Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 9:06:05 GMT -5
FF, I am still in the process of reading the book. I try go over material carefully when I read so it takes me longer. I am still trying to wrap my mind around the theory in this book. I will be posting some questions about this soon. I do need to mention something that I think needs to be corrected in a future volume. On page 94 there is a picture which opens ACT Two. The caption says that this is the location where Lindbergh found the discarded ladder, the chisel and the dowel. That is absolutely not correct. These items were not found behind the Lindbergh home. I am attaching here the NJSP crime scene sketch of the correct location of these items. The sketch comes from Michael's The Dark Corners, Volume 1, Chapter 12-The Crime Scene. I do feel it is important to have evidence location correct for the readers. Please click on the photo to enlarge it. The dotted line shows the location of footprints, chisel, dowel and the ladder sections on the night hours of March 1, 1932. imgur.com/av6rLtHEdit: I need to add here that you will may want to adjust the text on page 371 of ACT 5, Chapter One. where you state the above items were in the tall grass of the Lindbergh property.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 7, 2020 14:47:58 GMT -5
amy, the chapter called reconstruting the crime is so absurd and laughable, its got to be the worst thing i read about this case
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 15:08:42 GMT -5
Hey Steve. I am just starting into the section that includes that chapter. I will review it soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 15:20:32 GMT -5
FF,
On page 372 of the Assembling the Puzzle Pieces chapter in ACT FIVE, Judge Pearlman talks about submitting some pictures to Melissa Cooper, a forensic expert artist. It sounds like the Judge submitted 1931 pictures of Charlie to do this comparison for her analysis. No pictures of Charlie from 1932 were used during the months they were looking for Charlie. I was wondering if you might consider having Ms. Cooper do some facial imaging between the coach picture of Charlie used on the poster and the picture from the Ho-age collection that is thought to be of Charlie from Jan/Feb 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 7, 2020 16:52:31 GMT -5
Hi FF (aka Jamie): The problem is that Charles Lindbergh isn't around to testify. Even Ahlgren and Monier bring up this point in their book. The subject (suspect) of the title of the book would have to be questioned. Hi Sue Your questions are welcomed. That is why the book asks readers to revisit the case as you are doing and to consider later-discovered evidence. 1. I'm glad you mentioned Ahlgren and Monier. We have evidence they didn't know existed. Here is their review of Suspect No.1: "Expertly researched, Judge Pearlman methodically analyzes the evidence from a sensational crime that still fascinates more than 88 years later. Superbly crafted, Suspect No. 1 is a must read!"
- Greg Ahlgren & Stephen Monier, authors, Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax
If you have finished the book, and think it offers something of value to the debates about this case, please consider posting your own review on Amazon or Goodreads or social media and ask your friends and family who have read the book if they will do the same. Because this was published through a small, independent publisher which doesn’t have the resources of a big publisher for publicity, and especially during COVID where it’s not safe for the author who is 65+ to travel cross-country on a promotional tour as she had planned to do, online reviews and word of mouth are one of the best ways for people to find out about this book. 2. The book isn't called "Lindbergh Did It." It's called "Suspect No.1—The Man Who Got Away" because the author -- a retired judge and attorney who has argued successfully before the US Supreme Court--believes there is ample evidence that shows Lindbergh should have been investigated by police as the number one suspect, but wasn't. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not the documented evidence in the book --much of it official reports or contemporaneous first-hand accounts that was **kept from** the original jury-- convinces them Lindbergh should have been Suspect No. 1. The author didn't make up the Squibb Report, or other evidence that the official investigators had in their possession at the time of the original investigation. She analyzed these documents with support from other experts in the field. This book presents her theory of what happened based on expert analysis of those original documents and asks the reader to judge for themselves whether her theory is a plausible one. What do you think? Should Lindbergh have been a suspect in the original investigation? 3. Lindbergh was on the record and did testify about the case, multiple times for different proceedings. I believe the first time he testified under oath was in June 1932 for the Curtis Trial. Some of this testimony was published in the papers. There is also a full transcript or close to a full transcript of Lindbergh's Curtis trial testimony that was written by a respected journalist who was in the court room for Lindbergh's testimony at the Curtis trial. Grace Robinson. Her transcripts/notes from the Curtis trial are in her personal papers which are available to the public. People can and do lie. Especially if the truth is incriminating to themselves or someone they care about. Melsky has documented in his volumes that multiple people committed perjury. I personally have read most of the 4000+ page Hauptmann Trial Record, in addition to thousands of other official documents including accounts of testimony from key witnesses in multiple court proceedings prior to the Hauptmann trial. (Curtis Trial, Bronx Grand Jury, and Flemington Grand Jury among them). Many witnesses at the Hauptmann Trial testified in direct contradiction to what they had claimed in earlier official police reports or earlier testimony that was never shown to the Hauptmann jury or to the defense. If you would like to make that judgment for yourself, which I strongly recommend you do if you have the time, Mark Falzini has the whole transcript available digitally that he can share via email. --Jamie
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 7, 2020 17:36:58 GMT -5
Hi FF: I see that beginning on page 391 the author begins to lay out how she sees the crime happened. I get hung up on detail some of the time. A Hopewellite named Herman Veidt may have seen Isidor Fisch and two other men in the Mount Rose woods just prior to May 12, 1932. (page 378) What forensic evidence was found in the 14 inches of soil that was removed? Evidence, until now, that the public has not been aware of? Herman Veidt bought the chapel of the Presbyterian Church in Hopewell in 1923, and turned the structure into his home residence. He also had a heart attack and died while in a snowdrift a few years after the kidnapping. Every life tells a story. Hi Sue Many of the items that were analyzed by the May 1932 Squibb report came from the scene where the body was found. Other items analyzed by Squibb came from other sites as well, but most of the items came from the soil around the remains. If you haven't read the Squibb report yet, the whole 18 page report is included as Appendix B. If I remember correctly, I believe the Herman Veidt who died of a heart attack was Herman Veidt Sr. The Herman Veidt who witnessed suspicious men in the area was his son, Herman Veidt, Jr.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 7, 2020 22:13:49 GMT -5
Hi Jamie,
I kind of thought that Herman Veidt, Sr. had a namesake!
Thanks for clearing that up!
Back close to 20 years ago, I bought a newspaper from Ebay. The Philadelphia Evening Ledger is my best recollection, but I definitely know the date of the paper was May 14, 1932.
I'd like to get that paper again because it had wonderful accounts of buzzards and local witnesses who saw strange things in the Mount Rose area during the time the baby was missing. I hadn't seen that information or accounts in other newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2020 8:29:04 GMT -5
As I wrote earlier, one of the first things I did was read Appendix A & Appendix C. I think Appendix C goes a long way to assist what many who saw the corpse were saying at the time. That either it was embalmed or that something was on the corpse (some of which I've documented in both V1 and V3). However, its a hard pill to swallow for me to sit here and say that I accept someone was going in and out of the woods to reapply something in order to preserve the face. So what I repeatedly ask myself is whether or not some other chemical could have been used to make this step unnecessary? Seems to me the most logical explanation (and I make this in V3), is they leave it on the side of the road so it could be found ... so needless to say I'm having a hard time with the scenario that requires trips to re-visit the corpse for this purpose.
Another point made in Appendix C is that because there was a lack of teeth marks on the bones studied, that automatically means animals played no role here. Look I'm no expert, but there's animal hair on his shirt and animal hair in the burlap bag so how does one explain that? I'm only on page 80 so perhaps the explanation exists and if so I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. But if not shouldn't this be addressed? The bones recovered are very small (5 toe phalanx, 1 heel bone, 5 finger phalanx, and 1 piece of vertebrae). Remember, these are coming from a 20 month old and don't be fooled by the word "toe" or "finger" because these are just a "part" of what makes up a toe or finger. So the question that immediately jumps out at me is this ... Does every bone on the remains of something scavenged expected to have a tooth mark in it? And what of the countless other bones that were not examined? We don't know what they show and is it safe to assume, given all the facts we do have, that no evidence of animal activity existed as it concerned these bones?
As far as the liver and heart issue this information is enlightening. However, here again, why would they be there? If an entity wanted the internal organs like the kidneys, etc., why wouldn't they want, or avoid, both the heart and liver?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 10:56:18 GMT -5
You bring up such an important point by bringing up the animal hair found with that corpse. It should have been addressed in this book and not overlooked or ignored because it didn't fit with the suggested theory in this book!
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 8, 2020 13:09:57 GMT -5
You bring up such an important point by bringing up the animal hair found with that corpse. It should have been addressed in this book and not overlooked or ignored because it didn't fit with the suggested theory in this book! Hi Amy and Michael: Happy to respond. The Squibb report stated that “a white and brown hair characteristic of human wrist hair was found at the wrist seam inside of one glove. (reproduced at p. 441) A hair of similar description was found on the B. Altman T-shirt. Here is the reference in the endnotes on page 529 re: the Squibb report included gloves with white and brown wrist hair: 7/16 in: App B, 449; hair same color/length found on both T-shirts: App B, 446; woolen Altman undershirt: "One white hair 5/8' long tapered at the end and one hair 7/16 in long white at one end, shading into brown at the other end were found on the garment. On hand-sewn garment: One white and dark brown hair 1 and 1/8 “ in length gradually tapered at the brown (Squibb Report App. B, 446) Only the hair on the handmade T-shirt was listed as having “the appearance of an animal hair”: but not specifically so labeled or ruled out as human hair: “one white and dark brown hair 1-1/8” in length gradually.” Hope this is helpful.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 8, 2020 13:17:42 GMT -5
You bring up such an important point by bringing up the animal hair found with that corpse. It should have been addressed in this book and not overlooked or ignored because it didn't fit with the suggested theory in this book! Hi Amy and Michael: Happy to respond. The Squibb report stated that “a white and brown hair characteristic of human wrist hair was found at the wrist seam inside of one glove. (reproduced at p. 441) A hair of similar description was found on the B. Altman T-shirt. Here is the reference in the endnotes on page 529 re: the Squibb report included gloves with white and brown wrist hair: 7/16 in: App B, 449; hair same color/length found on both T-shirts: App B, 446; woolen Altman undershirt: "One white hair 5/8' long tapered at the end and one hair 7/16 in long white at one end, shading into brown at the other end were found on the garment. On hand-sewn garment: One white and dark brown hair 1 and 1/8 “ in length gradually tapered at the brown (Squibb Report App. B, 446) Only the hair on the handmade T-shirt was listed as having “the appearance of an animal hair”: but not specifically so labeled or ruled out as human hair: “one white and dark brown hair 1-1/8” in length gradually.” Hope this is helpful. Hi Amy & Michael: Forgot to include the specific quote from Squibb re: the dimensions of what they thought appeared to be human wrist hair in the glove (p. 441): direct quotes from Squibb Report re the hair that was found in the wrist seam, which was separate from the hair found on the woolen garment: " A curved white hair 7/16 inches long with part of hair root was found at the wrist seam on the inside of one glove" Squibb Report (App B, 449). (Hair roots are typically darker than the hair.) This description is consistent with the description of the 7/16 inch long white hair tapering into brown that was found on the woolen garment.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 8, 2020 13:26:37 GMT -5
Hi Amy and Michael: Happy to respond. The Squibb report stated that “a white and brown hair characteristic of human wrist hair was found at the wrist seam inside of one glove. (reproduced at p. 441) A hair of similar description was found on the B. Altman T-shirt. Here is the reference in the endnotes on page 529 re: the Squibb report included gloves with white and brown wrist hair: 7/16 in: App B, 449; hair same color/length found on both T-shirts: App B, 446; woolen Altman undershirt: "One white hair 5/8' long tapered at the end and one hair 7/16 in long white at one end, shading into brown at the other end were found on the garment. On hand-sewn garment: One white and dark brown hair 1 and 1/8 “ in length gradually tapered at the brown (Squibb Report App. B, 446) Only the hair on the handmade T-shirt was listed as having “the appearance of an animal hair”: but not specifically so labeled or ruled out as human hair: “one white and dark brown hair 1-1/8” in length gradually.” Hope this is helpful. Hi Amy & Michael: Forgot to include the specific quote from Squibb re: the dimensions of what they thought appeared to be human wrist hair in the glove (p. 441): direct quotes from Squibb Report re the hair that was found in the wrist seam, which was separate from the hair found on the woolen garment: " A curved white hair 7/16 inches long with part of hair root was found at the wrist seam on the inside of one glove" Squibb Report (App B, 449). (Hair roots are typically darker than the hair.) This description is consistent with the description of the 7/16 inch long white hair tapering into brown that was found on the woolen garment. The only "animal" that is specifically mentioned by Squibb as likely source of the hair, is "human."
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 8, 2020 13:40:27 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, I kind of thought that Herman Veidt, Sr. had a namesake! Thanks for clearing that up! Back close to 20 years ago, I bought a newspaper from Ebay. The Philadelphia Evening Ledger is my best recollection, but I definitely know the date of the paper was May 14, 1932. I'd like to get that paper again because it had wonderful accounts of buzzards and local witnesses who saw strange things in the Mount Rose area during the time the baby was missing. I hadn't seen that information or accounts in other newspapers. Hi Sue! If you don't have a subscription to newspapers.com, I highly recommend it. It's a goldmine. It's basically a time capsule of (millions?) of records, going back 100+ years. Also, the Library of Congress website has a really wonderful resource called Chronicling America, where they have digitalized hundreds of newspapers going back to 1700s in some cases. This is an absolutely free resource.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 13:48:15 GMT -5
Thanks FF for your response. I know what the Squibb report says. Could you please direct me to the reference in either Dr. Speth's report or Dr. Bass's Affidavit that reviews/acknowledges the presence of this animal hair? It is part of the gravesite evidence collected from the scene. Squibb Lab reported on it. The claim in the book is there was no animal activity involved with this corpse. It appears to me that an explanation is in order about that hair.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 8, 2020 13:50:46 GMT -5
amy, the chapter called reconstruting the crime is so absurd and laughable, its got to be the worst thing i read about this case Hi Wolfman The chapter on reconstructing the case is based on Judge Pearlman’s analysis of the evidence in the chapters that precede it and those thereafter. Do you disagree with any of that evidence? If so, which evidence? If not, how would you reconstruct the crime consistent with the evidence? Look forward to your response. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 8, 2020 15:06:09 GMT -5
Hi Amy, Michael, Sue, et al
This is Jamie, just writing as myself. I want to let you know I really do appreciate all the feedback about the book and would love to get answers back to you all as quickly as possible but I also do not want to rush this because it's important I get it right, and I have to check with the author and the experts consulted to make sure I don't misinterpret anything. I also want to let you know that I'm in the middle of preparations for a temporary relocation due to COVID so things are pretty stressful at the moment and I may not be able to respond for the next few weeks. I hope you will continue to discuss the book amongst yourselves and look forward to when I can participate again. If you think this book is worthy of debate, and brings something to the table, even if you don't agree with all of the conclusions, please consider talking about it with friends or family.
Thank you for all of your valuable insights and research you all have done. The only way we can get close to the truth is to go based on the records that still exist, since no one who was involved in the original investigation is around any more to be directly questioned. But many of them are on the record, under oath, with conflicting accounts. These records will always be open to interpretation, which is what this book is: one evidence based interpretation by a retired judge and respected logician. This interpretation is also supported by three forensic experts, including one of the last experts to directly investigate the bones that were uncovered from the scene where the body was recovered. I know this theory is disturbing and shocking or as Lloyd Gardner calls it: "Myth-smashing". But that doesn't mean it can't be true.
Thank you Michael for creating this website where people can share ideas, and for your books. It's important to get as much truth out there as possible.
Take Care everyone. -- Jamie
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 8, 2020 15:06:38 GMT -5
its not evidence its what she thinks what happened. i dont agree
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 8, 2020 18:38:48 GMT -5
Jamie,
I hope everything is okay with you and your mother.
Hope to see you back soon!
Sue
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 8:08:02 GMT -5
Jamie,
Sorry to hear about your situation! I do hope everything turns out well and that you can rejoin this board discussion at a future time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2020 10:10:13 GMT -5
This is Jamie, just writing as myself. I want to let you know I really do appreciate all the feedback about the book and would love to get answers back to you all as quickly as possible but I also do not want to rush this because it's important I get it right, and I have to check with the author and the experts consulted to make sure I don't misinterpret anything. I also want to let you know that I'm in the middle of preparations for a temporary relocation due to COVID so things are pretty stressful at the moment and I may not be able to respond for the next few weeks. You're not alone concerning your move although I'm not exactly sure why so many people are. I'm in Bucks County and there's a ton of people moving into the area, however, based on the tags they're mostly from NY. Any move is stressful but during a pandemic must make it a thousand times worse. Anyway, good luck and stay safe. But many of them are on the record, under oath, with conflicting accounts. These records will always be open to interpretation, which is what this book is: one evidence based interpretation by a retired judge and respected logician. This interpretation is also supported by three forensic experts, including one of the last experts to directly investigate the bones that were uncovered from the scene where the body was recovered. Many are, as I've repeatedly pointed out myself, but some are not. For example the FBI Summary is something that, in my opinion, should only be used as a stand alone source if there's nothing else out there. But if there is, and it contradicts with other source material, there's too much in it that has been shown to be incorrect. This is because some of what's recorded came from unreliable sources such as newspaper reports that often were not 100% true. People see "FBI" and think "unimpeachable" however, there was so much that wasn't shared with them through official channels and this left them using other sometimes unreliable means to explain things in that report. Some of course comes from their very own investigations and/or other police investigations that are reliable, however, there's some needed research involved to know what came from where. Take Dr. Mitchell for example. He testified at the Parker trial that destruction of the corpse came from bacterial and "probably" animals (V3 page 63). Since Appendix C uses his autopsy report to formulate the opposite conclusion I believe his trial testimony is also worthy of consideration. Now of course, the man perjured himself in Flemington so one might argue his testimony is unreliable based on this. My question would be "why" would he lie about it because there's always a basis. Another source would be Swayze's 1977 interview. At 10:52 he suggested that Fox, Skunks, or wood rats "chewed" the corpse. Again, one might think he's not reliable because he lied about the picture taken in the morgue. But again, why? See my point? He certainly had a reason to lie about the picture but did he have one to suggest animal activity? It's also possible that he's mistaken, because there's a couple of things he's shaky about in the interview. However, once considering the animal hair found on the corpse's shirt, and in the burlap bag, which I say is irrefutable, then it gives these two examples a little more credibility. Anyway, these observations are made in good faith. I honestly would prefer to say nothing but here I find it impossible not to try to resolve this point because its too important.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 9, 2020 13:01:18 GMT -5
I just wanted to add that Hopewell Officer Charlie Williamson gave a statement to the NJSP at 6 PM on May 12th that included the following "the body was badly decomposed, was face down and most of the flesh was gone, as though it had been eaten by animals, and the bones were exposed".
Williamson and Chief Harry Wolf had just visually examined the child's remains "up close and personal" that very afternoon. Like most Hopewell men of that time, they were both oudoorsmen and hunters. They were well experienced with seeing the remains of "critters eaten by other critters". I've seen it many times myself and it has a very distinctive look. I know that my Great Uncle Harry Wolf always believed that the body found on Mt Rose Hill was that of the Lindbergh child, and that it was deteriorated enough to believe that it most likely was there through the two previous months of March and April.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2020 13:22:04 GMT -5
Williamson and Chief Harry Wolf had just visually examined the child's remains "up close and personal" that very afternoon. Like most Hopewell men of that time, they were both oudoorsmen and hunters. They were well experienced with seeing the remains of "critters eaten by other critters". I've seen it many times myself and it has a very distinctive look. I know that my Great Uncle Harry Wolf always believed that the body found on Mt Rose Hill was that of the Lindbergh child, and that it was deteriorated enough to believe that it most likely was there through the two previous months of March and April. I agree these statements are important too. Not to divert the conversation any, but I want to seize the moment and pick your brain about this. Let's say the body had been there the entire two months for arguments sake. Why no buzzard sightings prior to mid-April? Why the locals, especially those with dogs, who claim they were there or nearby but the body wasn't? And finally, how do you figure the bag got from the "grave" across the stream, and eventually on the side of the road where it was found? As you know I've suggested the decaying body, while still in the bag was originally somewhere else. It was retrieved then dumped on the side of the road. Once there, an animal(s) went into the bag, and dragged the body into the woods. I guess what I'm asking is what scenario you have that gets the bag to the side of the road with the body in the woods while a bone is still in the bag.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 9, 2020 13:59:32 GMT -5
Michael, do you believe the sleeping suit was removed at the time the baby was placed in the shallow grave or was it retrieved when they had to provide"proof" that they had the baby and then Charlie's remains were placed in the gravesite. I agree that if Hervey Hill was walking his dog in those woods regularly they would have discovered the baby.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 9, 2020 15:46:36 GMT -5
jamie, i dont believe in the lindbergh did it scenerio. im not going to disrespect your mothers book or comment on it anymore. its another one sided book that ignores evidence against hauptman..
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 9, 2020 20:58:09 GMT -5
Michael,
You certainly present some interesting questions here. If the following facts are correct, the dots need to be connected in a reasonable scenario:
** The Lindbergh child went missing on March 1st ** The very decomposed body was found on May 12th on Mr Rose Hill in the woodline about 75 feet from the road ** A burlap bag containing a small bone from the child's remains is found near the side of the road, perhaps 75 to 80 feet from the remains.
I am not locked in on believing the child's body was at that spot on Mt Rose Hill the entire time. However, if this was a real kidnapping (as opposed to Lindbergh being involved) then to me it makes logical sense that the remains were dumped there on the night of the kidnapping after the kidnappers realized that the child was dead or mortally injured. I can not believe that any kidnapper(s), after receiving the ultimate goal of the ransom money, would return to the Hopewell area to drop off the remains. That's just not going to happen. Now, if one believes that Lindbergh was involved and was "double crossed" in some matter, then I guess anything is possible.
So, assuming that this was a real kidnapping and the remains were on Mt Rose Hill the entire two months, I'll submit this senario in an attempt to answer your questions and connect the dots:
The kidnappers stopped on Mt. Rose Hill after leaving Highfields and carried the child's body contained in the burlap bag into the woodline and deposited it somewhere in the vicinity of where it was ultimately found by Allen and Wilson. The body is left at this site and it is still contained in the bag. The body immediately starts to decompose in the bag for some period of time. Turkey vultures that inhabited the Hopewell area at that time primarily use their sense of smell, not sight, to locate carrion. The woods canopy and the burlap bag prevented any vultures from detecting the remains, as long as it stayed in the bag. Turkey vultures have to get enough scent to exactly pinpoint their next meal. In addition, vultures prefer fresh meals, so after a period of time they will show no interest in carrion that is too "ripe".
At some point (after the body has decomposed in the bag enough that a small bone has become detached) a bobcat finds it and removes the remains from the bag. After eating on it, the bobcat "buries" it nearby in the location where it is subsequently found by Allen and Wilson. Although mostly extinct in N.J. since the 1970's, bobcats were in the Hopewell area in the 1930's (spending my first 18 years exploring the woods and fields around Hopewell, I saw a bobcat in 1960). The description given by Allen and Wilson as to how the remains were laying in the ground is very similar to how a bobcat stashes the remains of a kill or found carrion (bobcats do eat carrion). Bobcats create a small depression in the earth and then will use dirt, leaves, grasses, snow, etc. to partially conceal the uneaten pieces.
In this scenario, we don't know exactly where the burlap bag was originally placed by the kidnappers. If it was closer to the wet weather stream, could it have floated (after the remains were removed) out to road area near the stream? Could a dog have subsequently found it and played with it, dragging it close to the road?
I personally don't put a great deal of importance into stories by a few locals who say that if the remains were there for two months they or their dogs would have found it. When that body came out of the bag it was partially concealed in probably a 2 foot square area at most. Anyone who happened to be walking in that particular piece of woods could have easily walked right by it. Missing bodies in woods are usually found by hunters in the fall of the year. This was not hunting season with hunters running their hunting dogs. I have hunted the fields and woods all through that area in the late 1950's/early 1960's and it is a lot of acreage. I just don't put much credibility into someone telling the police or the press that "oh, I walked in that exact spot and my dog or I would have seen it".
Sorry for the long post. Just thinking out loud on how to connect those dots.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 7:52:04 GMT -5
My book has not arrived but I wanted to share this recent observation. It regards an exposed carcass from less than a month ago. I spotted a deer that had just died in the edge of my neighbor's hay field that I could see clearly from my fire lane. It looked to be about 80 lbs and was undisturbed. I immediately thought about the ongoing discussion here regarding the corpse and it's condition and decided to come back regularly for my own observation. Due to the threat of hurricane winds and rain I didn't get back for two more days. On the third day, the carcass was all bones except the head. Remember the horse and cattle skeletons laying in the desert with the ribs sticking up in the old west movies? Just like that. Every organ, even the hide was gone. The head was not cleaned to the bone like the rest of the body. No teeth marks that I could observe on the exposed ribs. When I was able to return about the 6th day the only things remaining were parts of the vertebrae, a few scattered ribs on the ground and the skeleton of the head - picked clean. Almost like the animal was never there except for those few bones. This is in the deep South. I suspect a human carcass would be consumed the same way here in the same amount of time. Yes, we have different scavengers here than in NJ but that's quite a different outcome than the Mt Rose corpse. This experience leads me to believe the child's body had not been there the entire time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2020 10:11:40 GMT -5
Michael, do you believe the sleeping suit was removed at the time the baby was placed in the shallow grave or was it retrieved when they had to provide"proof" that they had the baby and then Charlie's remains were placed in the gravesite. I agree that if Hervey Hill was walking his dog in those woods regularly they would have discovered the baby. This is a great question and one that I've wrestled with often. I always try to gather as many possibilities then tend to lean toward the most likely. Here though, there is no one answer that falls into that category. Therefore, as usual, I fall back to other aspects. No way, for example, did a disgruntled German carpenter from the Bronx ad-lib his way through this crime and get "lucky" in about a thousand or so different places in order to pull this off. I look around and there's evidence of a great deal of planning. Next, there's no doubt that planning included inside assistance. Once the extortion begins the details of planning are undeniable here as well. So with this in mind I try to consider the question as it involves this suit. The idea that they returned to specifically retrieve it in Mt. Rose seems insane under the circumstances and in the context of everything I've outlined above. Heck, to even consider negotiating for the ransom when it was supposed to have been lying there the entire time, in addition to everything else, proves to "me" that it was not there at the time. They would have gone completely crazy worrying it would be discovered at any time. Another point, checking to see if it was "still there," is way different then disrobing a dead child that's buried where it was found. It's hard for me to explain since I don't believe the child was there the entire time AND I think its obvious that I favor Pierson's account as probably the most likely situation. If I'm right, perhaps someone was scratching their head wondering why it wasn't immediately found then stopped to look around after seeing the empty bag on the side of the road. But even that seems a little far-fetched. Anyway, since the suit, rubber pants, both thumb guards, and the diaper were all missing from the corpse I believe its safe to say they were all removed at the same time. This leads us to the discovery of the missing thumb-guard. IF it was there the entire time it means the kidnappers stopped to remove these items at that spot on the night of the crime. If that's what happened this whole entire scenario was completely staged. If it was "returned" to that spot sometime later then its evidence of an inside job since the house was both guarded and literally crawling with cops. Everything is interconnected. Since I do believe the child was tossed in the road sometime after the ransom was paid, that means where ever he was previous was "safe" and under the control of whoever had him as he decayed in the bag. So if he wasn't "disrobed" that very night, then it was removed while at that place. What do you think happened? So, assuming that this was a real kidnapping and the remains were on Mt Rose Hill the entire two months, I'll submit this senario in an attempt to answer your questions and connect the dots: This is the "key" isn't it? There's no reason for the child to be returned if it was a "real" kidnapping in the sense of how/why kidnappings occur. It's for this reason that I believe so many people simply assume he was there the entire time. And if he was, it gets a little "tricky" to say the least. Your idea that the bag and the body became separated in the woods at an unknown place because we don't know " exactly where the burlap bag was originally placed by the kidnappers" is an important observation. It's always been my position that animals were interested in the body and not the bag. So I believe the corpse was pulled out then dragged deeper into the woods. It's why I have such a hard time with that bag being exactly where it was discovered. I note your suggestion of it possibly being swept into the stream or played with by a dog as possible explanations but how comfortable are you with that considering it was on the side of the road almost in a direct line to the corpse? The bobcat as being the culprit is mind-blowing since I had absolutely no idea they were around at the time! Please don't apologize for long posts. The more for us to think about (me especially) the better! I suspect a human carcass would be consumed the same way here in the same amount of time. Yes, we have different scavengers here than in NJ but that's quite a different outcome than the Mt Rose corpse. This experience leads me to believe the child's body had not been there the entire time. This was a good idea and, in fact, I believe Joe did this once some odd years ago. There are variables to consider, as you noted with the types of animals, but also the weather conditions as well. This is why I've always wanted to see the type of report that exists in Appendix C.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 11:08:16 GMT -5
On 02-09-06, Rick's partial post for Michael; "My biggest disappointment is that Bass, currently famous for the Body Farm at U of Tenn, did not comment in any way about the state of decomposition. Why Bass did not read the autopsy report is a mystery to me??thus half a loaf." This is the only reference to the Body Farm that I could find on this site. It seems they would be in the middle of this. I know scientists don't 'like to speculate' but c'mon....no comments at all from real experts in the field? They spend millions on exactly what we seek information about and...nothing? I think they read the 'autopsy' and related documents, realized the whole thing stinks and they were instructed not to touch it with a ten foot pole. Incidentally, rick said in the same post; "Ellis Parker, a real live detective, actually checked all the temps for March and April 1932. It was his expert opinion that "the body could not decompose to that severe an extent at those low temps". Michael also pointed that out in his books Again, I'm surprised someone who studied at The University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility is not all over this - even anonymously.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,637
|
Post by Joe on Sept 10, 2020 11:56:53 GMT -5
If Charlie's body had been disposed of intact, where it was found on Mount Rose Hill, it seems highly unlikely the extortionist would have been later able to procure the sleepingsuit in the unaltered condition it was in (washed only) as received by Condon two weeks later. Surely, aggressive animal activity would have ensued well before the time it was retrieved, with the entire sleepingsuit having represented a relatively easy barrier for any scavenger to gnaw through. Therefore, it would have been removed on the night of the crime if the above scenario was true.
Alternately, if one believes the rotting corpse was transferred to the Mount Rose Hill location close to the time it was discovered as I do, then the sleepingsuit could have been removed at anytime under a relatively protected and controlled environment in good condition up to the time it was washed and mailed to Condon. More importantly though, I have a very hard time believing the kidnapper/extortionist would have even entertained the risk of carrying on ransom negotiations in the Bronx, given the possibility of discovery of the body in a public location so far removed from his immediate control. The child certainly was "returned" as the kidnapper/extortionist promised Lindbergh and at what would have been great personal risk, just not in the "gute" condition implied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 12:41:02 GMT -5
We need to consider that Condon did not get the sleeping suit when CJ said he would. Condon received a call instead saying there would be a delay but he would get it. Something caused that delay. Was it a retrievable delay or just the need to launder that suit or a need to replace the suit with another one that could be mailed to Condon. I do think this delay time needs to be considered in all this.
It took 4 days between the time CJ said they would send the suit (March 12) until Condon actually received it (March 16). If CJ had it in his possession since the night of the crime, March 1, why did he have to delay sending it?
|
|