Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 6:33:21 GMT -5
Here is another 1932 picture of the road location of the Lindbergh baby. You can see the two areas with the fence guards (for Beden Brook). You can also see the telephone poles that were present. This road view is facing north towards Hopewell on the Hopewell Princeton Road. This location appears to be at a higher elevation. In the distance the road appears to go downward and then back up a bit when you get close to Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 17, 2019 8:24:21 GMT -5
Amy,
I always thought that 1932 photo of the site that you posted was a great shot of the location. That photo, along with the overhead "hotdog stand" photo very clearly shows that it is on the straight section of the Princeton=Hooewell road as it comes up Mt. Rose hill. I think the goggle photo you posted also shows the site. The side of the Princeton=Hopewell road coming up that hill towards Mt. Rose is not level and has drop offs. This is why, today, that guardrail is there, and in 1932 they appeared to have a white fence along the side of the road, which is the fence Trooper Carmody shows in his sketch (fence at top left of his sketch). The side of the road levels off where the guardrail (old fence location) ends, and I assume that was why there was a pull-off at that location (the first spot back in those days that a vehicle could pull off of the road coming up that long steep hill).
As to the streams in Trooper Carmody's sketch. Neither one is Beden Brook. That is located back towards Hopewell at the bottom of the hill (that Brook actually winds its way right into Hopewell and crosses Broad Street near Mercer Street. As a kid I used to play in that Brook for hours catching crayfish in bottles). In the Hopewell area, the water sources were called either Brooks (Beden Brook, Stoney Brook, etc.) or streams. The Brooks all had names and year round water running in them. The streams were small and not really given names. Depending on the amount of recent rainfalls, these streams could go through periods of being dry, with just small empty beds. The water that would flow down Mt. Rose hill along side of the Princeton-Hopewell Road would certainly be diverted at points into streams along side of the road. I am sure these are the types of "streams" denoted by Trooper Carmody on his sketch of the site. The two small setions of fencing on both sides of the road in the 1932 photos reflect where these "wet-weather streams' flowed near the road back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 10:02:58 GMT -5
Thanks lurp173 for that important post! So they are just streams and not Beden Brook. Wow! This is why it is so important to have someone who has lived in this area who would know all these bits of info post on this board! When you look at Carmody's sketch he just calls these waterways streams. So why, I wonder, did they become known as Beden Brook? This confusion reminds me of Featherbed Road verses Featherbed Lane. They were often confused. So do you think the actual location might be the one that LJ just recently posted above or do you think it might be even more south than that? I would love to make a trip out to this location, only I am not sure exactly where that location is anymore.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 17, 2019 11:28:44 GMT -5
Amy, LJ,
Sorry, I missed LJ"s post of 14 hours ago. What LJ posted from Goggle street looks like the spot. Again, the pulloff was just beyond that guardrail that runs on the right hand side of the road as you are going up the hill (south). This is AFTER the curve in the road, in the "straight-away" traveling up the hill. I was always told it was in the area from the end of that guardrail through the next two telephone poles. This was pointed out to me as a kid in the 1950's by my mother. The spot was shown to her by her uncle (my great uncle) Harry Wolfe. She woud say "that's where your Uncle Haryy found the body of the Lindbergh baby". In the 1950's, Hopewell was a small community where "everyone knew everyone", and virtually anybody could point out that site on Mt. Rose hill. Unless my mind has totally turned to mush, this is how I remember it!
When you look at that overhead "hot dog stand" photo from 1932, you can clearly see where the white fence coming up the hill ends. That fence was replaced by the current guardrail at some point in time. You can also see the telephone poles at the site, and the crowd is looking into the woods near what I think is the second pole (although they are of course not the same poles today, telephone poles are normally replaced by new poles in pretty much the same spot unless the road is made wider). In this photo you can also see where at that time, storm water was being diverted under the road to avoid a road washout from the volume of water that would flow down that hill in a storm. You can also see the "ditch stream" that this created, which runs through this pull-off area (the crowd is looking across this "ditch" into the wooded site). I would certainly assume this was part of the "stream" that Trooper Carmody showed in his sketch. The grading and surfacing of Princeton-Hopewell Road has changed since 1932 and that underroad water divertion is no longer there. Any water from that hill will flow into Beden Brook near the base of the hill, but I was not aware that the "streams" in Carmody's sketch have been referred to as Beden Brook.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 17, 2019 13:03:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I suppose the stream in the sketch doesn’t have to be Beden Brook, and the spot I pointed out was also identified as the spot on Ronelle Delmont’s hoax site. The topography seems to fit as well, and if you had it pointed out to you...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 15:44:28 GMT -5
So here is the link to Ronelle's great hoax board that has a picture of the actual pole at the location where the body was found. I believe this picture was from the year 2000 or so. The pole has a number! If that number is still the same, it will make it a little easier to narrow down the location on Hopewell-Princeton Road. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/body.html
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 17, 2019 17:15:09 GMT -5
Amy, correct; that's the photo I was talking about. Also, ILDFW, right, but it's tough to pinpoint where that site is now, since the area has changed so much in the nearly 90 years since.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2019 8:02:22 GMT -5
Lurp is definitely the "go to" guy when it comes to the names of everything and the landmarks. I've been there several times and you'll know you are there because of the "V" section of land depicted in the sketch. There was no water but one could see where there had been. I supposed its for runoff from the road or maybe even a stream capture type of event that occurred over time.
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Jun 19, 2019 10:51:32 GMT -5
Great info and thanks very much all!! Argh!!!!! Totally off. I admit defeat - temporarily.
I can see now how I was off - and also how I could be off on the 'streams.' The one I saw connected to the Beden is also not on a map - and as nature would have it, many streams are simply hidden by vegetation - which does well around a stream. I found the location - and the Telephone poles are back on that side of the road in that location - used google maps.
It's approximately 40.3764291,-74.748669.
There is a private residence very close to this location - however - this area appears to still be part of the preserve.
I will be headed back - anyone interested in making the trip? Can't make it until Sunday June 30th though. If anyone else goes - please share what you find? Would be cool to assemble an expedition.
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Jun 20, 2019 1:06:42 GMT -5
Hmmm...thought I replied but it seems to have vanished...
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 20, 2019 9:23:31 GMT -5
amy in 1992 there was a silver marker in the woods at the supposed spot where the baby was. I took pictures sent them to sue shes going to try to put them on the hoax board
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 20, 2019 9:26:42 GMT -5
I think it was the baby. I will take bettys statement because she was around the baby more then the mother. also Lindbergh would have not identified the body if it wasn't his child.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 20, 2019 11:31:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't necessarily trust the honesty of either of those two. Both of them would be motivated to ID the body as Charlie in order to close this chapter in their lives and to move on. In Gow's case, to go back to Britain and get out of the limelight in the US. She knew she was a suspect because her boyfriend was locked up awaiting a trip back to Europe. In Lindbergh's case, it would be a matter of closure, even if it were a false ID. And if it were a true ID, why were the remains so quickly disposed of surreptitiously by cremation and throwing the ashes into the ocean with no formal funeral service?
As I've posted several times, there are still opportunities to do DNA testing today by comparing the dead child's remains and artefacts to DNA specimens from the living or deceased known Lindbergh family members. Yet the Lindbergh family sits in possession of the specimens and will steadfastly refuse to have this testing done. WHY? They must feel there is a decent chance that there would be no match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 17:04:35 GMT -5
I will be headed back - anyone interested in making the trip? Can't make it until Sunday June 30th though. If anyone else goes - please share what you find? Would be cool to assemble an expedition. I definitely plan to go out there at some point. If you do go, I hope you will take some pictures and share them on your flicker page!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 17:09:14 GMT -5
amy in 1992 there was a silver marker in the woods at the supposed spot where the baby was. I took pictures sent them to sue shes going to try to put them on the hoax board You have seen so many places that are part of this case! I would love to see the picture of the silver marker. That would be awesome if Sue posts it on the hoax board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 17:21:34 GMT -5
As I've posted several times, there are still opportunities to do DNA testing today by comparing the dead child's remains and artefacts to DNA specimens from the living or deceased known Lindbergh family members. Yet the Lindbergh family sits in possession of the specimens and will steadfastly refuse to have this testing done. WHY? They must feel there is a decent chance that there would be no match. Wow! You are making quite an assumption aren't you, that the child's remains that were removed from the archives in 2003 are still available. For all we know the family could have chosen to have them cremated just as Anne had been and just as Charlie had been. How do you know how they feel about those remains?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 20, 2019 19:16:55 GMT -5
My bad. Never thought of the possibility that the Lindbergh family may have burned the remains and artefacts that the New Jersey state attorney general was foolish enough to give them. But that's s possibility that the attorney general should have thought of in the public interest. Those remains and artefacts should still be in the NJSP Museum for research purposes, but unfortunately they are not.
BTW, it seems strange that CAL Sr. is buried in a grave in Maui, but Anne was cremated. Maybe that has something to do with their marital relationship being embarrassing to their children?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 16:16:07 GMT -5
BTW, it seems strange that CAL Sr. is buried in a grave in Maui, but Anne was cremated. Maybe that has something to do with their marital relationship being embarrassing to their children? I have not had time yet to research this. What I do recall, though, is that Anne never really liked the Maui house. She did stay there occasionally with CAL but much preferred their other homes. It may be as simple as not wanting to be buried at the Hawaiian residence and not wanting to be buried elsewhere (which would send a negative message), so cremation was seen as the wised choice for Anne. At the time of Anne's death in 2001, her children did not know about the German families.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 14:14:37 GMT -5
There is a private residence very close to this location - however - this area appears to still be part of the preserve. There was a man named Charles Schippell. He had a farm with a shack/house on it. According to what I have read, his residence was located about 1000 feet from the spot where the child's body was found. The reports give his location as being off "Old Glenmore Road" in Mount Rose. I don't know if this is actually Old Mount Rose Road. I have always thought that these roads were one and the same because I cannot find anything on an Old Glenmore Road. Lurp and Stella7, If you read this post, have either of you ever heard of Old Glenmore Road in Mount Rose? LJ, Is the second google maps location you posted the one we thought corresponded to Schippell's shack?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 22, 2019 15:06:45 GMT -5
Not sure where Schippell’s shack was in relation to the body. All I know is that it was nearby, so I wonder if he was being set up as a potential fall guy.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 22, 2019 15:11:40 GMT -5
There is a section of Hopewell Township referred to as Glenmore. I have a book titled Geographical History of Hopewell, that I keep borrowing from my father-in-law, I'll go take a look. I know there is an old shack still there on Crusher Rd. Most of the shacks are now gone as the area is pretty gentrified, but they were prevalent throughout the 70's.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 22, 2019 15:52:57 GMT -5
The village of Glenmore was previously referred to as Moores Mill and there was a railroad station there at one point. Moores Mill Rd is to the west of Crusher Rd. The original Moores Mill is now the site of the Hopewell Valley Golf Club. Perhaps there was an old road that connected from Princeton Ave, maybe it is the road that now dead ends. I brought this up a long tome ago, but, coincidentally the night of the kidnapping there was a barn that caught fire at a farm on Moores Mill Rd.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 22, 2019 20:33:15 GMT -5
Amy,
I am not aware of any Old Glenmoore Road in the Mt. Rose area. As I believe Stella stated, all of the old Glenmoore area (Glenmoore Farm, etc) is located west of Hopewell off of the Hopewell-Pennington Road. I have never heard of any reference to Glenmoore in the Mt. Rose area. If Schippell's place was 1000 feet or so from the site of the baby's recovery, the reports must be in error and are actually referring to Old Mt. Rose Road. I don't know how far that road ran south off of the Princeton-Hopewell Road in those days, but it may have allowed access to Schippell's farm and thus had an Old Mt. Rose Road address. Schippell allegedly had a "40 acre" farm, so it would have encompassed a good section of that area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 14:27:00 GMT -5
Thanks LJ, Stella7, and lurp173 for sharing. I think Old Glenmore Road is probably a mistake also and it is Old Mount Rose Road that ran near Shippell's farm. Old Mount Rose Road dead ends and is not a through road on the maps today. Schippell was supposed to be in the Bronx at his mother-in-law's house on the evening of March 1, 1932. I really do find this area to be a place of interest.
I seem to recall you bringing up that barn fire a while back, Stella7. I believe that Troopers did take a look at that burnt out barn just in case something might be found relating to the kidnapping.
It is interesting that you see Schippell as a fall guy for this crime, LJ. Do you think Charlie had been initially buried on Schippell's property?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 23, 2019 16:42:20 GMT -5
I'm really not sure. It could've been buried there, it could've been buried at the Cold Soil Rd. farmhouse, or it could've been transferred around to keep it from being found until the time came to disinter and dump it. One thing I do think is that it never left the general Hopewell area; pretty risky to transport something like that any significant distance.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 23, 2019 23:28:24 GMT -5
I'm really not sure. It could've been buried there, it could've been buried at the Cold Soil Rd. farmhouse, or it could've been transferred around to keep it from being found until the time came to disinter and dump it. One thing I do think is that it never left the general Hopewell area; pretty risky to transport something like that any significant distance. How do you account for the significant deep organ removal which some doctors have said is surgical in nature (animals would more likely go for the outer/easier to access organs first)?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 24, 2019 9:35:52 GMT -5
My guess is that those outer organs were probably unpalatable to scavengers for some reason, so they weren’t eaten, while deeper ones were. Did it seem like these were surgically removed though? I mean, were there incisions or cuts, or was it just that more easily obtainable organs were simply bypassed?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 24, 2019 15:56:33 GMT -5
My guess is that those outer organs were probably unpalatable to scavengers for some reason, so they weren’t eaten, while deeper ones were. Did it seem like these were surgically removed though? I mean, were there incisions or cuts, or was it just that more easily obtainable organs were simply bypassed? I remember a few years ago on one of the tv specials they showed the autopsy report and images to a few medical professionals. The agreement was that animals would generally either eat the surface organs to get to the deeper ones, or at he very least tear out the unpalatable ones to get to the edible ones. Here the organs were removed while the ones closer to the surface were kept in tact. This does not indicate animals but rather that certain organs were removed for examination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 18:39:26 GMT -5
I'm really not sure. It could've been buried there, it could've been buried at the Cold Soil Rd. farmhouse, or it could've been transferred around to keep it from being found until the time came to disinter and dump it. One thing I do think is that it never left the general Hopewell area; pretty risky to transport something like that any significant distance. I think the dirt found on the bones of the body and in the burlap bag shows that the body had been buried at some other location before it came to be on Mount Rose Hill. The bone and bag dirt, plus I believe dirt found in a glove were what is called black dirt which has a higher humus content to it. The dirt on Mount Rose Hill and also at Highfields was different, being reddish brown and granular. I think this shows two locations are involved. The body had been buried in different dirt than it had been found in. I agree that it would have been very risky to transport that body any significant distance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 19:01:04 GMT -5
The agreement was that animals would generally either eat the surface organs to get to the deeper ones, or at he very least tear out the unpalatable ones to get to the edible ones. Here the organs were removed while the ones closer to the surface were kept in tact. This does not indicate animals but rather that certain organs were removed for examination. I am not sure this indicates a surgical removal of certain organs. Something to keep in mind here is that the body was found face down which means the back side of the body was in the elevated position while the surface organs as you call them were in the lowest position (chest) which was against the ground like the face. The heart and liver might still have been present simply because they were not on the surface but underneath other organs when animals first approached this body.
|
|