|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 10, 2020 12:56:57 GMT -5
bass wasnt the only one examining the bones, his associate dr krogman examined them and they both came to the same conclusions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 14:15:20 GMT -5
bass wasnt the only one examining the bones, his associate dr krogman examined them and they both came to the same conclusions Yes, I read that. According to Dr. Bass, there was a hair wrapped around one of the bones he examined. No opinion was offered on that hair whether it was human or animal.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 12, 2020 21:38:21 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. If only this Herman Veidt had had the wherewithal or sense of obligation to inform the police of his alleged sighting of these suspicious characters near Mount Rose shortly before the discovery of Charlie's body when it would have meant something. He seems to have had such a vivid recollection of them after Hauptmann's arrest. (In other words: He likely made it up the whole story.)
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 14, 2020 21:59:24 GMT -5
Michael,
In your post of 9/10 I believe that you asked me how comfortable I was with my explanation pertaining to the movement of the burlap bag in light of where it was found. I meant to respond to you before this. I haven't seen the exact spot that the bag was located on May 12th. The Trooper's sketch of the site on Mt Rose Hill that I have seen does not denote any bag. I do see that in Officer Williamson's statement on May 12th he stated that he and Chief Wolf found a burlap bag along the highway, about where they stopped their vehicle, directly opposite to where the body was found. In addition, the report dated May 12th by Det. Fitzgerald and Sgt. Zapolsky stated that when they arrived at the spot on Mt Rose Hill along with Wolf and Williamson, they stepped out of their vehicle and found a burlap bag "along the road". Do we know how close to the wet weather stream this was?
I do believe that the "how, when and where" the child's remains came out of that bag is one of the keys to understanding how this crime went down. The Squibb Report definitely places a toe bone from the body of an infant in the bag, and fibers from this burlap bag on the child's undergarment. If my scenario is correct (the bag going from the wooded area to the roadside) then I believe this was an actual kidnapping with the body being at the Mt Rose Hill location the entire two months. As I believe I said in my last post, no criminal kidnapper would even think about returning the child's remains to the Hopewell area in order that the parents could get some type of closure. Just being caught in possession of the child's remains was a straight and fast ticket to the electric chair. Individuals who perpetrate this type of crime are only concerned with their own self interest, period. Believe me, they are cold and calculating with no regards for others.
If your theory is correct (the bag stayed on the roadside with the child's remains being dragged into the woods) then Lindbergh was involved in a fake kidnapping. I see no other explanation for the very dangerous act of transporting the child's body to an area near Hopewell for its "discovery". Lindbergh was being extorted for alleged ransom money when no kidnapping ever took place. To end any further extortion attempts, Lindbergh told "his people" to retrieve the body and arrange for it to be discovered on a roadside near Hopewell. Since at this point I don't see the factual evidence to support this therory, I am left with finding a logical explanation for the bag being at the roadside on May 12th.
I do believe that the Squibb Report adds more credence to my belief that a bobcat removed the child's body from the burlap bag. The report in Section III stated that the "hand sewed with blue thread woolen undergarment" was plastered in mud and had white hairs shading into brown on it. The report additionally stated that one white hair and dark brown hair 1 1/8 inch in length had the appearance of animal hair. In article 8 of the report it again refers to a "few white hairs" being present on a piece of cotton cloth which was not identified as human hair. Another section of the report mentions finding black hairs. I list all of this because bobcats are variable in color, generally brown to dark brown with black streaks. Additionally they have white hairs under the chin area and the underbelly area. This hair coloring, and the manner in which the child's remains were covered and concealed, certainly leads me to highly suspect that no matter how or where it occurred, a bobcat removed that child's remains from the burlap bag.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 6:53:50 GMT -5
If only this Herman Veidt had had the wherewithal or sense of obligation to inform the police of his alleged sighting of these suspicious characters near Mount Rose shortly before the discovery of Charlie's body when it would have meant something. He seems to have had such a vivid recollection of them after Hauptmann's arrest. (In other words: He likely made it up the whole story.) I have also felt the same way about where some of the 1934 people were with their information in 1932 when it would have been more valuable. I was wondering what your thoughts are on Garrett Schenck's claim to have seen cars in the location of where the body was found in the Mount Rose area . He was claiming this in 1932.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 7:09:29 GMT -5
Lurp173,
Your posts always give me things to think about!
If the body was in the Mount Rose location where it was found the whole time, how do you account for the two different soil types that were found with this body? I have always thought this indicated that Charlie was somewhere else before he was finally found in that hollowed out area on Mount Rose Hill.
The bag being found along the roadway has always been a challenge for me. I cannot see how it could have been there for 70+ days without being noticed or just moved by weather, road activity or animals. Both William Allen and Orville Wilson never mention in their statements seeing this bag at that location when they made that stop on May 12. They were the first ones at that scene. This is a large bag. Do you think they just somehow didn't notice it? Yet the bag is there when Allen returns with Chief Williamson to the scene.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 8:30:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 15, 2020 9:04:23 GMT -5
Regardless of what anyone might think about where the body found in the woods may have been and for how long it may have been during the whole timeframe or part (s) of it covering March 1 through May 12, one weird finding not discussed before on this thread (although I've raised the issue before on other threads) must be accounted for. That is the presence of an intact heart and liver with all the other thoracic and abdominal organs missing. Realistically, this can only be accounted for by HUMAN INTERVENTION at some point in this time frame. Animals alone consuming the body's parts would NOT have the capability to select out some internal organs while leaving the heart and liver intact.
So what was this human intervention? Two plausible scenarios are that the body was dissected (at a medical research facility or morgue?) or was cut up in a discriminating manner and fed to animals or eaten by cannibals.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2020 10:34:21 GMT -5
I do believe that the Squibb Report adds more credence to my belief that a bobcat removed the child's body from the burlap bag. The report in Section III stated that the "hand sewed with blue thread woolen undergarment" was plastered in mud and had white hairs shading into brown on it. The report additionally stated that one white hair and dark brown hair 1 1/8 inch in length had the appearance of animal hair. In article 8 of the report it again refers to a "few white hairs" being present on a piece of cotton cloth which was not identified as human hair. Another section of the report mentions finding black hairs. I list all of this because bobcats are variable in color, generally brown to dark brown with black streaks. Additionally they have white hairs under the chin area and the underbelly area. This hair coloring, and the manner in which the child's remains were covered and concealed, certainly leads me to highly suspect that no matter how or where it occurred, a bobcat removed that child's remains from the burlap bag. Thanks for the reply. First I think we're both in agreement that there was animal activity. Appendix C seems to have either chosen to ignore the animal hair or its an oversight. As to exactly which animal it was I couldn't say. I always believed it was a grey fox up and until your theory gave me a "Suspect No. 2" to consider. Amy's point about the dirt on the bag is another good one to consider.
Next, based on the sketch in Trooper Carmody's report, its clear there was a stream that existed at the grave site back in 1932. Whether by stream capture or for some other reason it is not there anymore although one can clearly see where it used to be. That's not saying if there's a heavy rain that runoff might still flow but the stream is now gone. That stream flowed from south to north. If the water rose to street level I would expect the bag to go in the direction of the current. But what we know is that it did not because of where it was found. We absolutely know its on the road, and I've always assumed it was right next to the dirt but its just a guess...perhaps it was further out but that seems unlikely to me. Regardless, its right where these men were exiting their "machines" in order to walk into the woods to get to the corpse. Now on to our theories...
I see evidence of an inside connection all over the place. That includes, but by no means limited to, Whateley's deathbed revelation. Ellerson claimed that prior to the child's discovery that Whateley himself answered the call of nature very near this spot. That could just be a coincidence but its something to consider nevertheless. Next, I've always believed that someone was "hired" then contracted this job out as way to insulate those insider(s). *Before anyone chimes in to say this is outrages I've read about similar things myself in several pre-sentence investigations over the years. And I'm not talking about a situation like one of the soccer moms trying to kill their husband that we see so much of on "Snapped" - its more like how an OC family might operate so once evidence of a crime turns up all the earmarks point away from them. Since Lindbergh was more powerful than Hoover and knew some equally powerful people its not a stretch to include him as the instigator. Most especially if the child was not normal. That doesn't mean it was him, but there's no way I could ever exclude him merely because its not the "acceptable" thing to do.
Again - I do not believe the ransom was ever meant to be collected. So what the extortion amounted to was some of those involved going rogue to pursue this additional amount. Condon was obviously employed by these people - not by Lindbergh - who did not enjoy being extorted no matter what. So here is where the "math" comes in. Closure benefits both parties.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2020 10:44:56 GMT -5
Regardless of what anyone might think about where the body found in the woods may have been and for how long it may have been during the whole timeframe or part (s) of it covering March 1 through May 12, one weird finding not discussed before on this thread (although I've raised the issue before on other threads) must be accounted for. That is the presence of an intact heart and liver with all the other thoracic and abdominal organs missing. Realistically, this can only be accounted for by HUMAN INTERVENTION at some point in this time frame. Animals alone consuming the body's parts would NOT have the capability to select out some internal organs while leaving the heart and liver intact. I don't agree. Try feeding a dog something they do not want. Then try placing something they want in that bowl. They eat what they like and leave behind what they do not. And if you have a Jack Russell sometimes they flip the bowl over to make sure you get the message loud and clear.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2020 12:39:19 GMT -5
Again - I do not believe the ransom was ever meant to be collected. So what the extortion amounted to was some of those involved going rogue to pursue this additional amount. Condon was obviously employed by these people - not by Lindbergh - who did not enjoy being extorted no matter what. So here is where the "math" comes in. Closure benefits both parties. As much as I disagree with your scenario, I also have a problem with your logic. In the above scenario, I understand how Lindbergh would benefit by having the body found, but how do "rogue extortionists" benefit by closure, ie. having their meal ticket terminated?
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 15, 2020 12:51:25 GMT -5
I have to reread that account, Amy. Will do so shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2020 13:09:05 GMT -5
As much as I disagree with your scenario, I also have a problem with your logic. In the above scenario, I understand how Lindbergh would benefit by having the body found, but how do "rogue extortionists" benefit by closure, ie. having their meal ticket terminated? They got paid Joe. It honors the deal, and once the child turned up dead, Condon portrayed himself as a victim as well.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 15, 2020 16:01:38 GMT -5
Regardless of what anyone might think about where the body found in the woods may have been and for how long it may have been during the whole timeframe or part (s) of it covering March 1 through May 12, one weird finding not discussed before on this thread (although I've raised the issue before on other threads) must be accounted for. That is the presence of an intact heart and liver with all the other thoracic and abdominal organs missing. Realistically, this can only be accounted for by HUMAN INTERVENTION at some point in this time frame. Animals alone consuming the body's parts would NOT have the capability to select out some internal organs while leaving the heart and liver intact. I don't agree. Try feeding a dog something they do not want. Then try placing something they want in that bowl. They eat what they like and leave behind what they do not. And if you have a Jack Russell sometimes they flip the bowl over to make sure you get the message loud and clear. Michael, your pet dog is generally well-fed and well cared for, so can afford to be selective about what it eats. Out in the woods, you have wild animals who feed off carcasses because of the necessity for self-survival. No particular reason chemically why they would avoid the heart and liver and devour lungs, kidneys, intestines, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2020 18:26:53 GMT -5
Michael, your pet dog is generally well-fed and well cared for, so can afford to be selective about what it eats. Out in the woods, you have wild animals who feed off carcasses because of the necessity for self-survival. No particular reason chemically why they would avoid the heart and liver and devour lungs, kidneys, intestines, etc. So are you alleging there were no hungry animals in the woods then? Animals, domestic or wild, have basic instincts and tendencies. A fox, for example, doesn’t devour everything at once and is known to bury their food in one or more “caches” for later on. Most animals also have an incredible sense of smell. So if certain organs were not edible I’m quite sure those that were would be consumed. My point is that excluding every possibility except human intervention is something I do not accept - most especially when there’s animal hair on both the shirt and in the bag. So by applying your argument ... they were there, hungry, but chose not to eat anything.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 16, 2020 14:40:04 GMT -5
Thanks Amy for posting the statements of Allen and Wilson. It has been awhile since I read them. I had thought that one of them (Wilson) had stated that the body was "pretty well concealed with brush, leaves and dirt" and obviously not visable until you walked right up on it.
I certainly agree with you that the location of the empty burlap bag is a challenge. I had thought that (as you stated) neither Allen nor Wilson had mentioned seeing the bag along the roadside, I don't recall ever reading anything that suggests the NJSP ever found anyone in the Hopewell area that stated they saw the bag on or before May 12th. Of course burlap bags were very common in the 1930's in the Hopewell area, being used for many purposes (even the NJSP transported in a burlap bag the two shirts from the child's body from Mt Rose Hill to the Lindbergh residence for identification on May 12th, and they also used "five burlap bags" to transport soil evidence to the Squibb Laboratory). It is highly likely that most people in the Hopewell area in 1932 paid no attention to a burlap bag lying on the roadside. Probably a somewhat common occurence back then.
I also certainly agree with you that this empty burlap bag was not on the roadside for 70 plus days. I still believe that it is plausible that the bag was in the woods and contained the child's decomposing remains for most of that time. The child's body was certainly in the bag long enough for decompostion to produce a separated toe bone. I realize that many people believe that an animal would have quickly located the bag and consumed the child's remains. However EVERYTHING in this case has to be examined through a lens of 1932. It is factual that there was far less wildlife in the Hopewell area in 1932 than in modern times. The Great Depression was in full swing and it caused many area residents to use hunting and trapping to supplement their food resources. Hunting was not for sport; it was for food. I heard plenty of stories when I was young that described how Hopewell area residents totally disregarded hunting/trapping regulations and designated hunting seasons in pursuit of wildlife. In additon, during those days every Hopewell farmer would kill any vulture, hawk, fox, bobcat, loose running dog, etc. in order to protect their calves, chickens, turkeys, etc. All of this activity really decimated the wildllife in the entire area, It took until after WWII for game populations to rebound. The depression had ended and Federal laws were passed to protect vultures and hawks, and the State began to agressively enforce the state hunting laws and hunting seasons. I even observed an increase in the Hopewell area wildlife between 1957 and 1964. I am just attempting here to show that it may have taken much longer for an animal to find that burlap bag in the woods simply because there were far fewer preditors around compared to today. Just trying to use that 1932 lens.
As to the different soil types examined by the Squibb Laboratory, it seems to me that the report is a little confusing here (I have seen much clearer Laboratory Reports). A great deal of evidence was examined and soil types are mentioned everywhere. It does seem to list a "black humus soil" on the burlap bag that is a different soil type: "sack spotted with soil common to that of immediate location and black humus soil not found on any other object examined". Of course we do not know the history of this burlap bag after the first retail purchase other than the Laboratory reporting that it contained oat hulls. A few other quotes from the Laboratory Report do show a consistant soil type to the area:
"microscopic exam of the soil adherent to the (human) bones revealed no particles not common to the soil in which the bones were found".
"dirt scrapped from the bones is seen ny microscopic exam to be characteristic of the soil in the bags and with the leaves".
The major conflict of the soil examinations that I see in the report is located towards the end of the report which is referring to soil samples from a plasterboard box containing one dozen pint ball fruitjars: "this soil was distinctly different in appearance from any of the other soils examined." As with some of the other evidence submitted to the Squibb Laboratory, I just can not see where the NJSP obtained this soil in these one dozen fruitjars.
One last comment that I can submit pertains to how varied soil types can be in any given location. My wife and I Iive on a farm here in Virginia, and we periodically submit soil samples to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In addition I have an older report from the USDA Farm Service Agency that has a thorough examination of all of the soil types on our farm. These examinations reveal that there are dozens of different soil types on our 300 acre farm. It is amazing to see in these reports the striations and layers of soil types. One sample from a hole the size of a fence post revealed seven different soil types. I am certainly no geologist, but it is clear to me that the process that creates soils is very complicated. Just thowing this out for some food for thought on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 16, 2020 20:18:12 GMT -5
Michael, your pet dog is generally well-fed and well cared for, so can afford to be selective about what it eats. Out in the woods, you have wild animals who feed off carcasses because of the necessity for self-survival. No particular reason chemically why they would avoid the heart and liver and devour lungs, kidneys, intestines, etc. So are you alleging there were no hungry animals in the woods then? Animals, domestic or wild, have basic instincts and tendencies. A fox, for example, doesn’t devour everything at once and is known to bury their food in one or more “caches” for later on. Most animals also have an incredible sense of smell. So if certain organs were not edible I’m quite sure those that were would be consumed. My point is that excluding every possibility except human intervention is something I do not accept - most especially when there’s animal hair on both the shirt and in the bag. So by applying your argument ... they were there, hungry, but chose not to eat anything. Not ruling out the likelihood that wild animals may have played some role in the disappearance of internal organs, either before or after the human intervention. But if animals only, why the selectivity? Adding another possibility, could the heart and liver have been treated with embalming fluid (as some have speculated the face had been) and the consumed organs left without it? If that were the case, the wild animals' senses of smell could have caused them to leave the heart and liver alone while devouring the other organs.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2020 8:21:33 GMT -5
As much as I disagree with your scenario, I also have a problem with your logic. In the above scenario, I understand how Lindbergh would benefit by having the body found, but how do "rogue extortionists" benefit by closure, ie. having their meal ticket terminated? They got paid Joe. It honors the deal, and once the child turned up dead, Condon portrayed himself as a victim as well. They got paid... Think about that statement for a minute, Michael. Who exactly is They? You have one proven participant in "the gang" known as CJ, aka Hauptmann. The same guy who managed to account for well over 80% of the ransom payment, at a time when he was unemployed between April 2, 1932 and September 19, 1934. There is some evidence of another participant as the suspected lookout at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's, but it's unproven as to whether this person even benefited financially from the extortion. Isidor Fisch, who may not even have known Hauptmann in April of 1932, might well have assisted in the laundering of ransom money later in the timeline. Next you have CJ, who has previously told Condon he is essentially just the messenger within the extortion, (among a group of anywhere from 5 to 7 other people) unilaterally accepting $20K less on the spot, just before he provides the Condon-requested receipt and note of instruction as to where the child can be found. This is the $20K that you apparently had earmarked for Condon as a willing confederate, supposedly enlisted by the extortionists. And who is asking CJ to accept the $20K less? The American patriot and Lindbergh-idolizing Condon but now a dastardly turncoat, who according to you, has just forfeited his grand payday. To top it off, your previous statements to the effect these extortionists would have worked their marks for every single dollar, including Condon's $1000, seems to pale here, as it's pretty apparent They had no interest in getting anything above and beyond what Hauptmann himself was lucky to secure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 12:36:23 GMT -5
Thanks Amy for posting the statements of Allen and Wilson. It has been awhile since I read them. I had thought that one of them (Wilson) had stated that the body was "pretty well concealed with brush, leaves and dirt" and obviously not visable until you walked right up on it. Your welcome lurp! Just thought you might want to review what these men said since they were the first ones (as far as we know) that actually discovered the body. Your posts are always enlightening for me. I always end up doing more review of what material I do have available whenever you make a post. Your posts also raise questions for me and I hope you will indulge me just for a bit longer. Your knowledge of the animal life of this area of Hopewell is impressive and helpful in trying to figure out which animals might be the source for the animal hair found in the gravesite area. I do think a closer examination of that hair should have been done to see if we are talking about only one animal or possibly more leaving behind this evidence. I think it also could have bearing on whether the animal hair was consistent to the Mount Rose area or might be from a different location. Being 1932, this probably would not have been considered important and I understand that. I completely agree with this statement. If you find it a bit confusing, I can assure you that I get befuddled easily by these types of reports and I need lots of time to go through them to try to understand what I am reading. They also require me to do additional research to help me comprehend what I am reading. This is the first and only crime case I have ever looked at in such detail so if some of my questions sound silly and amateurish, that is the reason they do. This black humus soil is what has caused me to think that the body had been elsewhere before it came to the Mount Rose area. So I am clear, is your assertion that the presence of the black humus soil found at the gravesite the result of the use of the burlap bag that had been used in the crime to remove the child from the home? In other words, it was already present in the bag at the time of the kidnapping. This quote used is from section I - Treatment and Examination of soil received in five burlap bags. It is found in paragraph #5 which talks about the small loose bones recovered in the soil and the dirt found to be adherent to those bones. This dirt is common with the surrounding soil where the bones were found. So this would be the surface dirt (top soil) found surrounding the body. This is the second quote used from the Squibb report. It comes from section II - Examination of Leaves and Soil contained in the three baskets on each of which was pasted a strip of white paper bearing the following typed description "Leaves collected from ground in immediate scene where body of kidnapped Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. was found on May 12, 1932 just off Princeton-Hopewell Road in Mount Rose, Mercer County, N.J. When you read through this section about the soil that was scrapped from the bones it is described as greyish black top soil. The hair is also found in the same greyish black top soil. I bring up this point of the dark soil that surrounds the body and is also adhered to the bones because of section V(5) which is the examination of the Burlap Bag. In part 2 of this section which discusses the materials found on this bag we find point d which says "the bag was soiled with reddish brown soil and with black soil. In some places the black soil overlies the reddish brown soil." This point also goes on the say that this reddish brown soil " corresponds to the types of soil found found in the baskets of leaves and in the five bags...". The problem for me with this quote is that the reports on the basket materials and the bags do not mention any reddish brown soil, only the grey black soil referred to as top soil. Only the bag examination brings these two soil types together in one common source. So my questions are: Does this two soil mix indicate the body could have been in two different locations or is it just the bag that had been in two different locations - one with reddish brown particles previous and one with dark top soil afterwards? Does the overlay of dark soil over brownish soil support what I ask in the question above? I might be able to help you with where that plasterboard soil came from. I think this report explains it. imgur.com/fE8zAHwThis report left me wondering if the reddish brown soil found underneath the dark soil on the burlap bag is dirt from the soil underneath the nursery room window where that bag had been set down first before it came to the Mount Rose area. Two different soils, two different locations but only one burlap bag that is linked to these two locations. Sorry for this long response post. I hope you can help me understand all this!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 17, 2020 13:03:15 GMT -5
Amy and Lurp, check out page 68 of Michael's volume 3. J. B. Hill and a couple of other men were at the site where the baby was found a couple of weeks prior digging up decayed matter to put in the bottom where they were planting some bushes. This sounds to me like they were digging up humus and that the baby was not there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 16:24:29 GMT -5
Amy and Lurp, check out page 68 of Michael's volume 3. J. B. Hill and a couple of other men were at the site where the baby was found a couple of weeks prior digging up decayed matter to put in the bottom where they were planting some bushes. This sounds to me like they were digging up humus and that the baby was not there. I am aware of this report in Michael's book. I do believe that J.B. Hill and the others had been in the area prior to (20 days I think the report said which would put their visit to the area in April), when the Lindbergh baby was found, May 12. At that point in time (April) Charlie was not yet in that spot to be found. I believe he was still buried in the initial spot that had been preselected before the kidnapping. Please check Michael's Volume 1, Chapter One, Strange Vehicles. Christine Thompson told investigating officers that prior to the kidnapping night she had seen unusual car traffic on a little used road in Mount Rose. I believe the Mount Rose area had been the predetermined area for the burial of the body. I think the body stayed buried in the predetermined location (same Mount Rose soil type) where much of the decomposition took place and was later (after the ransom was paid) dug up (bag, body, bones, even some of the dirt) and placed where it was found closer in time to when it was discovered in May. There was still decomposing matter found with the body, plus some maggot activity. I think the bag was placed roadside to help draw attention to this area so the child would be found.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2020 19:28:57 GMT -5
If that were the case, the wild animals' senses of smell could have caused them to leave the heart and liver alone while devouring the other organs. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Appendix C was something I really wanted to read and, I believe, is a very important step to getting closer to the truth. Unfortunately, it omits the finding of the animal hair on the shirt and in the bag so until that's addressed I'm not buying that animals weren't involved. BTW: I am working on the next chapter, which is on Nosovitsky, specifically because you suggested it. I just spent the last three days trying to find out whether or not Louis Fraina was actually a Government Informant. So I'm typing this from the bottom of a rabbit hole and not sure if I'll be able to find my way out. Thanks for nothing Pal!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2020 19:39:18 GMT -5
Amy and Lurp, check out page 68 of Michael's volume 3. J. B. Hill and a couple of other men were at the site where the baby was found a couple of weeks prior digging up decayed matter to put in the bottom where they were planting some bushes. This sounds to me like they were digging up humus and that the baby was not there. Real quick.... What Lurp wrote I'm glad he brought this up because it underscores my point that I made in V3 specifically about Verna Snyder eating too much. Also, I think back to V2 when I mentioned Lempke and the police mentioning that all he had to eat was a cold cup of coffee and a piece of bread smeared with lard. Anyway, it makes sense that there'd be less animals because of how active people were looking for food, both legally and illegally, but I also have to mention that when I was younger (not so much anymore because I think there's less hunting going on) deer would be all over the place and then during the 1st day of hunting season they were no longer out and about because they knew when the season stated somehow - probably had to do with the shotgun blasts. Anyway, I wrote about those accounts from people willing to talk. But I'm sure there were more but people just didn't want to say anything. So its hard to consider what we do not know but I'd be willing to bet there were many more people who traversed that general area who simply never told anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2020 20:14:56 GMT -5
They got paid... Think about that statement for a minute, Michael. Who exactly is They? You have one proven participant in "the gang" known as CJ, aka Hauptmann. The same guy who managed to account for well over 80% of the ransom payment, at a time when he was unemployed between April 2, 1932 and September 19, 1934. There is some evidence of another participant as the suspected lookout at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's, but it's unproven as to whether this person even benefited financially from the extortion. Isidor Fisch, who may not even have known Hauptmann in April of 1932, might well have assisted in the laundering of ransom money later in the timeline. Next you have CJ, who has previously told Condon he is essentially just the messenger within the extortion, (among a group of anywhere from 5 to 7 other people) unilaterally accepting $20K less on the spot, just before he provides the Condon-requested receipt and note of instruction as to where the child can be found. This is the $20K that you apparently had earmarked for Condon as a willing confederate, supposedly enlisted by the extortionists. And who is asking CJ to accept the $20K less? The American patriot and Lindbergh-idolizing Condon but now a dastardly turncoat, who according to you, has just forfeited his grand payday. To top it off, your previous statements to the effect these extortionists would have worked their marks for every single dollar, including Condon's $1000, seems to pale here, as it's pretty apparent They had no interest in getting anything above and beyond what Hauptmann himself was lucky to secure. Ummmm yes Joe - THEY. What did you come down with selective amnesia again? Or were you triggered believing it negatively affected or besmirched you're old pal Condon? I believe even you suggested Mueller could have been helping launder that money - or am I mistaken? Just that one possibility justifies the pronoun "They." And here we are three books later and one has to forget a whole hell of a lot in order to come to the conclusion that Hauptmann was a Lone-Wolf. Is that where you are now Joe, or is this you acting like a White Knight riding in to defend Condon's honour? "American Patriot" (LOL) his neighbors, associates, and mailmen referred to him as a " nitwit," and a " faker" and he lied continuously as documented throughout V2 none of which can be justified. Glad you brought up that $1000. I'm surprised actually. Remember what his wife told Special Agent Manning? She was all stressed out suffering from " mental discomfort" due to this offer because he was " encountering considerable difficulty in straightening out his mortgages and tax payments on many of his real estate holdings." (V2 page 84). Crazy to think he'd offer this amount when he never had it to spare in the first place. Who does that? Perhaps someone who knows THEY are NOT going to accept? Remember, it was Condon who also used the pronoun "they." Do you trust him or don't you? When it comes to the ransom ... the forensic accounting reports mention many things of value that was not testified to. First, they used his logs where they wanted to. Admittedly, there was a major gap for lack of documentation prior to the crime. Then there was that pesky notation of $17,000 with a "5" written over the "7" after Fisch got 2k. And remember, the $15,000 in the log book represented that amount belonging to Fisch. How to explain this.... oh, that was 'fake.' So which is it? Real, because Frank said these sources were legitimate. And he also wrote: It might be that the $15,000 entry on page 73 is intended to represent Fisch’s interest in the furs, or it might represent the $14,600 in ransom money found by the police in Hauptmann’s garage and which he claims Fisch left with him for safekeeping when he sailed for Germany. (V2 page 568) So Frank considered this possibility but we should not?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 18, 2020 12:47:06 GMT -5
Amy, in regards to the last sentence in your previous post, I would never attempt to help you to understand this case! When it comes to the LKC very few are in your league. Your knowledge of the details in this case continues to amaze me. In addition to your knowledge of it, I find that you are excellent in your deductive reasoning. I worked with many outstanding Agents in my 30 year career and you could have definitely held your own with the best. If you didn't have a previous career in criminal investigations, I believe you may have missed your calling.
You certainly appear to have a great understanding of the Squibb Laboratory Report. You picked right up on the word "overlies" in regards to the two soil types on the burlap bag. Not just two soil types on the bag but the more rich black humus type topsoil overlying the more fine, dryer and lighter reddish brown soil (both by the way are very prevalent in the entire Hopewell area). Definitely indicating a seqence in application. Thanks for providing the NJSP document describing that the reddish soil in the fruitjars was collected under the child's window at the Lindbergh residence. I believe that your last paragraph in your post is an excellent observation as to how the two soil types got on to this burlap bag. I couldn't agree more--Lindbergh's residence and Mt Rose Hill. I do believe that one has to be careful when interpreting the Laboratory Report on this bag. There could certainly be substances on the bag that have nothing to do with this crime. I was attempting in my last post to say that this bag had a "life" prior to March 1, 1932. Michael's research on the NJSP tracing of this bag was thorough and interesting, but the trace still left a time gap between whenever and whereever it was first sold at retail until March 1st. Who knows what it could have been exposed to during that time period.
In your response to Stella 7's post, you set forth some of your theory on the activities surrounding the child's remains on Mt Rose Hill. As usual, I found it very interesting. It's certainly far different from my senario, but very insightful. A couple of quick questions for you whenever you get a chance:
1. Was the child's body buried at this predetermined site on Mt Rose Hill on March 1st with the intentions that it would stay there for "eternity" and hopefully never be found, a la John Gotti?
2. Was the body subsequently removed from its buried location on Mt Rose Hill by Lindbergh's accomplices after he demanded that the body be placed somewhere for discovery to end any future bogus ransom/extortion attempts?
3. If the body was subsequently placed in the spot that Allen found it by someone involved in the Lindbergh scheme, when and how did the animal activity occur, and why would they not place the body in the bag right on the roadside or someother nearby obvious location where it would quickly be found? (sorry for the two part question!)
I am always attempting to understand this theory that Lindbergh was invoved (the instigator) of this crime, but to me the theory always results in more questions than answers. Things quickly become quite involved and extremely complicated, if not downright convoluted. That straight line of investigation that will normally bust right through to a resolution becomes quite crooked. I think the Laboratory Report, with its soil analysis and animal hair (that to me perfectly matches the color and length of hair on a bobcat's head and face), provides for a much simpler and direct scenario of events. Of course one has to believe that this was a real kidnapping to accept that explanation of events. I've observed through the years that sometimes the human brain, with its amazing ability to analize, can sometimes go into overdrive. I used to find myself sometimes having to "put on the brakes" when examining a case. As I have said in other previous posts, just my little two cents worth. Again I immensely enjoy reading all of your thoughts on this case.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 18, 2020 16:55:30 GMT -5
Hi Lurp, I know you asked Amy this question and I don't mean to jump in, but I'd like to put my own idea/timeline out there and see what Amy thinks: First, the bag with the body inside was picked up by the kidnappers from beneath the nursery window on the night of March 1. That night, they took it elsewhere in the Hopewell area--possibly Lindbergh's Cold Soil Rd. farmhouse--where it was buried. It was kept there until the time came to disinter and dump it at the pulloff on Hopewell-Princeton Rd., for a quick discovery and to bring closure to the case. After the ransom was paid, sometime immediately after April 2, that's what happened, but probably within a matter of hours, before the body could be found, animals (bobcats, foxes, what have you) got a hold of the body, separating it from the bag and dragging it back into the woods, where it was finally found on May 12. The only thing I'm unsure of is how all the accounts that Michael describes in Vol. 3--accounts of people seeing others in and out of those woods as if they were checking on something--I don't know where all that fits into this. Maybe they had nothing to do with the crime...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 8:32:54 GMT -5
Amy, in regards to the last sentence in your previous post, I would never attempt to help you to understand this case! First, thank you for your expression of confidence in me! It is certainly appreciated and quite humbling coming from a man with your background in criminal investigation work. I needed to know if I was interpreting the Squibb report correctly. You certainly answered this for me!! I do believe you make an important point here. The time gap between bag acquisition and its use in the kidnapping is not really known. I think there are hints to be found in the seams of the bag which contains some coal dust and oat materials. I am not sure if they could have provided any solid leads though. Just suggestive ones. Michael's research on the burlap bag is excellent. I will put a response together for you over the weekend and post it as soon as it is completed. Thanks for asking the questions! I hear you loud and clear. I am concerned about doing this myself. I am a detail oriented person and I know this can be an issue for me. As I continue to learn about this case, I understand the need to work at not letting my thinking lead me away from known facts in this case as I work through theories. Your two cents worth continues to be of much more value. I hope you will continue making such investments on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 9:38:07 GMT -5
First, the bag with the body inside was picked up by the kidnappers from beneath the nursery window on the night of March 1. I do agree with this, LJ. Like you, this has always been my favorite theory about where Charlie was buried for a number of reasons. However, based on the dirt types found on the burlap bag, there is not a third soil type found on that bag to place it somewhere other than where it was found. I would need to know the soil makeup for the Cold Soil Road farm in order to positively be able to say Charlie was buried there. I don't know this. Right now I only have soil that matches to the Lindbergh house soil and the Mount Rose Hill soil. That being said, I do consider the possibility that the burlap bag itself could have come from the Cold Soil Road farm because of a purchase of oats or something else for that farm. At this point, I do believe that the bag and body surfaced after the payment of the ransom. My own opinion, at this time, is that this probably took place in May. One of my reasons for believing this is Stella 7's post about J.B. Hill and other men being in this area, probably in late April. Had that body and bag been on the surface, it is reasonable to assume it would have been stumbled upon before William Allen discovered it. This is my own opinion, however. My understanding is that the bag was found on the roadside. Are you saying it was next to the pulloff section where the fence meets the road or left in the pulloff section? It is no news on this board that I have never been a fan of the bag with the body still in it being dropped on the roadside. There was a skeleton bone from the body found in that bag. As Rab had said when he wrote about this, bones don't fall off a fresh corpse, which means that the body in that bag was decomposed to the extent that it had become skeletal so that a bone could become separated from its skeleton. I believe the evidence shows that animals were in contact with the corpse, absolutely! I do believe that this contact occurred at the gravesite, not at the roadside. There is no way a skeletal body, already free of the bag, is being dragged from the road over the grassy knoll and through a stream without more of its skeletal parts separating from the body. I think it more likely this animal activity occurred at the gravesite after the body was out of the bag. Plus there is nothing in the Squibb report that finds or even suggests this burlap bag had been opened by animals trying to get at the contents inside. These are my own personal observations and are not intended to change anyone's personal theories.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 19, 2020 11:27:33 GMT -5
Hey Amy, it seems the only place we’re differing is where and how the body got out of the bag. This obviously happened after the corpse was decomposed, given the bone found inside, but it seems you’re saying someone did this, rather than an animal shaking the body out. If this happened, which I can see, since there were no apparent tears or teeth marks on the bag, then I still think animals got ahold of the corpse in the pulloff before it could be found and dragged it into the woods. Remind me, where was the bag found exactly? In the pulloff or across the road from it? And what were all those people doing going in and out of the woods?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 12:59:40 GMT -5
Hey Amy, it seems the only place we’re differing is where and how the body got out of the bag. This obviously happened after the corpse was decomposed, given the bone found inside, but it seems you’re saying someone did this, rather than an animal shaking the body out. If this happened, which I can see, since there were no apparent tears or teeth marks on the bag, then I still think animals got ahold of the corpse in the pulloff before it could be found and dragged it into the woods. Remind me, where was the bag found exactly? In the pulloff or across the road from it? And what we’re all those people doing going in and out of the woods? According to the police reports, which I have posted on this board, the bag was found on the shoulder of the road (see TDC, Vol. 1, Chapter 12, Page 258). The shoulder we are talking about is on the same side as the pulloff but the bag is not in the pulloff section. I am definitely not opposed to considering that animals might have pulled the bag with the corpse still in it into the woods. What I don't believe happened is that the body was shook out of the bag at the roadside and the skeleton was then dragged into the woods free of that bag.
|
|