|
Post by rita on Feb 7, 2006 0:15:18 GMT -5
Besides $50,000.00 dollars being too low for a famous person with millionaire family this figure would not have allowed for the crew needed for hiding a child plus all of he expenses in the one year caseing claim made by the ransom notes. My contention is that CAL was fishing for just any extortionist that would take the bait.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2006 6:16:23 GMT -5
As I've always said...If the first picture of the child was worth $10,000 the actual child had to be worth at least 10X that.
$50,000 does seem like an odd figure. It was the demand of the Extortionist in the Constance Morrow case as we all read in A&M's book, and it was the price of the cost of construction at Highfields.
Val O'Farrell claimed the child was a "million dollar baby" and, as reported in the newspapers at the time, he believed the figure reported about was inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 7, 2006 8:37:09 GMT -5
If the kidnapping was staged to disquise the truth then the extortion/blackmail was staged to disquise the kidnapping. Condon jumped onto the scene in a flash and ended up being an extremely poor negotiator--wasting time and building a wooden box noone axe for? Whoever heard of taking 30 days to negotiate the return of an infant? I think more effort was spent convincing the extortionists that CAL would be willing to pay sight unseen of real ownership or Charlies viability. The Dr. Denton #2 was a red herring from start to finish. Three sources declared the baby was either sick or dead...Mary Cerrita, Edgar Cayce and CJ! Theres all kinds of proof that Charlie is alive and well: hair, photos, fingerprints, and the shirt w/ blue threads. The lowest form of ID was the Dr. Denton....and the results were predictable...one dead Charlie. All we need now is a motive for the lies. CAL did not beleive the Vesica Pisces symbol so why should we? [too many copies--too many notes]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2006 19:57:53 GMT -5
What proof exists that CharlesJr is alive and well?
I don't see now nor have I ever seen one shred of evidence to suggest this. In fact, the exact inverse is true. Heck, even the pictures of the corpse look like the existing pictures of CharlesJr. We can't say these pictures were faked because CAL was outraged when he discovered they existed and ordered the plates destroyed.
By then it was too late. Reporters had broken into the morgue and snapped a few shots...Some shots were sold to Reporters, etc.
Even Jafsie was keeping a picture of the corpse as a "memento" in a "secret drawer" in his antique desk which he showed off to Special Agent Manning with pride. How disgustingly morbid.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 7, 2006 20:36:30 GMT -5
To Michael, Rick It would be nice to discover a clue somewhere in all the evidence that would explain all the deception. If Carol had to use experimental procedure on CAL Jr. for unexplained reasons, and it failed there would still have to be he same deception, as an experimental procedure death might have taken away the trust money from them. I remember reading somehere that some high ranking officer had written threat letters to many different individuals, but he was given a military investigation and cleared.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Feb 8, 2006 6:48:25 GMT -5
Michael...Im not suggesting that Charlie WAS still alive during the fake negotiations. Im suggesting that there were many better ways to confirm or determine whether CJ and his gang actually HAD him or whether he was alive. It appears to me that CAL, Breck and Condon were more worried they would loose the blackmailers in the Bronx rather than loose Charlie in the long drawn out and goofey process. Heck, they advertised for replys by the code words "mony is redy" day after day/yet the mony was never redy until April. Meanwhile, they chased other leads, flew all over, and tried to deflect the $250K offer from Hearst Newspapers. All a collosal failure. Maybe CAL was hoping to find Charlie by accident or was visiting him in some Medical facility? I dont think even he knew what he wanted?
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Feb 8, 2006 14:58:12 GMT -5
It would be difficult to imagine in this tight circle of players that CAL and Alexis Carrel never heard about Katzen-Elenbogan and Skillman Village. Even if there was no direct overlap there must have been shared information? A another puzzle is that although Albert Einstien was Juden, Carrel claimed him as one of his best friends.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 9, 2006 23:44:09 GMT -5
To Rick I believe Skillman had some part, and I read a site that claimed the lady they called Pig Lady,who owned cabins near Lindbergh lived with a doctor from Skilman. She had given the police the story that some well dressed New Yorkers had rented a cabin and appeared to be casing the house. Schipple gave a story that the ladder was one of the ladders he had gotten from the Skillman remodeling project in 1931. We have been given all this information, but the court and New Jersey Police didn't see any significance in it, because they were only looking for what reinforced their prime suspect.
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Feb 10, 2006 6:54:19 GMT -5
Somebody like CAL must have made alot of enemies on his way to Power and Priveledge--either directly or indirectly. After all it was the Depression and CAL was building a $50,000 house out in otheres hunting areas. Although there were literally thousands of letters coming in daily after the kidnapping, well, there must have been many threats by post and phone before the kidnapping. Its hard to imagine that CAL went commando out there and had nary a single guard for Highfields and his family. Others must have mentioned this to CAL but as usual he liked to travel at high risk.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 11, 2006 0:22:57 GMT -5
To Rick He knew there was no danger to himself, as he was in the company of those who were part of plot. Of course he could call off security, and of course his lecture engagement would be secondary to the outline for that day. My guess is takes something pretty important to make you forget your lecture engagement. His story for the evening events in the aftermath of a lost engagement day seem unreasonably normal.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 11, 2006 2:50:57 GMT -5
Well, there were numerous opportunities for someone to remind him of the NYU dinner. Breckenridge and family spent the previous weekend at Highfields with Owen and debutante Alva Root. CAL worked with Breck in Manhattan Mon and Tues. in the same office. Breck tried to create some wierd series of phone calls late on Tuesday but it didnt make any sense. CALs explanation is even less viable. The nice thing about power, money and priveledge is you can lie thru your teeth with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for rick on Feb 11, 2006 14:30:36 GMT -5
Rick, Edgar Cayce actually said the baby was alive and in Connecticut. At least initially
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Feb 11, 2006 22:53:40 GMT -5
Yes, well maybe Edgar was right. Noone has any proof he wasnt. It was also interesting that EC mentioned that the baby "wasnt well". This would have been an added burden to anyone that grabbed him just to keep him alive when away from Betty Gow and oh yes, Anne. After thinking a little more about "Charlie" being dumped onto the road in a burlap bag I am more inclined to let CAL off that hook. It would take some pretty harsh/coarse murderers to embarass/thumb their nose at CAL that way. And alot of hatred. Payback for something CAL did or failed to do I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Feb 12, 2006 9:48:06 GMT -5
This assertion is baseless as even the most rudimentary research will show. The present day value of $50,000 in 1932 is approx $713,000. The value of the $70,000 that the ransom was subsequently raised to is some $998,000. These figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index at : www.bls.gov/cpi/[see Inflation Calculator] What would people do today for over $700k or nearly $1m? Remember that Hauptmann was making only $100 per month at the Majestic so the $50k ransom represented 41 years of salary for a man already in his thirties. Too low? Ridiculous. Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2006 11:34:30 GMT -5
Maybe saying "too low" isn't the proper issue.
Maybe the question should be why was it this relatively low amount when all things are considered? I think most of us agree this crime took planning and the dollar amount was given some thought beforehand.
So why $50,000 if you could easily get a lot more? Are we to suppose that Hauptmann, or whoever, cares about how much financial burden he is putting on Lindbergh or the Morrow's as Jafsie would lead us to believe? Or could it be that Hauptmann, or whoever, just wasn't greedy?
Think about it from today's perspective. If a Kidnapping took place and it involved the child of the most famous man on the planet, would you expect the ransom demand to be around $700,000?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 12, 2006 11:40:23 GMT -5
I would agree with Rab and add a point. One should consider the very real possibility that there was never any intention "kidnapping" here, rather murder and extortion were the objectives from the start. If you consider that as at least a possibility then consider that $50000 is an enormous sum to ask for when you essentially have nothing in return to give. No, I am not claiming that this is in fact the case here, just that it must be considered in the absence of any proof that a viable means to keep the victim alive during negotiations was in place.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 13, 2006 1:45:34 GMT -5
To all There is one thing everyone forgot there is no proof CJ ever got more than 15-20k, and that would support my fallguy fishing expedition, since who is CJ going to complain to? If CJ doesn't have the child he can't make any threats, so by CJ accepting the money from the funny money box, CAL essentialy transfers guilt of a dead body that may already be in place near the Skilman Institute? Think about it CJ is being told the child is alive and well, which seems to be a ploy to placate his fears on accepting the money, as you can percieve by his reluctance to deal over a long period of time. Was he being assured that after accepting the money there would not danger for him?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 13, 2006 7:12:27 GMT -5
Too low? Well only when compared to CJ who axed $70,000, Evylyn Walsh McClean who lost $104,000 and Heart News who offered $250,000 for Charlies safe return? Looks like Cal took the "lowest bidder">? The 18 gold shekels paid to Judas would be worth more than Fort Knox today too--but that dont make it germane?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 13, 2006 8:07:54 GMT -5
rick, i think judas was paid 30 pieces of silver. $50,000 would be alot to alot of people but to others not. I'd love to know who wrote the Constance ransom note
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2006 8:34:15 GMT -5
Kathy,
A man by the name of George Long wrote them. He worked for the U.S. Customs and a long time friend of General Edwards.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 13, 2006 12:02:21 GMT -5
The ransom amount in my mind is almost a moot point. $50K in 1932, as Rab points out relative to it's value today, would be enough to set up anyone comfortably, even a small group, if there was a reasonable plan of investment.
I maintain that this kidnapping was not supposed to unfold as it did, specifically the notification of the police by Lindbergh, death of the child, and the worldwide horror, indignation and lust for reprisal, courtesy of the news services. Further, I wouldn't expect a group of amateurs like CALjr's kidnappers to necessarily adhere to the "accepted rules of kidnapping," whatever those might have been, in a time where this practice was in its relative infancy and so dominated by the methods and devices of the underworld snatch racket.
If Lindbergh had acted as the original group of kidnappers had counted on him doing, his son may have been safely returned within a few days. This of course would have been dependant on him opening the ransom envelope and following the kidnappers' instructions, the baby being safely removed from the nursery and returned, and the money being quickly obtained. This would also be a good reason for keeping the ransom amount "reasonable," as the kidnappers probably believed Lindbergh would have little difficulty raising it quickly and quietly.
Instead, Lindbergh reacted by calling in the police right away, thereby immediately negating any possibility of any discreet dealing. From subsequent ransom notes, we know the kidnappers upbraided him more than once for having done this. There is also powerful evidence that the child died very close to the night of the kidnapping and no proof of him having been deliberately killed.
Everything in the aftermath of the child missing from his crib, to the discovery of the corpse, to me points to a "quick snatch and return" plan gone horribly wrong beginning with the accidental death of the child. Only one, or very possibly two individuals then had the brass appendages to go ahead with the exchange of the ransom payment for a dead baby. Anyone else originally involved and who subsequently lost their stomach for such a hasty and drastic revision of the original plan, would have little recourse but to disappear into the woodwork to battle with their consciences in silence.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 13, 2006 15:34:40 GMT -5
Good points Joe. I would go along with that view also. But what exactly do you mean by; "There is also powerful evidence that the child died very close to the night of the kidnapping and no proof of him having been deliberately killed." Can you elaborate on this?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2006 8:00:59 GMT -5
Kevin, I believe the main forensic opinion at the time was that the degree of decomposition was consistent with the child dying around the time of the kidnapping. Of course, temperature conditions, exposure to insects, burial, cover, moisture would all play a role in deviating from what could be considered t conditions.
From what I know about the stages of bodily decomposition, CALjr's corpse appears to have passed beyond the state of black putrefaction and well into or beyond butyric fermentation. This degree of decomposition would also seem to be consistent with the accepted timeframe, given the cooler than t temperatures at the time. I also believe the body may have been kept "on ice" for some time prior to its return to the Mt. Rose location and protecting from insect infestation.
I regard CJ's comment "vould I burn if the baby is dead?" as much an unintentional admission of the baby's real condition (dead on March 12) as it was towards his personal concern about the possibility of ultimately being fingered for causing it's death. What I find even more interesting though is CJ's preamble ("too risky, it could be thirty years..") leading up to the macabre question.
I view this lead-up as being consistent with an individual who for some time had been deliberating the consequences of his (or another person's) actions and how to address this concern with someone of perceived influence, (Condon) in relatively secure anonymity. The content strongly suggests to me that the baby had been dead for a number of days. If the baby's death had have been part of the original plan, I can't see CJ bringing this point up at all, for fear of it derailing the negotiations entirely.
The broken ladder remains a very persuasive argument for me, that something very unexpected happened during the time the baby was removed from the nursery. I subscribe to the theory the child was accidentally killed instantly or fatally injured. I'm undecided on the round hole behind the ear but feel this may well have been the means of putting the child out of its misery, given the serious nature of it's head injuries.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 14, 2006 9:00:21 GMT -5
Joe it then appears that you believe as many do that the baby's body was dumped at the Mt Rose site after being kept at another location. I just have such a hard time with this theory. I am not saying it is not possible, but one has to ask why? It is not a location that insures detection nor insures protection. The surrounding area is ground central for police , reporters, and general sightseers. So would it be likely for someone to drive into that cauldron with a babies decomposing corpse in their car, stop on the road, and half-bury the body 75ft in the woods? Why bother when the Delaware and countless other ptential burial spots are so near? And how does the dr dentons factor into this? Were they removed when the child was alive/ half-alive or after the child had been dead for sometime? It is all these little details that I try to consider when presented with a possible theory.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2006 17:22:13 GMT -5
Kevin, I don't feel certain that the corpse was brought to the Mt. Rose location after the ransom payment but I have an easier time believing this than the alternate, that it was there the whole time. For the kidnappers to be negotiating for payment knowing it could be discovered at any time, I find far too risky a scenario for even someone with nerves of steel.
On the other hand and as you point out, why risk returning the baby so close to home, when it could be dumped virtually anywhere with little risk of ever being found? I guess steel nerves again come into play or perhaps the perception that no one would think it possible for such a brazen and morbid action.
If the initial eyewitness reports are accurate, that the baby was found face down in a slight depression, some of its organs having been removed, and covered with dirt and leaves, would this not in itself indicate the body had been placed there fairly recently? Especially in light of the covering of dirt and leaves?
If animals had fed on the body and dragged it around, while in the process of removing the organs, it seems resonable to me that it would have been found in an uncovered position. I'm not sure about the habits of scavenging animals in general. Would they possibly make an attempt to cover what they were feeding on?
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 14, 2006 17:34:39 GMT -5
Good points Joe and once again it drives me crazy that more recording of evidence was not done! What little I know about this avenue of forensic science is that insects and spores seem to be the most reliable way to determine time of exposure. It would seem likely as you say that animals feeding on the corpse would have disturbed it more. Unfortunately we have a bunch of "investigators" poking the body with a stick and a coroner with arthritus. Seems reminiscent of the kidnap site!
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 14, 2006 23:25:55 GMT -5
To all You seem to drag opions all around, but they cannot explain the articles of deception 1. The fingerprint cleaned kidnap room. 2. The ladder being too far away from the window to allow one person to steal the child. 3. Body found less than five miles away in opposite direction from New York. 4. Baby is alive and well note to the kidnapper to who for what purpose? 5. Hour long conversations with CJ that doesn't seem to understand where the child is. 6. Custom made ransom box whose dimensions made it impossible to qickly count money. 7. CAL waiting two hours to read his son's ransom note, it could have said to immediatly go to phone booth for instructions. He obviosly new what it said, because it was placed on the cleaned window sill. 8. CAL used kidnapping as if a publicity agent was handling case, thereby making it impossible for police to check leads. 9. No remainder ransom money was ever found, simply because there was none. 10. The actual supposed kidnap ladder was never tested for maximum load, and only with an underweight policeman, as flimsy poor construction could not hold normal load weight. 11. The body found does not in any way resemble the childs picture. "We all know there was wood and handwriting evidence that was abused, but the multiple deceptions far outweigh the little credible evidence available.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 15, 2006 18:58:14 GMT -5
Joe brings up an essential point that certainly has been discussed before. Yet it is an important point that you have to answer as just plain stupid and if not then one of the important clues about the possible confederacy to kidnap the child and the confedearacy to extort the ransom money.
Clearly if CJ knew the child is dead then why on earth would he not move the child from the location so close to the Hopewell home. As Joe points out it is seemingly illogical and risky to have negotiations continue while the baby is in this location and becomes believable the baby was placed there later.
It has been my thinking all along that the confederacy was divided with tasks to do and had their equal parts of contribution to complete the crime. It has been my thought that possibly with the death of the child that the tasks were shuffled. Perhaps some exiting the group leaving some of the important aspects left undone and incomplete. Following up with this the location and getting rid of the corpse became their weakness even to the degree that CJ had no idea exactly where the corpse was.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 15, 2006 19:22:20 GMT -5
Rita,
I think of your eleven points some of them are very good. I do believe the baby found in the shallow grave has a likeness to Cal Jr. If in fact to say it is for sure I can not say. If it is not then the most logical thought would be the child lived on. However you have to think through this who would gain from a faked corpse of Cal Jr ? The only possible answer I can think is to believe Lindbergh didn't want the child anymore. If it was a plain old kidnapping why would they keep the child? it would be living evidence against them if discovered. In my opinion if you believe the baby found is not the Lindbergh baby then you really have to believe Charles Lindbergh was the author of the crime.
|
|
Rick for Kathy and Gary
Guest
|
Post by Rick for Kathy and Gary on Feb 15, 2006 22:07:52 GMT -5
A couple additional points to ponder. First, Charlie, to me at least, is the central victim of this crime. Too little to care for himself. What was CAL thinking with this elaborate and cumbersome attempt to get him back involving "go-betweens" of all shapes and sizes? Rosner, Spitz, Bitalle and mob boss Madden first. Then Jafsie Condon and his Bronx Home News gambit second. CAl balked on the ransom more than once and the Money was NOT ready. Second...whats with this Dr. Denton Sleeping Suite for a positive Id? This too fails miserably. And last...why washnt a little more time given to saving Charlie "up front" rather than after it was too late to identify his skeletal remains. Why did Dr. VanIngen balk at a positive ID? what was he hiding/
|
|