|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2013 16:50:48 GMT -5
Why don't you make this easy for us who think maybe the door had an issue and just tell us one way or the other if it did or did not. There is a thread on this board called Michael's Frontdoor Blockbuster. Something must be up with that front door and you know what it is. I am just venturing a guess on what that blockbuster might be. If this is something that is going into your book then I totally understand that you can't address this directly nor would I want to to give up a unique piece of your research on this board. So this is the source for it then? I will have to go back and re-read it. LJ - is this your source too? Sorry, I am not playing dumb, I just thought I was missing or forgetting something.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2013 17:13:52 GMT -5
Here's what I found:
The front door scenario was one that LINDBERGH himself accepted. I know something about that which is block-buster enough for my book... Stay tuned here.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 19, 2013 20:23:56 GMT -5
I don’t myself recall discussion on the board of the front door being sticky. However, in the current thread, LJ mentioned the possibility of the front door being used, and I remarked that Kevkon said the door would be noisy.
Here’s the original context—Michael, you had said there was something about the front door that would make me drop to my knees if knew what it was. So, being curious, I started the “Michael’s front door blockbuster” thread, and I speculated if perhaps the child might have been taken out the front door. Here is what Kevkon then said:
I believe that was probably the origin of discussion of the front door being noisy. As I say, “sticky” I don’t recall.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2013 20:38:06 GMT -5
Thanks BR. As bad as my memory is on this I believe I said it would make your knees buckle. I don't think I'd say that other thing....
But I had completely forgotten about Kevin's observation concerning that door. And I do think that important. Here's why: When Curtis said that door was used Lindbergh was completely on board with this possibility. But if Kevin is right (and he always has been about this type of thing) then why didn't Lindy immediately discredit it based up this fact?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2013 21:25:36 GMT -5
So, bottom line, what's the verdict on the door in your view? I won't ask how or why specifically--for what the "blockbuster" is--but would the front door have worked as an entrance point, or is there some specific reason why it wouldn't have?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 19, 2013 21:28:31 GMT -5
You’re right, Michael—it was “knees buckle.”
Do we know for a solid fact if the pantry door was locked on the night of the kidnapping? Or is this conjecture based on Lindbergh’s interest in Curtis’s story?
If the pantry door was really locked, this is one device that Hauptmann, acting alone, could not have known about. It would have to be a true insider, or based on information from an insider.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2013 8:12:22 GMT -5
So, bottom line, what's the verdict on the door in your view? I won't ask how or why specifically--for what the "blockbuster" is--but would the front door have worked as an entrance point, or is there some specific reason why it wouldn't have? Honestly, that's a hard question to answer. For an outside group to use it without anyone on the inside helping doesn't seem possible. The problem is that Lindbergh himself accepted this version, the degree of which led him to go out to sea looking for these people. So if Lindbergh believed it could have been how can I disagree? Unless Lindbergh was involved, then I see no choice but to believe it was possible.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 23, 2013 11:02:41 GMT -5
It is my opinion that Charlie Jr. was handed off at the window. After they took the baby, I believe that the ladder was placed on the ground so people couldn't see it leaning against the house.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jul 23, 2013 16:57:22 GMT -5
I've read this entire thread, and for me, the key question is: Where did Hauptmann dispose of the body, and when?
If his intent was to kill the child, then he must have had some sort of plan regarding where the body would be placed. I have an extremely difficult time believing the child's body was originally disposed of in the woods where William Allen found it. Too many people scoured that area. I've said this before on this board, and I'll say it again: Did each and every one of those people possess equally horrible reconnaissance skills?
The alternative is: The body was moved there. When, and why?
If Hauptmann were the sole figure in the crime, and the murder was premeditated, then having the body be discovered would increase Hauptmann's chances of being busted for murder. He'd get the chair for that--and did.
So, wouldn't it be in his best interests to make the discovery of the body completely impossible? That would accomplish two goals:
1. It would keep the ransom negotiations going. No body = No chance for Lindbergh to say, "The boy's dead. You're not getting a penny."
2. It would minimize the chances of linking Hauptmann to the crime.
The body was found PAST Highfields, which means Hauptmann would have to double back and pass the house on his way home. There was really no way for him to know whether or not there'd be police and other people around the property. Law enforcement could easily stop him and interrogate him.
Hauptmann would have wanted to hightail it away from Highfields.
Unless....well, okay, unless his dumping the body in the woods where Allen found him was just a brazen move. Heck, the kidnapping and murder itself were brazen moves, so why couldn't there be just one more brazen move that night? But then again...how was the body missed by all that people? I don't get that.
Where could he have disposed of the body on his way home to the Bronx? Nobody will ever know.
What did Hauptmann plan on doing with the body...I just can't figure this one out. Can you?
Jd
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 23, 2013 17:28:50 GMT -5
It wasn't Charlie Jr.'s body planted in the woods. ..follow up on your history and find out who Allen and Wilson worked for when the whole thing was over.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 23, 2013 18:11:41 GMT -5
Hey, JD. This case has more twists than a pretzel factory, doesn’t it?
I had a theory about the burial that didn’t exactly catch fire.
You might recall that the body was found a few hundred feet from the home of Charles Schippell. Schippell himself said he believed the body had ORIGINALLY been buried off-road at a spot even closer to his home, but got moved to where William Allen found it. Schippell showed folks what he claimed was the ORIGINAL burial hole, and said that a tree by the hole had been marked, so that the kidnappers could easily find it on the night of the crime.
My thesis was—this is if we concede a “Hauptmann alone” scenario--Hauptmann thought his “signature” on the ransom notes would be enough to get the ransom. But it wasn’t. More proof was demanded. He found he needed the sleeping suit. So at night he drove back to Hopewell, and performed the gruesome task of digging up the corpse and removing the suit. This was why the suit had to be laundered, and why there was a delay in getting the suit to Condon. Perhaps it’s also why one arm on the corpse was missing—yanking the suit off a stiffened and partly decayed corpse.
But something—headlights, perhaps voices from Schippell’s farm—frightened Hauptmann and forced him to move a bit further up the road and finish the task. But he didn’t have the time or courage to dig another deep hole, and quickly buried the corpse shallowly. He probably figured that searches of the area had already been finished, and the body would not be discovered before he collected the ransom, which he now believed would be very soon. And thus we have the "reburial."
But this thesis still has a lot going against it. As you say, why does Hauptmann pick a burial spot on the OTHER side of the Hopewell area, rather than a spot on the way back to the Bronx? And if Condon was being accurate in his account of the cemetery conversation, handing over the sleeping suit as a form of proof was CJ’s own idea—so it sounds like CJ already had it from the night of the kidnapping. I can’t see him originating the idea if he thought it meant a risky trip back to Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jul 24, 2013 1:59:26 GMT -5
"Hauptmann alone" is unlikely so asking why he? and why did he? might not have any merit. Hauptmann had no or very little time to cover up anything if he was around Hopewell that night. He had to get back to the bronx to avoid connection and probably in time to pick up his wife at the bakery. It is my thinking once the child was noticed dead the kidnappers dispersed. Perhaps the car that had the child took off leaving the one or two other cars behind not knowing what went down. A pre planned kidnapping and planned murder doesn't seem smart to dump the child near the crime scene. It makes no sense at all. In my opinion once the child was dumped if Hauptmann was in Hopewell that day he was long gone by then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 10:17:19 GMT -5
This is really an important point. If you are going to carry out an extortion based on this kidnapping, you don't dump the child being bargained for close to the scene and run the risk of discovery of the victim before the negotiation process is completed.
I am of the belief that there was a local connection to this case which was pre-arranged to receive Charlie and keep him hidden, as long as it would be necessary, until the money was paid.
If you study the soils found at the dump site, you will find that they are consistent with the New Jersey area, not New York. I think it is, therefore, safe to assume that Charlie never left New Jersey.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jul 24, 2013 18:45:42 GMT -5
Yes I agree with you. Here is the other thing if the death wasn't planned then taking care of the baby had to be planned out. If you believe that then there are several involved whether it be local or not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2013 17:20:07 GMT -5
I do know early on the Police consensus was inside job and possible local involvement. I believe the child had been buried then dug up and brought to where he was ultimately found. That is an extremely odd set of circumstances that was very risky. This risk doesn't benefit anyone except the Family. It gives closure and stops any further extortion attempts the lack of a body would generate.
|
|
|
Post by gary2 on Jul 25, 2013 22:27:23 GMT -5
So if true why the chosen remote spot? Despite the location close by the body might not have been discovered yet another several months. I've always believed the kidnapping was well planned but carried out in a sloppy way. This could be understandable considering the panic and fear. Maybe the Mersman table confession was right. Someone other than Hauptmann had the inner need to confess and say I am sorry for their role in the tragedy. Or might you consider the extortion had nothing to do with the reason of the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jul 26, 2013 14:35:40 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who Allen and Wilson worked for, if Hauptmann was the lone criminal, unless they worked for Bruno Hauptmann. Why should it matter? If he's the lone kidnapper/murderer, and if it wasn't Charlie Junior's body in the woods, then it had the be Hauptmann who put another child's body there.
This, of course, brings up a variety of wholly obvious questions, such as: Where did he get the other child's body? When did he get it? How did he get it? If he didn't bury the Lindbergh Baby, then did he kill the Lindbergh Baby or not? If not, where did he keep the child? What happened to the child once Hauptmann was arrested?
If Hauptmann was a co-conspirator, then why bring Allen into the plot? Why would a Lindbergh Kidnapping conspirator want the body to be discovered? If the body were discovered, there's no guarantee clues at the scene would not lead law enforcement to the perpetrators. They could get the chair.
Same thing with Hauptmann as the lone criminal. Why deliberately have the body discovered?
Back to William Allen: Let's say he was part of the plot. How could he be trusted to keep his mouth shut? "Mr. Allen, you pretend to discover this body and keep your mouth shut about everything else, and not only will you get part of the reward, but a nice cushy job, as well." Who knew Allen well enough to believe a promise like this would be kept? Who did Allen know well enough to trust someone like that?
Not only this, but there's that John F. Condon fellow. Whether he was in on it or not, he's too loose a cannon to be trusted. You'd be looking over your shoulder at Jafsie, you'd be looking over your shoulder at Allen...how many other people are part of the plot? The more people you have to look over your shoulder for, the more problems you are going to have.
It's why I don't believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. (Yes, I believe Oswalds was the Lone Gunman, and yes, I swear by Gerald Posner.) And it's why I believe if there were a conspiracy to kidnap and/or murder Charles Lindbergh, Jr., the conspiracy had to be minimal.
And I have no reason not to believe the body found was Charles Jr. Where did the OTHER body come from?
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2013 16:24:14 GMT -5
So if true why the chosen remote spot? Despite the location close by the body might not have been discovered yet another several months. I've always believed the kidnapping was well planned but carried out in a sloppy way. This could be understandable considering the panic and fear. Maybe the Mersman table confession was right. Someone other than Hauptmann had the inner need to confess and say I am sorry for their role in the tragedy. Or might you consider the extortion had nothing to do with the reason of the kidnapping? I think we have no choice but to speculate around the facts we do know about in order to make sense of them. I know some years ago we discussed the bag and the body. Kevin's theory was, as I remember, that the body had been buried or placed somewhere further south and the creek may have washed it to where it was found. Someone else, and I can't remember who, suggested the animals dug him up then dragged the bag to the shoulder of the road but leaving the body where it was discovered. I don't necessarily believe its a remote spot. It was in a place where Highfields could be seen. As far as panic and fear - this is something I would expect to find but have see no evidence of it. Do you believe the body was there the entire time from March 1st thru to May 12th? There's no doubt in my mind this corpse was brought to this area from somewhere else. If that is true, I think it exemplifies anything other then fear, panic - or both. To bring the dead child to a spot they believed it would eventually be discovered with all of the Police activity? Most especially since it benefits no one except Lindbergh since it ends any further extortion attempts once he's found. A Mad Man might do this for psychological reasons but how does that involve Hauptmann who's role in this had to do with money? And I have no reason not to believe the body found was Charles Jr. Where did the OTHER body come from?Jd The Defense tried to say it was an orphan who wondered away from St. Michaels. The State's Witness ruined that idea. Perhaps it could be said it was a lie? I've never seen any proof of this. I will say that while thumbing through Swayze's notebook I discovered a notation of a body of a dead baby in Trenton. It was a female but never identified. Might this sort of thing have been more common back then? I don't know. The biggest issue with the identity was Lindbergh's haste to cremate the body combined with the fact that many children had no idea who their real parents were. For Aimee, I think her search is something we would all do if we found ourselves in her situation in order to come to a conclusion about the matter. As of now she hasn't seen anything to dissuade her.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 26, 2013 20:49:20 GMT -5
The "horizontal curl" was very apparent..even as an adult. This is a photo of my dad in the Navy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2013 6:40:53 GMT -5
I am not sure if I was ever specific or not concerning my theory - or perhaps I hadn't come to it yet during our discussions (?) I really don't know so I can't say I do. So at the "risk" of repeating myself, I believe the child was dropped or thrown from a car. Once this occurred, it either wound up directly on the road or on its shoulder. The animals, probably fox, came out of the woods then dragged the body back into the woods where it was found. That left the bag, and few remnants of the corpse inside where that was found accidentally on the shoulder. For me, its further proof the body had been returned there and hadn't been discarded on March 1st in haste. The temporary phone lines ran right past this spot so there was not a dead body in a bag where the men would see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 10:09:29 GMT -5
I think that if there were any haste in this crime, this is the aspect that would require it. There was great risk involved with discarding the corpse so tossing it quickly from a car makes sense.
Your theory does pose some questions I hope you can address:
1) Was the burlap bag found right side out or inside out?
2) Were any bone fragments or hair found leading from where the bag was to where the body was found by William Allen? If the corpse was dragged from the roadside location wouldn't some of the small bones from hands or feet have been lost along the trail used to get the body where it was found?
3) There were a number of items found near the corpse such as the burlap strips, a tablecloth, etc. How do we account for these items being there, including the newspaper dated March 1, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2013 12:56:31 GMT -5
1) Was the burlap bag found right side out or inside out? (Amy) That's a good question. The bag itself had been used for at least (3) different purposes. First to hold powdered milk, then animal food, possibly the child on the night of the crime and lastly to hold the corpse of the child. When Det. Fitzgerald got to the spot where the child's corpse had been discovered he pulled over his car. Right at his feet was that burlap bag which he told Sgt. Zapolsky to pick up. They then went directly into the woods to view the corpse. By some accounts it was "50 feet" and by others it was "25 yards." The Press Release said "75 yards" but that was an error. The Squibb Report says the bag was turned over to them "inside out." We don't know what the Police may have done between the time it was picked up and the time it was turned over to Squibb. But once Squibb rec'd it, they had found oats in the seem on the outside (which by design was the inside) and some leaves, twigs, hairs (both human & animal) along with a small bone from the child's foot. While I'm sure its possible the Police emptied the bag to see what was in it first - I have no idea if they did. But if they had it could also be possible they turned it inside out and left it that way or returned it back to the way it was discovered. They may have done nothing at all but simply hold it as it was then turn it over. Its all speculation because I have no source to say what actually did happen. (Squibb Report can be found uploaded on Ronelle's site here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/squibb.pdf) 2) Were any bone fragments or hair found leading from where the bag was to where the body was found by William Allen? If the corpse was dragged from the roadside location wouldn't some of the small bones from hands or feet have been lost along the trail used to get the body where it was found? (Amy) I don't know that either. As you can see from the Squibb Report, the NJSP turned over a whole bunch of material for them to sift through and examine. Some came directly from the "grave" site but other materials from "a considerable radius" around that site. A source says the material was taken to the Lindbergh Garage to dry so that it could then be "submitted for chemical analysis." I know of no "drag marks" being seen, and if there were I haven't seen any record of it. I personally believe the child was discarded between April 2nd and May 12th - most likely a couple of weeks before he was discovered. I think it would all depend on both the timing and the weather if marks would be visible. 3) There were a number of items found near the corpse such as the burlap strips, a tablecloth, etc. How do we account for these items being there, including the newspaper dated March 1, 1932? (Amy) In the beginning I felt it was a "framed" situation to make it appear the child had been there the whole time. That is how I accounted for the Newspaper. However, Steve has always said it was planted by a Reporter in order to create a "scoop" and/or publicity for their paper. There was a shovel found on the other side of the Road which did turn out to be a "plant." I know about the Reporters doing stuff like this and since its happened before then this was quite possible. The other items could have been from Locals. There are numerous reports of people living nearby throwing trash where ever they felt like it, digging up shrubs from the woods, training dogs, looking for mushrooms, hiding stolen items, or just walking in and around these woods and general area. Additionally, it could have been passersby discarding items that wound up there.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 27, 2013 13:54:04 GMT -5
Given the time of year the body was presumably left in the woods,--late winter, with spring just three weeks away--it strikes me as highly unlikely the decomposing body would have remained in the same place for so long given all the hungry animals looking to feed not only for themselves but for their "newborns", as the warm weather approached. This has always been an issue with me, and it ought to have been an issue in Hauptmann's defense. I don't recall his lawyer, Reilly, bringing it up, but if it should have been, and if an expert been called to state the near impossibility of the child's body remaining in one place, so neatly, for so many weeks at that time of year, while this would not itself have exonerated Hauptmann it would have raised issues, such as whether he had an accomplice as well as,--my pet hypothesis--the likelihood that there was help from some member of the household staff, as where the body was found was literally within sight of the Lindbergh estate.
Michael: wasn't Hauptmann was up on first degree murder charges and only first degree murder? He wasn't being charged with possession of the ransom money (obviously guilty or lying, as he had it in his possession); nor with being an accomplice (he denied any involvement in the crime, including after the crime extortion,--a separate offense) in the kidnapping but as the sole perp. If doubts could have been cast as to even just the extreme unlikelihood of Hauptmann doing literally everything all by himself, this would raise doubts not about his absolute innocence in the Lindbergh case but as to his being the sole perp or the perp at all where the death of the child was concerned. The state of New Jersey threw the book at Hauptmann and raised the stakes to all or nothing at all. I think that this was a terrible mistake. Did they have to "get Hauptmann for everything"? They could easily have got him for something, including being a co-conspirator in the kidnapping itself, especially as his "Fisch story" was a tough one to swallow. Hauptmann could have been put away for a long time for all this, and I (and I think most of us here) would have little difficulty in accepting Hauptmann as guilty of something as opposed to the extreme, near Calvinist "guilty of everything".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 20:35:21 GMT -5
Squibb mentions the wording "animal food" being stamped onto the bag. I am wondering where the powdered milk use comes into play. Squibb does not mention this in their report. Is the powdered milk related to the "0224 O.J.L." that is stamped on the bag near the top?
Perhaps they did just that. Since the oats were sprouting they must have become exposed to light at some point. Also the coal dust and that foot bone were not dislodged so manipulation of this bag could have been minimal by the police.
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to say was if animals were pulling the body into the woods, could some of the bones have become separated from the body along the path used by the animals. We know the corpse was missing hands, part of an arm and a leg with its foot. I suppose these parts could have been pulled off by the animals who then made off with them. Would it have been possible for the whole skeleton to stay together until it was in the woods?
I agree with this. I think the soil deposits on the bones plus the matted leaves take time to happen. My problem with how long the body was there stems from the burlap bag beside the road. How long could it possibly have remained laying there once the corpse had been pulled out of it? There would be no weight in it to keep it from being blown away by passing cars or windy weather. Could it really have laid there for several weeks?
When William Allen was questioned did he say anything about seeing the burlap bag along the roadside? Or, could the burlap bag have been near the body originally but was picked up by Allen or Wilson and placed by the roadside to mark the location of where they found the corpse. This would have aided them when bringing the Hopewell police to the site.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 27, 2013 20:56:03 GMT -5
Michael, We know that CAL missed his March 1st NYU dinner engagement. Was Brekinridge at the dinner? If not, any idea where he was?
|
|
|
Post by gary2 on Jul 28, 2013 10:27:49 GMT -5
All good stuff to consider. The question I have is why? I still find it hard to believe someone would risk discovery of the corpse in his car for the purpose of the Lindbergh family closure. I guess if the criminal had Lindbergh connections I could see. Why would this criminal care to stop further attempts to extort money ?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 28, 2013 11:56:26 GMT -5
Also, Gary, why would the criminal, knowing that the dead body was in the woods off the road near the Lindbergh estate, negotiate with a stranger in the Bronx cemetery knowing that the child's body could already have been found and that he was being set up?
The only way the kidnapper could do this with any confidence, especially given the complicated business of the types of bills he was demanding, the size of the box they were to be delivered in, would be if he still had the child, even if it was dead, in his possession, which would give him a measure of certainty that Lindbergh and his associates would do precisely as they were told so as to ensure the safety of the presumably still alive and well child.
Even if Hauptmann was involved, whether primarily as a ladder maker, driver and go-between or an extortionist with little knowledge of what had actually occurred the night of the kidnapping, he'd have had to have a reason for being as bold as he was when dealing with Condon. With the specter of the body in the woods hanging over his head, how could Hauptmann/Cemtery John (depending on which scenario one believes) have continued with his plans of fleecing Lindbergh knowing that he could be arrested at any moment?
There's an "as if" aspect to Cemetery John's dealings with Condon, as in CJ is dealing with Condon as if it was impossible for Condon or anyone else to know during the period in which the negotiations were being conducted that the child was dead, therefore I can't help but surmise that CJ had to know that the discovery of the child's body would be impossible during that period because it had yet to be deposited in the woods.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 28, 2013 13:06:47 GMT -5
Is there a chance the babys skull was cracked after he died, like from being thrown out of a moving car?
|
|
|
Post by gary2 on Jul 28, 2013 13:25:55 GMT -5
I think the suggestion is the baby would be dumped as mentioned after the ransom was paid. What is the description of a shallow grave? It gives me the picture in my mind that it was placed there with a bad attempt to bury the child. Michael do you still believe there is any significance to the newspaper found near the shallow grave?
John, talking about CJ. Sue showed us a picture of Fisch's hand and it is huge. The cough etc etc all give signs more Fisch than Hauptmann. As Michael mentioned these kind of things will never be known because the investigation was to nail Hauptmann at all cost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -5
Without a doubt, this is a very risky thing to do. I am not sure if doing this was to bring closure for the Lindberghs or not. It would seem so because it did bring an end to extortion attempts and the Lindberghs could begin the process of mourning and moving on with their lives. I get stuck with this point because why would a kidnapper want to help the family who he victimized to begin with. He steals and murders their child, extorts money and then feels that he needs to help them this way. It just doesn't add up for me.
On the other hand, perhaps it was an act of final cruelty to the Lindberghs. This person could not continue to keep possession of the corpse anyway so instead of burying it so it would never be found, he decides to dump it out in an area that is used for disposing of trash. Realizing that eventually it might be discovered amongst the other discarded items, a final message of contempt by the kidnapper would certainly be communicated by this act.
If you go back and read over the ransom notes, you have summed them up nicely in one sentence!!
|
|