|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 5, 2013 13:17:27 GMT -5
Michael, could you refresh my memory about the child's remains that the State Police had on display. Why were some of his bones not cremated with the rest of his body since no further testing could be done back then? (I can not find anything explaining this)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2013 18:58:14 GMT -5
Michael, could you refresh my memory about the child's remains that the State Police had on display. Why were some of his bones not cremated with the rest of his body since no further testing could be done back then? (I can not find anything explaining this) The actual corpse was discovered on May 12th then cremated on May 13th. The Police dug up soil and collected leaves in the immediate area the corpse was discovered. These items were sent to E. R. Squbb & Sons Biological Laboratories in New Brunskwick, N.J. for examination on May 23rd. Everything that had been turned over to them, and what they discovered among these items - were retained until the family requested to have it returned not long ago.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 5, 2013 21:21:27 GMT -5
Am I mistaken or did the State police have small bone pieces in what looked like glass bottles that the family took some years back? It doesent mention this in the report from the lab.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 6, 2013 6:08:56 GMT -5
That the baby's body was cremated the NEXT DAY strikes me as near fantastic, unbvelievable, but this is a 21st century man's perspective. This was a murder case,--a grave matter (no pun intended there)--and the father should not have had the power to have his dead son's body cremated so quickly. Once more: what makes the LKC so difficult to get to the bottom of is (all rise) Lindbergh himself, his involvement, his control over all crucial aspects of the case.
John (had to, once again, weigh in on this)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2013 7:01:55 GMT -5
Am I mistaken or did the State police have small bone pieces in what looked like glass bottles that the family took some years back? It doesent mention this in the report from the lab. No, you aren't mistaken. Everything contained in those vials was found by the NJSP sifting the dirt and collecting the leaves at the grave site. The corpse had already been cremated by the time any of it even went to Squibb. Upon the return of these items, and what Squibb was able to separate from them, was kept by the NJSP. In fact, during the Lindbergh Claimant "craze" back in the 70s and 80s, they had these items re-examined by Dr. Krogman in 1977, then by Dr. Bass in 1982. Here is a link from Ronelle's site which should explain it: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/bassreport.pdfThere is absolutely no doubt (zero) that these specimens were legitimate. That the baby's body was cremated the NEXT DAY strikes me as near fantastic, unbvelievable, but this is a 21st century man's perspective. This was a murder case,--a grave matter (no pun intended there)--and the father should not have had the power to have his dead son's body cremated so quickly. Once more: what makes the LKC so difficult to get to the bottom of is (all rise) Lindbergh himself, his involvement, his control over all crucial aspects of the case. John (had to, once again, weigh in on this) Glad you did because many people were scratching their heads over this move. The "official" explanation for this action was, from what I found at the Archives, is this was done because they were afraid grave robbers or morbid curiosity seekers would dig the body up if he had been buried.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 6, 2013 10:54:32 GMT -5
Thank you, after reading the material I now remember reading over this once before. There is so much information that the mind gets boggled after awhile....lol. Ok one more question and I promise to leave you alone... The burlap bag that was recovered at the scene, was that found when the corpse was recovered or when the police raked up the area afterwards? www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/burlapbag1.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2013 16:47:01 GMT -5
The burlap bag that was recovered at the scene, was that found when the corpse was recovered or when the police raked up the area afterwards?http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/burlapbag1.jpg Ask me anything you like. Sometimes I am quicker to answer then others... I am falling behind in the other discussion but I will eventually catch up! To answer your question: The bag was discovered on the side of the road at about the point where they went into the woods in order to get to the grave site - on May 12th. So it was in their possession even before the corpse was removed from the shallow grave.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 9, 2013 10:30:50 GMT -5
Does anyone know which side the bag is being held by. To me it looks like the bottom?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 12:30:37 GMT -5
It is difficult to tell by the photo but based on what the Squibb report says about this bag I believe it is being held from the top. The report says in section V Examination of Burlap Bag:
(1) Markings a) Stencil "0224 O.J.L. on inside of bag as received 12" for top.
When the lab received the bag it was turned inside out.
What are your thoughts on the bag?
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 10, 2013 13:36:06 GMT -5
The bag raises some questions for sure. First off you cant help but wonder if in fact this bag was left close to the road as if it was a marker to show where the body was. Second the findings of the loose bones somehow don't add up. In the report it states that a finger bone from the right hand was found in that bag along with hair. At the scene of the body additional right hand finger bones were found mixed with leaves loose on the ground. Now in the report it states that the right forearm was missing completely. I cant seem to understand how the lower bone below the pinky was the bone in the bag when finger bones above that on the hand were found at the scene.
Could it be possible that child was decomposed in the bag having someone dump it under that tree. If you were to grab the side and bottom to turn it upside down to empty the contents it could be possible the side they grabbed was where the hand was, causing detachment of that lower bone?
Another question is if that bag was inside out from the police or did they find it that way?
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 10, 2013 14:03:35 GMT -5
It seems to me that whoever placed the body in the bag in the woods wanted it to be found just the way it was. If Hauptman was the lone perp and wanted the child dead, as prosecutor Wilentz contended, then he ought to have been clever enough to have disposed of the body so that it could never be found. Indeed, this thought should have been uppermost in Hauptmann's mind, as his goal was to extort money from Lindbergh under a false pretense. According to Wilentz, the child was murdered, didn't die accidentally, yet his murderer drops the baby's body off the road, driving in the opposite direction from where he lives, increasing the likelihood of capture, with the knowledge that there could be (if Lindbergh doesn't follow his orders per the ransom note) a massive search, a thorough combing of the area around the Lindbergh home for several miles by the police and private citizens. Lindbergh was a national figure, a hero. Hauptmann knew all this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 17:18:59 GMT -5
E.R. Squibb laboratories has connections to Warburgs. Dr. Carl Warburg in 19th century-- Warburg Tincture was one of their products, but more recently Dr. Otto Warburg, Nobel Prize-winning chemist 1931 was interacting with them, AND the July 1931 "Kane Republican" newspaper has a front page that contains the names E.R. Squibb and James P. Warburg, your kidnapper. The lab had the body & effects of the victim, a crucial moment. If someone will pay the fee, that Warburg-Squibb page one material 7 months prior to the kidnapping may reveal something. There's a historical "conversation" going on between them, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 16:33:17 GMT -5
I asked Michael this question back in July of this year and this is what he told me about the bag: 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.
I hope this answers your question.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 11, 2013 23:41:19 GMT -5
Thanks Amy, I also thought at first the bone in the bag was a foot bone, but according to the lab report it turned out to be from the hand. I am thinking since the size was reported as 20mm there is a good chance that it was also lodged in a corner near the seam.
I don't believe that this was the Lindbergh Child.
1. Take a close look at the skull, for a child with a full head of wavy hair this corpse is bald. The skull does not seem to be chewed away so where is all his hair? Only some hairs were found.
2. Decomposition of the body is advanced.
3. Not one drop of blood found anywhere.
4. The bone found in the bag in relation to the others does not add up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 18:47:24 GMT -5
I have considered this very thing also. What caused me to doubt the identity of the corpse was the way the toes overlapped on the right foot. It differed from the description Dr. VanIngen stated in his letter to Mrs. Morrow dated May 4, 1932. He only mentioned the small toe of each foot being slightly turned in and overlapping the toe next to it. Plus the one picture I saw of both Charlie's feet in 1931(Hour of Gold Hour of Lead Book)show both small toes being turned in but not the overlapping that is evident in the skeletal remains of the right foot. This did bother me for awhile but then I found this note made by Dr. VanIngen and he supports the condition of the overlapping toes of the corpse as being consistent with the examination he made of Charlie on February 18, 1932. Scroll down on the page to the note. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/viosterol.htmlFor whatever reason, known only to him, he chose not to describe in more detail the condition of Charlie's toes when he wrote that note to Mrs. Morrow. All the other things noted about the corpse are consistent with Dr VanIngen's physical description of Charlie, so for me, it is Charlie they found in the shallow grave on Mount Rose. You mention the lack of hair found. Were you aware that Charlie had a haircut only a couple weeks before he went missing? Mrs. Morrow mentioned it and I also found this newspaper article about it: news.google.com/newspapers?id=2lNZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TEgNAAAAIBAJ&dq=henry%20breckinridge&pg=783%2C4493862It could explain why there was a lack of hair found on Charlie and around him. The advanced decomposition of the corpse and the lack of blood are troubling. I know that Michael spoke about this somewhere on this board. I will try to find it and post it. I don't recall anything definitive ever being established concerning these points. Could you elaborate on your point about the bone in the bag not adding up with the others? I am not understanding what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 12, 2013 20:43:55 GMT -5
In the report it states that a finger bone from the right hand was found in that bag along with hair. At the scene of the body additional right hand finger bones were found mixed with leaves loose on the ground. Now in the report it states that the right forearm was missing completely. I cant seem to understand how the lower bone below the pinky was the bone in the bag when finger bones above that on the hand were found at the scene with that forearm missing.
Could it be possible that child was decomposed in the bag having someone dump it under that tree. If you were to grab the side and bottom to turn it upside down to empty the contents it could be possible the side they grabbed was where the hand was, causing detachment of that lower bone?
It might also explain the inside out bag!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 17:29:57 GMT -5
From what you are saying here, your view is that someone dumped Charlie out of the burlap bag where he was found. This is definitely one way he could have ended up there. Because of the advanced state of decay that the corpse was in, I think it is possible that the finger bone could have become hung up on the fibers of the inside seam of the bag and remained there when the contents were removed from the bag. The position of the corpse (face down) has suggested to me that he was placed that way on purpose. It actually helped to preserve what was left of the facial tissue which aided in the initial identification of Charlie at the scene by Detective Fitzgerald and Sgt. Zapolsky.
I think we should consider the possibility that the bag was inside out when Charlie was in it. You would then have a peeling/pulling downward of the bag from the corpse while it lay on the ground. I think he was lying in a more arranged way rather than a dumping action out of a bag.
We have also discussed the theory that the bagged corpse was dumped from a car near the side of the road and was pulled by wildlife to the place it was found. This would have certainly dislodged parts of the corpse which ended up being carried off by predators.
So many of the events in this case are clouded with uncertainty. This is just one more where we can only speculate how things ended up the way they were found!
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Dec 13, 2013 23:28:04 GMT -5
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Dec 13, 2013 23:42:50 GMT -5
Amy35, It was the left foot that had the squished toes. Also the letter from Dr.VanIngen states "last" February 18th, as if to imply 1931, describing the "replacement childs'" birthdate and physical characteristics so it would complement the information about the corpse they would actually find.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2013 10:33:26 GMT -5
We are in agreement here Aimee. It was the left foot. It was the left foot that was recovered at the grave site not the right. Why Dr. Mitchell recorded it as the right foot I do not know. He also mentions the left hand is missing. Below is a link to photos taken at the grave site. Scroll down until you come to the photos. The corpse is face up. On the left side of the corpse you can see where the left hand is missing and then you can see the left leg with its foot. Dr. Mitchell made an error in his report. Makes you wonder what else he made a mistake about! jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/evdnc1.html
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Dec 14, 2013 15:10:57 GMT -5
It actually appears to be a right foot along side the left side of the body. Perhaps that is because they flipped the body over and the right leg remained? If so, that also appears to be a close up photo of right toes?? Showing no curling or squishiness?? Also..pretty big nose bone? It was also a know fact that the baby they found had rotted teeth, Charlie Jr. did not.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 14, 2013 18:25:04 GMT -5
Aimee, I agree about the nose. The bone to me appeared higher than Charlie's nose. If you compare the close up photo of him and the corpse photo you can see a difference.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Dec 15, 2013 18:27:11 GMT -5
Yes, the nose bone is higher and bigger, with a point. As for why the left foot is missing, it would have been the deciding factor that the toddler's body they found in the woods was not Charlie Jr.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2013 23:55:38 GMT -5
Why do you think that the left foot would have been the deciding factor in identifing Charlie? If the remains are of the right foot then it definitely has the deformity as described in the autopsy report. The large toe is overlapped by the first two toes of the right foot. Looking at the picture you posted with the inset foot you see 4 toes. The large toe must be underneath the other toes. Dr.VanIngen states that this is consistent with Charlie Jr.
Have you seen a picture of Charlie's left foot? What do you mean by squished toes?
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 17, 2013 9:19:13 GMT -5
Looking at the photo the left leg looks like it is connected to the side of the hip area. Looking lower at what appears to be the ankle bone, the bones below that are facing downward. Maybe Aimee is right and it is the opposite leg!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2013 14:10:31 GMT -5
That is how I thought it looked also in both pictures at the gravesite which is why I thought it was the left leg. When thinking about this and how the corpse was found face down you would think that the leg would have been facing downward also if it was attached to the hip. Upon turning the corpse over from right to left the leg would have needed to become dettached for it to appear as a left leg in the photos. I am wondering why the leg appears turned in the direction that a left leg would be and not a right? I believe that the corpse was turned over once when the police first arrived at the scene and made the facial identification of Charlie by comparing a photograph with the face of the corspe. They then turned him back to his original position. When other officers arrived on the scene the corpse was then turned over again so that the clothing could be removed. With so much manipulation of the remains it is possible that the right leg ended up looking like the left leg in the photographs.
What remains important here is that the overlapping toe condition of the corpse's foot is one of the identifiers used to confirm it was Charles Lindbergh Jr. Both Betty Gow and Lindbergh recognized the overlapping toes as being the same as Charlies. Add to that the other characteristics that the corpse shared with Charlie, the larger cranium, the open fontanel, the teeth, the height of the child and very importantly the hair, all remain consistent with Charlie Jr.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Dec 17, 2013 21:26:15 GMT -5
Yes, the body was turned over, that is why the right leg in located next to the left hip. I do not see over lapping toes in the close up photo of the right toes.. I'd like to be very clear here...in regard to Dr. VanIngen's letter to Elizabeth Morrow (Anne's mom,grandma dearest): The baby they found in the cold New Jersey woods had blonde curly hair and his birthdate was February 18, 1931. In the letter it describes the corpse's features, as opposed to Charlie Jr.'s features. Per Dr. VanIngen: 1)The baby is 33" tall and 26lbs....but he should be 34" and 27ilbs. Per Dr. VanIngen 2) The baby has 16 teeth...but ha should have 21 teeth Per Dr. VanIngen 3) The baby's fontanel still may be detectable on the head (**Yes, that's because the baby in the woods was younger than Charlie!)...but should be closed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 9:25:34 GMT -5
How many toes do you see Aimee? I see four. So either one is missing or it is underneath the other toes. Dr. Mitchell saw five.
Let me state that what I say here is shared as my opinion. It is not intended to change what you or anyone thinks or believes. That is up to each individual who comes here to read and/or participate actively on this board. I certainly understand your need to believe as you do and I truly respect it.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Dec 18, 2013 11:55:12 GMT -5
Two things, since the Dr was off on the bones it could be he was referring to the bones in anatomical positions, which medical reports are usually written. (It would be the opposite side of the body). If this is so then what he's referring to as the right side could very well be in actuality the left side. 2). According to the medical report on the loose bones. 4 were found from the left foot, one being the larger bone under the big toe. The big toe bone was not recovered.
Anatomical Position Definition:
This standard position (standing straight, looking forward, arms at your side, and facing forward) keeps everyone on the same page when you’re talking anatomy and physiology.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 23, 2014 1:10:23 GMT -5
The bag raises some questions for sure. First off you cant help but wonder if in fact this bag was left close to the road as if it was a marker to show where the body was. Second the findings of the loose bones somehow don't add up. In the report it states that a finger bone from the right hand was found in that bag along with hair. At the scene of the body additional right hand finger bones were found mixed with leaves loose on the ground. Now in the report it states that the right forearm was missing completely. I cant seem to understand how the lower bone below the pinky was the bone in the bag when finger bones above that on the hand were found at the scene. Could it be possible that child was decomposed in the bag having someone dump it under that tree. If you were to grab the side and bottom to turn it upside down to empty the contents it could be possible the side they grabbed was where the hand was, causing detachment of that lower bone? Another question is if that bag was inside out from the police or did they find it that way? That's an excellent point about was the bag left as a marker to almost direct sometime to the baby. How obviously out of place was the bag in an area being traveled in so frequently while looking for the baby. And with everyone's eyes open why was had someone not stopped sooner to examine it since one of the worlds most famous babies had disappeared from not so far away? It had to have been placed there I think. To lure someone to that place almost. To find the baby. That's what I think. Had it been there all along SOMEBODY would have seen it & investigated sooner. I will have to go back & reread the statements on this.
|
|