|
Post by rick3 on May 26, 2007 12:30:40 GMT -5
Three of the hot burning questions for me in the LKH are: - Was it really Charlie Jr. found on Mt. Rose Road?
- Why did any person ever claim to be the Lindbergh baby?>
- Are the above questions mutually exclusive?
Charles Lindbergh had 5 USA kids we know about and 7 Deutschlander kids we now know about--so is that all? We do not yet have any forensic or scientific confirmation that the baby found on Mt. Rose Hill is Charlie Jr. No fingerprints or BLOOD TYPING or DNA? Just eyewitness guessing! Highly doubtful/ - The hands were missing and the fingerprints of Dr. Erastus Hudson were also missing? No Match There? or anyone else/
- The blue-threaded T-shirt was a red herring.
- No competent autopsy, no confirmed cause of death, no inquest or coroner's jury--just instant cremation.
- Theon Wright, Wayne Jones and Andrew "Hysteria" Dutch all finished up final chapters with HRO? Kenneth Kerwin and other possible Charlie Jr's? WHY?
So, logically, could they too be Lindbergh Babies? Usually everyone knows for certain who their MOTHER is? (She was there when you were borne) - Was the Little School in Englewood set up by the Morrow Family as a front for Dwight Jr. and/or CALs kids?
- Did Elizabeth, Constance, Violet, Edna, Betty have any illegitimate kids?
- Was any baby adopted by the Little School? (Michael?)
- Do you know anyone else in History w/ 7 illegitimate kids? So why stop at 12....maybe it was a Bakers Dozen?
- Could they ALL be CAL's kids?
- Why did CAL change his name to Charlie Jr? (Robert Aldinger?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2007 13:08:17 GMT -5
I don't see any valid reasons to believe this was not CJr. All evidence suggests it was him.
Even the decomposing corpse still had his facial features. All the Police on scene agreed it was him. Lindbergh & Betty Gow identified him. The thread. And, as Joe has pointed out, Lane said the hair from the corpse matched the hair from his first hair-cut. Then of course there's the unclosed fontanel, the same age, and yes - the same height.
The fingerprints were found and didn't match HRO. If the argument was that they were hidden to prevent a cross-check what then is the argument for why 1932 20 month old fingerprints were found?
It was him and he was dead. The people wanting to be him are looking for answers in there personal life that cannot be found here. Aldinger is a perfect example in that he's proven he's not CJr. but still claims he is.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 26, 2007 13:27:55 GMT -5
All the existing evidence, mostly coercered and heresay similarities, would not even have held up in a Coroners Inquest without the Power of Lindbergh/Morrows?
Lies were told and retold. Holes, first by bullet, changed to stick pokes and "external violence"? No tissues for actual scientific analysis were saved? Dr. VanIngen, the babys physician, wanted $1,000,000 bucks to say it was Charlie jr. Why? Doc Mitchell said the skeleton was "far too decomposed for Betty Gow to identify"? In print/ so the cops were delusional?
Ellis Parker and Al Dunlap proved conclusively that whatever body was found was not laying/lying out on Mt. Rose Hill for 72 days in the Colde Sourland Soil. So, if it was Charlie Jr. where had he been hiding?
[/li][li]Was any baby adopted by the Little School? (Michael?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2007 13:38:12 GMT -5
Part of the reason Parker didn't (originally) believe it was CJr. is because he knew it wasn't there the whole time. Another reason was because, as he put it, the corpse was of a "subnormal" baby.
I don't believe Walsh lied about the "stick" incident. In the end, he told Lloyd Fisher he would do anything he could to help him, and had every edition of I Socked Hoffman pulled off the shelves in Jersey City in a show of support for Gov. Hoffman.
Your argument seems to be cause of death and I have no dog in that fight. I don't claim to know myself. The other issue has been proven to my satisfaction by Rab's research. That being the Child was not originally there.
The entire country, if not the world, was looking for CJr. If any child even remotely resembled him, and in some cases did not, the Police swooped down on them making them prove who the child was. Aldinger, for example, would have been immediately discovered.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2007 15:25:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 27, 2007 10:49:15 GMT -5
Hi Michael....this German youngster is a dead ringer for Chas Jr! I am not intending to be obstreperous: ...1600, from L. obstreperus "clamorous," from obstrepere "drown with noise, oppose noisily," from ob "against" + strepere "make a noise," from PIE *strep-, said to be imitative. - In the AWJones letter, he asks "Why did Reilly abandon BRH so early on....by conceding the identity of the baby found on Mt. Rose Hill?" Even Fischer said it would put BRH into the chair? Reilly should have been disbarred for this alone. To dispute the ID would have required VanIngen to be called by the Defense?
- Wayne Jones claims in his book "that HRO was never tested against any set of Dr. Hudson's prints"? Nor was William Simon?
- Dr. Hudson himself asked for Charlie Jr's prints some time in the later 1930s to Col. Schwartzkopf and told they were already missing? There were 3 sets: One to Evalyn Walsh McClean, one to NJSP, and one to Gov. Hoffman. It took a concerted effort to loose all 3 sets of 13 labeled and signed prints?
- Maybe the nursery was not scrubbed or washed down Tuesday nite? Maybe Charlie Jr. was never even there that weekend?
- Without the huge doubt created by the poor identification (eg wrong height, wrong age, wrong toes, blackened corpse) their could be no substitute Chas Jrs.
- I agree with Rita that some clever photographer superimposed Xharlies features over the corpses face. WHY--see the real shots in the Morgue. Its clearly an unrecognizable alien being on page 100 of Theon Wright as stated by Dr. Charles Mitchell.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2007 9:56:17 GMT -5
It certainly helped clear a major hurdle for the State. There's evidence of meetings between Reilly & Wilentz without the rest of his Defense Team. Perhaps they worked out a deal? I know what Reilly's "official" reason for doing this was...but that is for another time for me to mention.
I think one would have to prove he maliciously attempted to injure his Clients case ... or that he was recklessly negligent. I believe one or the other applies with my preference being the first. I will attempt to prove my position in the near future. Bryan put up a good point about this when he emphasized the Reilly-Hearst connection as being unethical. I believe Kennedy put this in his book...
Dr. Christian was meant to counter the question of identity is one had been made concerning the hair.
I am sure his prints were compared. I'll have to find the reference if you are interested. They may be in the Court Hearing Transcripts involving HRO's legal attempts to prove his identity. As I recall they did not match, and the argument then became the prints might not have been CJr.'s. It never ends...
Where is this?
Many people were claiming certain children were actually CJr. No matter who was in charge at the time, the Authorities did the right thing by not releasing them to the public at large. Experts claimed prints could be forged and the Authorities wanted to prevent this or some other type of nonsense from happening. Schwarzkopf may or may not have said they were missing. He lied about many things concerning the footprints, fingerprints, and other various pieces of evidence. It's what ultimately got him fired (reappointed). Any challenge to the verdict meant a potential black-eye for those involved. They did everything they could both before and after to protect themselves.
The facts which point to the prints later "missing" when people like HRO, Kerwin, etc. came into the public eye was legit. The evidence had been stored here, there, and everywhere. It took a while for the NJSP to find, and then identify what they had. At the time of the request they didn't know where these prints were. They were eventually found and there are many copies available for anyone who wants to see them. Think of it this way... Mark Falzini just last year found Samuelsohn's ladder the NJSP asked him to build located in a crate in the warehouse. No one was hiding it.
Seriously, I have been able to see just about anything I have asked to see (with the exception of Personnel Files). No one can make any claims today that things are being hidden to conceal the truth from the NJSP side of things. They have done everything but stand on their heads for me.
Extremely unlikely. In my opinion he had to be there - that was the whole idea.
Got the page # of Mitchell's statement? My paperback doesn't have an index. Have you read the Gaston Means TT about the child?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 29, 2007 9:44:30 GMT -5
Hi Michael: the "fingerprint fiasco" totally centers around Dr. Erastus Mead Hudson.....simply because without him there would be no fingerprints to compare with anyding: (except for a few on the ransom notes?) - Hudson was asked by Lamb and Kelly how to counterfeit fingerprints (Scaduto p.383)--thats when he changed teams to BRH's Defense. (shades of Hall-Mills)
- Apparently, Hudson made "three or four sets of 13 prints" from Charlie's toys, balls, books, railings etc. He gave one SET to Evalyn Walsh McClean; one to Hoover and FBI; and one to NJSP. Maybe kept #4? EWMcClean later gave hers to Gov. Hoffman. Each print was CLEARLY LABELED; NAME: Chas. Jr/ Hopewell, DATE AND Initials OF emh. (see Jones pp1131-on in chapter)
- There are only 5 potential wipers: CAL, AML, Betty, Elsie and Ollie? A very small group to choose from? Motive: dont let them find ANY of OUR prints up there? Just in case......maybe Betty has a record in Detroit?>
- Apparently, it was Gov. Hoffman, not EMH, who asked Schwartzkopf for Charlie prints before EWM gave her set to HGH?
(see Fischer p. 398-399)
- As far as we can ascertain now, all CLEARLY LABELED EMH PRINTS were lost and now prints, or photos have no labels at all?
- There is also a reference to Charlie Jrs. baby footprints taken on his birth certificate? True or false? (in Hysteria by Dutch)
- see website for Kenneth Kerwin:
www.nj.com/lindbergh/hunterdon/index.ssf?/lindbergh/stories/linbabes.html
As far as Dr. Charles H. Mitchell's declaration that the body was far too decomposed for anyone at all to identify, especially not Gow--see many newspaper accounts on May 13, 1932. BUT....this is repeated 3 times in Hysteria by Dutch--pp195, 197, 214. Question: what is the basis for Rab's conclusion that the body on Mt. Rose Hill had to be moved there later? The burlap bag along the road?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 29, 2007 18:46:24 GMT -5
That's also in the Liberty Articles. Now I think it may have contributed to his "flipping" to the Defense but the main reason was that he asked the State to inform the Defense prints had been raised on the ladder but none were Hauptmann's. Once he discovered they were saying they hadn't found prints he called Reilly's office. I'll have to check this out. I recall his prints went to Lamb only. Don't forget that Lt. Hick's had worked for Hauck in April '32 and dusted for (and found) prints of Charles Jr in the house. Additionally, Kelly found prints in other parts of the house as well using black powder. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141567525Anyway, the prints existed and were available to Gov. Hoffman eventually. Once Kimberling took over, he had Snook make comparisons to various prints being sent in by people with children they claimed was CJr. One was the infamous Robert Dolfen. His prints did not match.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 30, 2007 5:33:14 GMT -5
Here's one from Belgium: The reply clearly indicating the prints were on hand:
|
|
|
Post by me on Mar 8, 2008 2:49:21 GMT -5
I live in SJ CA and know a man who INSIST he is the Lindbergh baby. Should I believe him?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2008 8:39:56 GMT -5
Absolutely, they are all over the place. Just like Elvis.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2008 10:46:30 GMT -5
No way Jose....
Look, I will never tell anyone what to believe but the evidence concerning the child's death is crystal clear. While I tend to believe these various people do personally believe their claims - anyone who has done the research will know they are wrong in that belief.
In the News Thread Sue has posted something recently which has to do with this person's erroneous claim.
|
|
|
Post by LindyStudentGal on Apr 30, 2008 18:26:58 GMT -5
WHERE DID THE LINDBERGH BABY LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm doing a report
|
|
|
Post by LindyStudentGal on Apr 30, 2008 18:31:01 GMT -5
P.S. It is no way the Lindy baby. Only his nurse and dad went to identify him, and they are BOTH suspects. WHy didn't the mom go? And the baby was burned soon afterwards. AND it was so decomposed that they couldn't even tell what sex it was. And it was too tall. NOTHING ADDED UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2008 6:06:14 GMT -5
He lived with his parents at his Grandparents home, Next Day Hill, in Englewood, N.J. This was a temporary situation until Highfields in Hopewell, N.J. was completed. He was kidnapped while the family had stayed at Highfields over the weekend then stayed over due to the child's illness.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Feb 12, 2009 15:12:18 GMT -5
Where exactly was the baby found. I'm hearing Mt.Rose Rd and Hopewell-Princeton Rd. Are they the same road?
Also, I'm hearing FOUR miles from the home and TWO miles from the home.
Hopewell-Princeton Rd curves about 1/3 of the way from Hopewell to Mt. Rose. It looks like an OLD road goes straight into the woods, coming out to Crusher Rd. a few hundred yards from Hopewell-Princeton Rd. Was it on the OLD road where they found the baby?
Also, I heard that there was a little metal sign at the exact spot. Is that sign still there?
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2009 18:58:53 GMT -5
Here is a link found on Ronelle's site which is very helpful in located the spot: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/body.htmlHere is a copy of Trooper Carmody's report: Let me know if this is helpful or not. If not I will see what I can do further to assist.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Feb 14, 2009 17:42:21 GMT -5
With the help of the drawing and link that you supplied, I found the site.
I had heard there was a small sign at the spot where he was found. I didn't see a sign there now, but I know I had the right spot.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by andrewsteinberg on Apr 5, 2009 14:37:45 GMT -5
It is interesting that the trooper found part of a March 1, 1932 New York World Telegram newspaper near the body. A betting man would say it was dropped when the kidnapper went into the woods at night to dump the body.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2009 7:22:45 GMT -5
Hi Andrew.
I think there are several things which can be considered. It's a given the paper could not be there before March 1st. Therefore, in my mind, it shows someone was very near the spot this child was discovered sometime after the morning of March 1st, and May 13th at the time of its discovery.
Next, could it have been accidentally left behind if it was found crumpled up in the small limbs at the foot of the tree? It's definitely a possibility since the report, while giving a certain impression, doesn't really give us enough details to eliminate that possibility.
Could it have been intentionally left where it was found? That's certainly a possibility. Researcher Steve Romeo once told me he believed a Newspaper Reporter may have been able to sneak around the Troopers and put it there for publicity it would create for the New York World Telegram. Again, that's a possibility but I think we need to consider both the risk and the success rate if this were true.
Next, it could have been someone planting it there to date the disposal of the body where it was found. As you can probably tell, this is the one I am leaning toward. There is no doubt in my mind the corpse wasn't there originally, and I think this was just something they left behind to "throw" the Investigators into believing it had been.
Anyone have any other possibilities or ideas?
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 18, 2009 1:52:18 GMT -5
What I find puzzling, Michael, is that the corpse, badly decomposed as it was, was in such relatively good condition assuming, stress on assuming, that it been there for over nine weeks. That's late winter, early spring, New Jersey, way out in what was then the middle of nowhere, with foxes, wolves and countless small animals in the area, roaming around, with the mothers looking for feed their little ones. Surely there had been considerable rain (in April), probably some snow, since the night of the kidnapping. Temperatures in New Jersey that time of year tend to rise and fall a good deal, from below freezing to near summer-like. My point is that had the baby's body been left there Match 1st-2nd, it should have been beyond unrecognizable, scattered all through the woods, in the underbrush, far more decomposed than it was, ripped apart by animals, not in a neat, "safe" place, as William Allen found it. I can't help but think that it had been placed there much later, well into April. If so, why? The child was already long dead, the kidnappers had got away with their crime, whether they'd killed the baby intentionally, it died as the result of an accident, or maybe of illness or neglect. There are far easier ways to dispose of a dead baby to ensure that it won't be discovered. To (again) cut to the chase: the discovery was perhaps intentional, the body was placed off the Hopewell-Princeton road so that it sooner or later would be found, perhaps implicating a member of the Lindbergh household staff.
John
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2009 9:07:17 GMT -5
After everything I have researched on this subject there's no way that I will ever believe the child was there the entire time. Next, according to the weather reports the child shouldn't have been as decomposed as he was, however, considering the wild life he should have been completely devoured.
What's interesting is that Fawcett was going to cover all of this in his Defense. He had Experts lined up for this.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 19, 2009 11:04:35 GMT -5
i dont believe the baby was moved back to that spot. it was a hot area after the kidnapping. who in there right mind would take that chance? why would a kidnapper take a dead baby and risk being caught dumping it in that area? fawcett had alot of ideas beore hauptmann blew it by trying to make a key or a weapon out of his table spoon in the jail. fawcett changed his plans after that. mike, i think im going to the halls and mills lecture in new brunswick. it would be grat to see you next thursday
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 19, 2009 11:52:07 GMT -5
I think it makes sense to return to the area long after the kidnapping, more than a month, place the baby in the woods somewhere, if its discovery would implicate someone in the Lindbergh household. There was a method to this madness ( could've been Hauptmann himself). It would have been far less risky to have gone to the woods after Condon turned over the money. I don't think that the area around the estate was crawling with cops and Boy Scouts by that time. Things had simmered down somewhat by then. Also, whoever was planning the baby drop could have driven around beforehand to make sure that there weren't police hanging around everywhere, on street corners, in patrol cars.
John
|
|
ram
Recruit
Posts: 1
|
Post by ram on May 9, 2010 13:46:06 GMT -5
Does anyone have tyhe address of the house in the bronx where Hauptmann lived ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2010 16:20:22 GMT -5
There were many addresses for Hauptmann. The two main addresses in the Bronx are: - 1462 Needham Ave.
- 1279 E. 222nd St.
The house he was living in when he was arrested was 1279 E. 222nd St. Hope this helps.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 16, 2010 20:13:55 GMT -5
Anyone who says the body was not the Lindbergh child is simply trying to elongate this discuscission for some personal reason.
Of more interest, of course, is that the body probably was brought back and that deserves a major why?
It's unlikely the face would have been in such good shape after a couple months for one reason of being elswhere, but aside from that why bring the baby back? Was it killed accidently and the killer felt guilty and wished for closure for the Lindberghs?
Seems a likely - and the thumbguard in the drive - done at the same time?
So was there compassion by the kidnapper or did he/she think they might get off more lightly if apprehended having returned the body?
My thoughts about this certainly don't matter, but to my mind after dumping the body they'd certainly want it found so I'd strongly suspect Allen. Where were the detectives in 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2010 18:18:04 GMT -5
I think its been proven it was him. There's so many reasons but simply reading The Case That Never Dies should be enough for anyone looking at this.
Problem is that you had so many people telling children in their care they were the Lindbergh Baby. Imagine a child being raised under those conditions. I have reports on those children being looked at by the NJSP or FBI then discounted and/or disproven. It looks like these investigations were sometimes the impetus for these families to tell the children they were "him."
Now the idea the child was "brought" to this place after being somewhere else needs to be examined. I know some don't think so, while others (like myself) do. However, if you have a gang extorting 50k for a dead child how in the world can we now explain this child was returned due to some sort of honor?
The risk would be more then its worth and based upon a characteristic that isn't indicative of any action they undertook.
The child's discovery is what caused the Police to take their gloves off. Lindbergh alone is the only one who benefits from this body being discovered. If these people cared so much about him why then murder his son? Why steal his 50k?
These would have to be bad people - how then can we give them a conscience when it comes to the body being placed where it would eventually be found?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 17, 2010 19:17:30 GMT -5
"Some sort of horror," excellent quoted to Michael.
Whether they brought it back or didn't bring it (the child's body) back, they were blatent in their actions and unconsious? (if the body remained in the woods) of police actions. I have believed that they left the bag near to the road as a signal - if the bag was gone the baby had been discovered. But why leave the baby anyway, especially after the heat of that night had worn down and things weren't looked at so critically.
So here's a scenario - somebody has to give a S about the L family to bring the body back. Means a very few potential culprits. Dwight Jr. come to mind?
I had never considered him seriously before, but he comes up on my screen.
Was Jr. investigated for possible espionage contacts? Was he sleeping with Nazis?
Was Jr. investigated at all? He was not fond of CAL.
|
|