|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 20, 2014 20:32:27 GMT -5
This is part of why I think for the first month or so (March 1 to very early April) the body was kept somewhere else. Maybe someone's cellar or basement or buried somewhere in the surrounding countryside. I think once the $50K had been handed over at St. Raymond's, the body was then disinterred and dumped at that roadside turnout on Mt. Rose for a quick discovery, but animals then dragged it into the woods where it was scavenged and remained until it's discovery on May 12.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 20, 2014 20:41:50 GMT -5
don't buy it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 20, 2014 21:29:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 22:42:42 GMT -5
This is part of why I think for the first month or so (March 1 to very early April) the body was kept somewhere else. Maybe someone's cellar or basement or buried somewhere in the surrounding countryside. I think once the $50K had been handed over at St. Raymond's, the body was then disinterred and dumped at that roadside turnout on Mt. Rose for a quick discovery, but animals then dragged it into the woods where it was scavenged and remained until it's discovery on May 12. When you say the animals dragged it into the woods, do you mean while the body was still in the bag it was dragged into the woods? You also mention it being dumped at the roadside turnout. Are you saying it was dumped at the what looks like an entrance/parking area for cars?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 20, 2014 23:12:36 GMT -5
Romeo: Didn't ask you.
Amy: I think the body and the bag were dumped at the turnout/parking area on Mt. Rose Rd., sometime very soon after April 2 (the ransom payment date), almost certainly at night, for a quick discovery. But I think sometime before daybreak that first night, the body was dragged into the woods and scavenged by animals, so it wasn't found for almost another month-and-a-half. Either A) the body was taken out of the bag and left at the turnout, the bag discarded nearby, the body then dragged back into the woods by scavengers to the spot where it was finally found; or B) the body in the bag was dumped as a single unit at the turnout, animals then shaking the body out of the bag and dragging it back into the woods, leaving the bag more or less where it was. Of these two, I would tend to favor 'A', since the bag probably would've been torn had 'B' occurred. Just what it looks like to me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2014 7:13:48 GMT -5
LJ and I are on the same page - here is my theory on it: 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.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 21, 2014 8:29:46 GMT -5
I thought it was a open board, I gave my opinion lightning jew
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 8:59:20 GMT -5
So let me see if I am understanding you: According to scenario A, the body was taken out of the bag at the turnout area and then the bag is discarded nearby, the body is dragged back into the wooded area by animals to the spot it is found. If this is the way it happened, I need to be clear on a few things:
1) Was the body taken out of the bag by a person or by by the scavengers who happened upon it?
2) When you say the bag was discarded nearby, that sounds like a person has dropped it nearby. Is that what you are saying?
3) If the body (minus the bag) is dragged from the turnout/parking area into the woods by animals then wouldn't the animals have needed to drag the corpse across the creek to get to the spot where the body was found?
Also, why do you think that the body was dumped shortly after April 2 and not later?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 9:13:08 GMT -5
LJ and I are on the same page - here is my theory on it: 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. So, I am going to ask you the same question I asked LJ: 1) Is the body dumped in the bag and left that way or did a person remove the body from the bag and leave it out in the open? I agree that the corpse was not discarded on the night of March 1. I believe it was kept securely hidden until after the ransom was paid. At the moment, I tend to think the body was discarded much closer to the date it was found. If the whole point of dumping the body was so it would be found, why not leave it in something more noticeable and attention getting like a wooden crate. This way the animals would not have been able to drag it away so easily defeating the purpose of dumping it along the road to be found by people instead of animals?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2014 10:15:34 GMT -5
So, I am going to ask you the same question I asked LJ: 1) Is the body dumped in the bag and left that way or did a person remove the body from the bag and leave it out in the open? This idea first came to me years ago from something I read in the source material that apparently all of these other Experts on the case missed, or never came across. Without revealing what that is yet, I can say it made sense since the body was discovered partially buried in the way it was found and separated from the bag which was almost in a straight line from where the corpse was discovered in the woods but on the side of the road. Since it doesn't make any sense that animals dragged the bag towards the road then going into the bag then dragging the corpse into the woods is all we are left with. At the time the area was crawling with Police, and it's my guess they dropped the bag from a car they were driving and most likely never even stopped. I don't believe they considered animals finding it before someone else did most especially because the Police patrolled the phone lines that had been run along that very stretch.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 21, 2014 10:51:15 GMT -5
Turnout/parking area on a remote rural road in 1932? Kind of doubt that such a thing would exist at the time.
Don't think it would be in the selfish and sinister interests of kidnappers/extortionists to have a "quick discovery." How would a "quick discovery" benefit them? From their point of view, burying the body would be a wiser move, allowing months or even years for the discovery (Remember Chandra Levy?) And if the bad guys could do it, would they even be better off if they cremated the body?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 11:32:06 GMT -5
Putting aside what you can't reveal yet, would it not be possible that Charlie was placed where he was found and then the bag dropped from the passing car in the spot that was more or less inline with the corpse? This bag became a sort of marker to where the body would be found. How can a corpse that has been dragged into the woods by animals end up directly in line with the burlap bag found along the road? Especially if several weeks have gone by from the time the bag was dropped until the time William Allen happened upon it on May 12th? This is one of the things that bothers me the most with this scenario. Hurtelable, Here is link to an aerial location of where Charlie's body was found. Where you see the white fence is where the turnout area is in the road. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS258279-Charles-Lindbergh-/250a8882071740a39cbf8799f0e12751/1/0
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 21, 2014 11:36:32 GMT -5
Amy: I think the body was either taken out of the bag by the kidnappers, the bag tossed away nearby, but animals dragged the body into the woods and scavenged it, or, as Michael says, the body was dumped in the bag, animals pulling the body out and dragging it back into the woods, leaving the bag more or less where it was. I don't think it would've been too difficult to get the body across a creek--particularly if it was just a trickle or small stream; more of a creek bed than a small river. At least, that's how I always pictured it. Either way, I think this happened very soon after the ransom payment date of April 2 because, once Lindbergh paid the kidnappers the $50K ransom, they returned the body, dumping it at the Mt. Rose roadside. And Hurt, from aerial photos of the area, it looks like there was indeed some kind of roadside lot or turnout area where cars could pull over, and this is where the body was discovered-- caseneverdies.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-01-31T14:42:00-08:00&max-results=7 . Scroll down to 'Hide In Plain Sight', 3/9/12. Now, why would the kidnappers want a quick discovery of the body? I think it was part of the plan all along--to have the body discovered for closure to the case, so the world could move on, but there was something of a detour to this point: Lindbergh had to pay and extra $50K. Once that was done, the kidnappers dumped the body.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 21, 2014 14:53:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the AP photo, amy35. I had never heard specifically of that turnout/parking area until now. But I'm still puzzled as to why the kidnappers/extortionists would choose the location of the body dump so as to make it quickly discoverable, rather than just bury it in the woods, or (even better for them) cremate it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 21, 2014 16:37:57 GMT -5
Okay, well, my current thinking on the case--and I realize many others may disagree, but, for now, this is where I'm at with the whole thing--is that there was something physically and developmentally wrong with CAL Jr. which the hyper-perfectionist eugenicist Lindbergh couldn't tolerate. So he arranged for his son to be euthanized and to disguise this as a kidnapping gone wrong. Why an elaborate kidnapping? Why not just throw CAL Jr. down the stairs or "accidentally" drown him in the tub, and keep the whole thing quiet? Not possible. The disappearance and/or death of CAL Jr. would be page-one news no matter what the circumstances. There was no getting away from that, but it couldn't be the result of a simple household "accident", since Lindbergh could never be seen as a negligent parent. So then, CAL Jr.'s disappearance and subsequent death had to be the apparent work of uncontrollable outside forces--i.e., a kidnapping. I think Lindbergh enlisted Betty Gow for this, as the person with the closest access to CAL Jr. I think he lied to her, telling her the baby would just be sent away to an institution or something, where his needs could be better handled, but the only way to do this without negative publicity was to have CAL Jr. "kidnapped" and hidden away. Anyway, I think the plan was for CAL Jr.'s body to ultimately turn up to bring closure to the case, so people would stop looking for him, so imposters would be discouraged and so no one would try to extort Lindbergh later; so Anne Lindbergh could mourn and move on, and when the body was too decomposed for any physical problems to be glaring. But Lindbergh's kidnappers went rogue: I think they decided they wanted an addition to what Lindbergh had already paid them upfront and extorted the $50K "ransom" by treating it like a real ransom, like this whole thing was an actual kidnapping. I think the kidnappers knew (or knew of) Condon and approached him for this purpose, legitimizing him as a go-between by putting him in possession of a note with the same secret symbol as in the nursery ransom note. Under those circumstances, on what basis could Lindbergh reject Condon as a go-between and not give him the $50K to pass on to the kidnappers? Anyway, once Lindbergh complied and paid the $50K, the kidnappers carried out the rest of his original plan: Dumping the body near Highfields for a quick discovery, for closure, but there was a hitch: Animals dragged the corpse into the woods, so it wasn't found for another month-and-a-half. In a nutshell, that's my current theory on the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 17:56:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the AP photo, amy35. I had never heard specifically of that turnout/parking area until now. But I'm still puzzled as to why the kidnappers/extortionists would choose the location of the body dump so as to make it quickly discoverable, rather than just bury it in the woods, or (even better for them) cremate it. This kidnapping is not like a regular kidnapping where someone or maybe a gang decide to snatch a child, collect a ransom and either return the child or permanently dispose of the child once the money is obtained. If it were, Charlie would never have been placed where he could be found. When you read LJ's summation of his theory you see that an arranged killing is disguised as a kidnapping. Part of that arrangement is that the body would be returned. This then assures that Lindbergh would not be subject to continuous extortion attempts by people who claim to have the child or have contact with those who do but want money in order to get him returned. Having Charlie found dead ends any futher attempts of this nature. It allows the Lindberghs (especially Anne) to mourn their loss and to move on with their lives leaving all this behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 18:03:30 GMT -5
I am going to ask you the same thing I put in my post to Michael. How does this burlap bag with not much in it stay in the same place for a month and a half? What keeps it from being blown farther down the road or across the street or something? A month and a half is a long time for a bag to sit in one place by the side of the road.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 21, 2014 18:53:55 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughts on the clothing issues, amy35 and lightningjew.
There are a couple of things I find inconsistent with Amy's narrative.
(1) In the police photo of the child's body in the woods shown in the centerpiece of Lloyd Gardner's book (which is the only photo of the corpse I've ever seen, BTW), there is a zoom-in enlargement of part of the chest showing part of the inner flannel undershirt. The impression is that what's left of that shirt was that it was much too small to cover the baby's chest. There is also no indication on that photo of any outer store-bought undershirt. Had the police cut off that outer undershirt before the photo was snapped? If so, it would be an obvious violation of police protocol, since the evidence has to be photographed as initially discovered.
(2) I don't understand how the baby's lungs had been eaten out by the wild animals (according to the autopsy report, the thoracic organs except for the heart were missing) and yet there were supposedly two somewhat intact undershirts. This sounds contradictory.
I agree with your assessment. Totally. Not only was the heart there, but according to the report, so was the liver. That makes no sense at all. Also, the only shirt I see in that photo is the one sewn up by Betty. The store-bought shirt was reportedly woolen. Where is it on this little body? It should be OVER the flannel with the scallops. I don't see it. Does anyone see it?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 21, 2014 19:11:31 GMT -5
I am going to ask you the same thing I put in my post to Michael. How does this burlap bag with not much in it stay in the same place for a month and a half? What keeps it from being blown farther down the road or across the street or something? A month and a half is a long time for a bag to sit in one place by the side of the road. At the risk of sounding totally ignorant, WHAT BURLAP BAG?
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Sept 21, 2014 20:07:30 GMT -5
I always felt the body was emptied out of the bag since the top bone of the hand was in the bag and the lower portion of the same hand was not recovered!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2014 20:17:53 GMT -5
Putting aside what you can't reveal yet, would it not be possible that Charlie was placed where he was found and then the bag dropped from the passing car in the spot that was more or less inline with the corpse? This bag became a sort of marker to where the body would be found. How can a corpse that has been dragged into the woods by animals end up directly in line with the burlap bag found along the road? Especially if several weeks have gone by from the time the bag was dropped until the time William Allen happened upon it on May 12th? This is one of the things that bothers me the most with this scenario. At one time I considered that as an option. But as I gradually accumulated documentation, then focused more on the evidence we all have and can see, I believe I've put 2 and 2 together. The shallow grave, and the debate about it, ends once considering the animals covered up the corpse in this way. There's evidence the corpse was partially consumed by animals. There's evidence of (at least) one animal inside of the bag. There's a bone still in the bag and as Rab put it, that "wouldn't have fallen off a fresh corpse." Once separated, animals wouldn't go for the bag - they'd go for the corpse. It then becomes a question of logic and of odds - concerning what possibilities exist that make the most amount of sense. What is the Kidnapper's intent, and what is the minimal risk needed to reach whatever goal they hope to achieve? I have less of a problem concerning this bag not being blown away then I think you do, but if its a 'deal breaker' then simply adjust the body's return later instead of immediately after the ransom payment, and that should work. The timing is one that can always be debated regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2014 20:22:03 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding totally ignorant, WHAT BURLAP BAG? Here's a picture of it found on Ronelle's site:
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 21, 2014 20:32:13 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. This is the very first time I've heard of this, and I'm old.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 22, 2014 11:44:46 GMT -5
To All:
"Arranged killing disguised as a kidnapping."!!! If true, it's absolutely incredible that the Lindberghs could perpetrate a hoax in the minds of almost the entire world, a hoax that largely persists in the minds of most today, 82 years after the fact. And if true, in so doing, the Lindberghs and co-conspirators literally got away with murder.
Unless law enforcement was entirely corrupt, though, I still don't think that any perpetrators of an "arranged killing" would opt for a body that was easily found by police. When contemplating how to dispose of the body of a murder victim, the perps would surely have known that prosecutors statistically have a much better chance of convicting defendant(s) of murder when a body is found as opposed to when it isn't.
Using this logic, you would have to think that the perps were in some kind of a hurry when they dropped the dead body when and where they did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 14:05:38 GMT -5
If you read carefully through LJ's theory then you will see that only CAL is really aware of what is going on. Don't say the whole family knew!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 14:26:12 GMT -5
Putting aside what you can't reveal yet, would it not be possible that Charlie was placed where he was found and then the bag dropped from the passing car in the spot that was more or less inline with the corpse? This bag became a sort of marker to where the body would be found. How can a corpse that has been dragged into the woods by animals end up directly in line with the burlap bag found along the road? Especially if several weeks have gone by from the time the bag was dropped until the time William Allen happened upon it on May 12th? This is one of the things that bothers me the most with this scenario. At one time I considered that as an option. But as I gradually accumulated documentation, then focused more on the evidence we all have and can see, I believe I've put 2 and 2 together. The shallow grave, and the debate about it, ends once considering the animals covered up the corpse in this way. There's evidence the corpse was partially consumed by animals. There's evidence of (at least) one animal inside of the bag. There's a bone still in the bag and as Rab put it, that "wouldn't have fallen off a fresh corpse." Once separated, animals wouldn't go for the bag - they'd go for the corpse. It then becomes a question of logic and of odds - concerning what possibilities exist that make the most amount of sense. What is the Kidnapper's intent, and what is the minimal risk needed to reach whatever goal they hope to achieve? I have less of a problem concerning this bag not being blown away then I think you do, but if its a 'deal breaker' then simply adjust the body's return later instead of immediately after the ransom payment, and that should work. The timing is one that can always be debated regardless. So, Michael, do you know why when the NJSP turned the burlap bag over to Squibb for examination the cardboard tag tied to the bag said that the burlap bag was found near body of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. in woodland off Princeton Hopewell Road in Mt. Rose Mercer County NJ on May 12th 1932? Why no mention of it being found on the side of the road?? I am not aware of evidence that at least one animal was found inside the bag. That is new for me. I am aware of the bone found in the bag and keep a copy of Rab's excellent post on this finding in my file. How true that bones don't fall off of a fresh corpse. When you look at the graveside photos of the body most all of it appears to be in advanced decay........except the head. It still had enough facial tissue to make an unofficial ID of Charlie. This seems rather odd considering how the rest of the corpse appears. I will rethink this bag issue a bit based on the discard timeline and some other things.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 22, 2014 16:04:01 GMT -5
Indeed. I don't think the entire family would've been involved. I of course think Lindbergh knew, and perhaps someone he approached to organize this for him, to apply degrees of separation--a "Mr. X" higher-up in government that Lindbergh could've known by virtue of his father having been a congressman, his father-in-law an ambassador--I think this person would've known. But while I think Betty Gow knew something, I think she was duped. Same with Condon. I think only Lindbergh, his "Mr. X" organizer, and possibly the 2-3 "kidnappers" the organizer recruited from the Bronx had all the pieces to the puzzle. As to the others--Gow, Condon--I can't imagine them breathing a word about what they did know.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 22, 2014 16:36:46 GMT -5
To all:
The only gravesite photo of the body I've seen is in the centerpiece of Lloyd Gardner's book.
Can you folks please post or link me to other such photos, if possible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 19:36:00 GMT -5
To all:
The only gravesite photo of the body I've seen is in the centerpiece of Lloyd Gardner's book.
Can you folks please post or link me to other such photos, if possible?
Try searching here: jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/evdnc1.html
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 22, 2014 19:37:01 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, lightningjew, but your theory seems to be that this "kidnapping" was really an "arranged killing" arranged by CAL Sr., based upon Lindbergh's eugenic ideas and the fact that Charlie had medical problems too disabling to merit anything but euthanasia.
If you are correct, Charles A. Lindbergh was really a sicko fiend, planning out the murder of his baby son. It makes one wonder if he ever had any religious or moral instruction as a youngster himself. (My guess is that he did.) I don't even know of mass murderers who would kill their own child. And although Nazi doctrine supported mercy killings of the "unfit", I don't even know of even one Nazi bigwig, even those involved in mass murders and genocide, who killed his own baby.
As for Cal Sr. having connections to bigwigs in government, there is no doubt you are correct on that. He wouldn't have needed his late father's pals nor his late father-in-law's pals, since he hobnobbed with politicians and high society since he became a huge celeb in the wake of his historic trans-Atlantic flight in 1927. But with all the law enforcement agencies - federal, state, and local - involved in the investigation of the "kidnapping", it would take much more than one "Mr. X" in government to allow Lindbergh to get away with murder. Certainly not President Herbert Hoover, who, despite his questionable economic policies, was a genuine humanitarian.
I don't see Anne Morrow Lindbergh as acquiescing to her husband's "arranged killing," even though, if your theory is correct, she didn't know in advance what was to come off. But I can buy the Noel Behn theory that the baby was killed unintentionally a few days earlier than the reported "kidnapping," and that the "kidnapping" was a ruse staged to protect the baby's aunt from intolerable revelations.
|
|