot alike. Having said that though it means (to me) that we could often disagree and its in that disagreement we can uncover the truth of the matter. There's someone's ideas I've looked at in the past that I am sure no one has ever heard of. Again, its not because I am anything special, but that I decided to check things out that most others may have decided wasn't worth their time. On March 18th 1932, Dr. Louis Joffe went to Highfields to discuss his thoughts over with Lindbergh. He had great ideas that were never used. His opinions about the "evidence" surrounding the crime scene was very interesting. For example: Conclusive as the evidence given by the expert might be, we are faced with some more glaring improbabilities, and here, let me emphasize the fact that the law of improbabilities is as immutable as the law of averages. What I mean by this is that it is within the bounds of probability for a person to tumble down from a hundred steps without sustaining any injury, but it is against the law of probability that it would reoccur two or three times in succession with the same results. His reasoning behind all the circumstances is evaluated with this in mind.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2010 8:03:11 GMT -5
Michael:
I know where you're coming from and I support you 102%. I also thing it's nice to see guys like Gary taking an interest.
There are some intricacies about the case which you probably have a better chance than anyone which I've so far seen of figuring out, but I do still believe, Michael, that there some things we'll never know about it.
Jesus, I've gone through lots of junk just for my limited obscession with TLC, and I can't imagine what you've gone through. I've been called a child porno because it involved a kid - I've been called a masochist because in some way people figure I love death - and been called a potential killer myself.
Well, I just like the mystery of it all so the crap bounces off of me, but I hope that someday YOU definitavely figure it all out.
Jack
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2010 8:09:00 GMT -5
As a typist I'm a good plumber.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2010 9:10:58 GMT -5
I'm thinking about traveling incognito and changing my name to Jack6.
Now Michael, sorry for the junk, but you know you like that stuff.
|
|