|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2014 20:10:19 GMT -5
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?? It was meant only to identify it to the Troopers and this description probably served its purpose. It was the bag found near the corpse. Should have been more specific but I don't see anything nefarious here. 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. I think it's mentioned in several places that animal hairs were found inside, and in the seams of the bag. I know for sure it's in Lane's Report from 1977. He found several hairs still embedded. Some were the child's, and some were from an animal or animals.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 22, 2014 20:19:36 GMT -5
While it was given a free pass at the height of his celebrity, I think it's starting to come out now that Lindbergh was not a very nice man in a lot of ways. Conniving, mechanical, unfeeling, mean spirited, incredibly egotistical. To borrow a phrase used on this board in reference to him, his moral compass didn't have quite the same 'north' as most other people's. That being said, I don't think he would've had to have been a raving lunatic to arrange something like this--not if he genuinely believed it was for the best and was an act of mercy (never mind that The Great Aviator, of superior Nordic stock, could not be seen as having defective offspring). In any case, I think he applied degrees of separation and insulation to himself, finding someone to actually carry this out--quite possibly someone at Treasury or Justice who knew how to take care of things, knew how to find people, pay them off, keep them quiet. This would also be in line with Condon's mention of Cemetery John's remark about a high-level government VIP being involved. Anyway, this is just my personal take on all this, and I'm by no means married to it. I do have to say though, a lot falls into place with this theory and I can't seem to find any significant holes in it--which does not constitute proof of course, but, to me, it's very interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 21:41:39 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I was sure you had a solid basis for mentioning the animal hair in the bag. I am not familiar with the Lane Report done in 1977. It is something I will have to look into.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 21:46:28 GMT -5
I agree, a lot of things do fall into place with your theory. I think it is quite interesting also. I really like the way you have drawn on so much of what has been discussed on this board and put together a solid theory.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 23, 2014 8:40:26 GMT -5
Thanks for your link to the Jim Fisher evidence photos, amy35. Yes, there are three different photos there of the child's corpse lying in the woods, from three different views. One of them is the one also in Gardner's book.
Couldn't help but note that photos 16-24, and only 16-24, are of items noted to have been removed from the NJ State Police archives by the Lindbergh family in 2003. What these particular items of evidence (undershirt, bones, hairs, thumb guard, sleeping suit, etc.) have in common, in contrast to the others, is that they were either presumably either parts of the baby's body or came in direct contact with the baby's body. Just speculating here, but the reason they may have been removed by the Lindbergh family was concerned that modern day investigators might have been able to do DNA testing on these items, and removing them from the custody of the NJSP would have prevented this.
BTW, from the legal and political perspective, perhaps someone can tell us by what right the Lindbergh family had the authority to "remove" these items of physical evidence from the custody of police? Wonder if the police ever contested the Lindbergh family in court over this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 9:31:53 GMT -5
Thanks for your link to the Jim Fisher evidence photos, amy35. Yes, there are three different photos there of the child's corpse lying in the woods, from three different views. One of them is the one also in Gardner's book.
Couldn't help but note that photos 16-24, and only 16-24, are of items noted to have been removed from the NJ State Police archives by the Lindbergh family in 2003. What these particular items of evidence (undershirt, bones, hairs, thumb guard, sleeping suit, etc.) have in common, in contrast to the others, is that they were either presumably either parts of the baby's body or came in direct contact with the baby's body. Just speculating here, but the reason they may have been removed by the Lindbergh family was concern that modern day investigators might have been able to do DNA testing on these items, and removing them from the custody of the NJSP would have prevented this.
BTW, from the legal and political perspective, perhaps someone can tell us by what right the Lindbergh family had the authority to "remove" these items of physical evidence from the custody of police? Wonder if the police ever contested the Lindbergh family in court over this.
A good explanation about this whole removal of these items can be found here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/dna.htmlAnd here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/brace.html#Forensic Items Removed From the West Trenton Archive -
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 23, 2014 14:46:50 GMT -5
It is curious that the bone fragments were removed from Trenton. I think other articles (like Betty's nightshirt) were taken by the family as well. I'm not sure why the Lindbergh Family would do this or why they would do it when they did. It could have been that since there was genetic testing of Lindberghs going on at the time (to identify his German children), it was thought someone might get it into their head to test the bones of CAL Jr. too. If it was/is known among the family that he had a physical problem, this may've come out in such testing and opened a whole can of worms for the family. So removing the fragments could have been to conceal a bone disorder of some kind: The rickets, the oversized head and unclosed fontanel all mentioned in the doctor's report at CAL Jr.'s last physical, plus the fact that the bones were so soft after death that a stick could poke through the skull and, according to trial testimony, the skull came apart "like an orange peel" during the autopsy. I mean, what is going on here? All things being equal, bones don't soften or get mushy after death; they get dry and brittle--skeletons remaining extant and rigid sometimes for centuries. Another member of this board drew my attention to this-- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteogenesis_imperfecta --but I don't know... As has been pointed out, CAL Jr. appears to be a normal child without any significant physical problems apparent, but, then again, any physical problems he may've had could've started to manifest after any films and photos of him were taken.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 23, 2014 20:49:51 GMT -5
To lightningjew, Micahel, amy35, aimee, et al:
I'd bet the ranch that the American Lindbergh family never submitted to genetic testing and would adamantly refuse to do so, unless perhaps ordered by a court.
But aside from the German children, there is another possible reason why the American Lindbergh family "removed" the physical evidence allegedly connected directly to Charlie and his body, which was being preserved for historical reasons by the New Jersey State Police Archives. They realized that if modern-day investigators had an opportunity to do DNA testing on any of Charlie's purported remains or the items that came in contact with those remains, that DNA might lead to a determination that the body found in the woods was not that of little Charlie at all. The ramifications of such a finding would be catastrophic to the reputation of CAL Sr., his legacy, and the entire American Lindbergh family.
As to actual removal of these items from the State Police Archives by order of the attorney general to be given to the Lindbergh family in May 2003, the entire "removal" procedure smacks of illegality, conspiracy, and corruption, and is consistent with the ugly reputation of New Jersey politics. Too bad the perpetrators of the "removal" action were never challenged by any legal action.
BTW, for some reason, the name of the NJ Attorney General involved in this highly questionable "removal" is not mentioned in the story about it on "The Great Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax" website.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 23, 2014 21:07:07 GMT -5
matching the latent prints of the baby to these people that think there the Lindbergh baby was not enough. after bothering the family for dna,they pulled the items from the njsp museum. I don't blame them. im glad I got to see them before this happened
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 24, 2014 11:46:47 GMT -5
To romeo12 et al:
I'm glad you had the opportunity to see the Lindbergh baby items before they were removed. But why shouldn't later visitors to the NJSP have the same opportunity to look at them? The whole purpose of the museum is to preserve the mementos if historical events for the public interest, as the state legislation establishing the museum specifies. And that raises the legal question of where does the Lindbergh family get the right to assume possession of the property from the state police. Is it public property or is it the private property of the Lindbergh family? No court ever decided that issue.
As to matching the latent prints of the baby to those people who might have thought they were the Lindbergh baby, that would probably have been impossible anyway, removal or no removal. Did the baby ever have a fingerprint card? Doubt it. And the items removed were not hard or flat enough to be good sources for prints, much less so when you factor in the 70 years or so from the time any such prints would have been first made.
I don't see anyone who would be able to even do a fingerprint comparison, so that wouldn't bother the American Lindbergh family. What they would be very concerned about was not fingerprints, but possible DNA comparisons based on the DNA from the from the corpse and the evidence items that had contact with Charlie's body. That wasn't a problem for them for all those years because there was no science available to do DNA testing on those items. But when DNA testing became commonplace, by 2003, the American Lindbergh family had a whole new "removal" plan of action and executed it surreptitiously with the assistance of the AG.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 24, 2014 11:53:05 GMT -5
well I guess the Lindbergh family by law had the right to remove them, I think one of the Lindbergh babys compared there fingerprints to the babys prints and they didn't match. im going to have to check on that. when you have multi Lindbergh baby claims and the family is bothered with this nonsense I guess they had enough and looked into there options
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 19, 2016 20:15:16 GMT -5
Was the sleeping suit sent from conneticut the same for sure that was on Charlie that night? You would think the kidnapper would want to keep one thing of Charlie to confirm they had the baby? Was it the sleeping suit? I would say most likely. Some may say the kidnapper took the sleeping suit then on inspection saw it hinted the baby was dead and purchased a new one. Why would Lindbergh assure this was the suit when in fact he never really saw the exact one in the first place? It was Gow and Anne who placed it on the baby
If the sleeping suit was in NJ somewhere or even buried with the baby it would have to be gathered from jersey and taken all the way to Conneticut and be sent. This is a long journey.
Why Connecticut?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2016 8:59:44 GMT -5
Was the sleeping suit sent from conneticut the same for sure that was on Charlie that night? You would think the kidnapper would want to keep one thing of Charlie to confirm they had the baby? Was it the sleeping suit? I would say most likely. Some may say the kidnapper took the sleeping suit then on inspection saw it hinted the baby was dead and purchased a new one. Why would Lindbergh assure this was the suit when in fact he never really saw the exact one in the first place? It was Gow and Anne who placed it on the baby. One of the things I've done while doing research is to accumulate as many different sources as possible. Once I had a "pile" of different ones I'd start to sort through them to see what agreed and what did not. During 2nd Means trial Lindbergh testified about the sleeping suit as follows: [Tomlinson]: Was a piece of garment given to you? [Lindbergh]: Prior to that, a piece of garment had been returned.
[Q]: Did you identify it as being a part of your son's clothing? [A]: It was similar. In all probability it was the same.
[Q]: Are you entirely satisfied in your own mind about it? [A]: Not without doubt. There is no question in my mind about the identity of the notes. After seeing something like this above I ask myself whether or not it contradicts/supports someone Else's version. Whether or not it contradicts/supports any of Lindbergh's other positions concerning this item. Then I ask myself what different explanations could account for discrepancies - if there were any. Once layed out on the table, I leave them there until other matters I handle similarly are examined. In the end, if I have certain explanations for these various discrepancies line up in a pattern that's where I feel I have my answer as to "why" it's going on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 11:35:30 GMT -5
For a while I have been looking at the possibility of a New England connection to this case. How certain is it that the sleeping suit was mailed from Connecticut? Will you be covering this in your book, Michael?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 20, 2016 14:24:12 GMT -5
Can you please explain (1) why Means required two trials and (2) why the sleeping suit became an issue at Means' trial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2016 14:56:21 GMT -5
For a while I have been looking at the possibility of a New England connection to this case. How certain is it that the sleeping suit was mailed from Connecticut? Will you be covering this in your book, Michael? Not into this question Amy. Rab's post is probably the best we'll get on this particular question: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/307/sleeping-suit-stamfordCan you please explain (1) why Means required two trials and (2) why the sleeping suit became an issue at Means' trial? The June 8, 1932 trial was over the $104,000. The May 8, 1933 trial involved the conspiracy to steal an additional sum of $35,000. The Defense Attorney was trying to show the possibility that Lindbergh wasn't dealing with the actual Kidnappers thru Condon opening the door to the possibility that Means actually was.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 29, 2017 19:35:37 GMT -5
This is of some interest. On Saturday, March 5, 1932, Lindbergh flew alone to Connecticut. I remember reading the news report of this flight in a post by Amy. It was the actual newspaper article and listed the numbers on the plane. It was him. No reason was given in the article as to why he did this. I have a theory. He took the sleeping suit that Betty Gow rinsed out that night, the sleeping suit that was hanging to dry in the basement, and the same sleeping suit he wondered about ("why was it laundered?") when he saw it at Condon's house. Who lived in Connecticut? I also remember seeing a photo of a house in Connecticut where Isidor Fisch was said to have stayed.
Also, I have studied the photo of that sleeping suit until I was cross-eyed. Looking closely, you can see where it has been hand-wrung. You can see the lines on the legs. Closer still, you can see those faint stains from the medicine Charlie allegedly spit out. Seems to me that this was the original sleeping suit he was first dressed in and not the second suit he supposedly left the house in. I don't know what it means, but something was happening in Connecticut, and Lindbergh flew there four days after the 'kidnapping.'
The conspiracy in this case boggles the mind. A whole lot of people kept their mouths shut.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Dec 1, 2017 19:38:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 12, 2019 9:02:29 GMT -5
That’s true. I posted that before I knew about the bandage, but it’s still odd that Betty would make a homemade shirt when there had to have been other articles of clothing around, that could’ve just been pulled from a drawer. As you say above, the uniqueness of the homemade shirt was, I think, the key here.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 12, 2019 17:36:58 GMT -5
Good point, but I still think doing some laundry if they ran out of clothes--and Betty apparently did do washing, down in the basement--would've been easier than making clothing, unless there was a specific reason to do so.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 29, 2019 15:26:09 GMT -5
It was a simple crime but it can be made very complicated by overanalysis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 15:26:26 GMT -5
Amy - what are the cut outs on the undershirt? There are two distinct rectangle cuts around the neck. Yes! I see those in that picture! Off the top of my head, I would say that these are the areas where the Squibb lab techs cut out material that had stains on it. They wanted to check these stains for human blood. They tested negative.
|
|