|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2024 19:34:09 GMT -5
In V3 on page 90, I explain how I believe the bag with the body in it was tossed out onto the road so it could easily be discovered. However, it is my belief, as I stated on this same page, that animals came out into the road and dragged the body into the woods leaving the empty bag on the shoulder. Later on page 95, I mention the Fox as the likely culprit. Dave Coe, a friend of mine, was driving toward Sandy Ridge around 6AM when he saw a Fox trot into the road and drag a deer carass out of the street and continued to drag it across the grass as he proceeded on his way. He snapped this shot below and sent it to me. I am using it here to exemplify what I was trying to impress upon the reader about how I believe the child wound up out of that bag and in that shallow grave.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 20, 2024 8:29:27 GMT -5
At risk of stating the obvious: any animal will drag it's prey into a safer, more secluded spot e.g the woods, in order to enjoy consumption under safer conditions. Leaving corpse + sack on the roadside was intended to lead to rapid discovery. This was delayed by the unforeseen animal behaviour and it could have been months (if then) before the child's body was found.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2024 9:46:59 GMT -5
The fox (or other carrion seeker) theory seems a pretty sound possibility, given what appeared to be a very shallow and makeshift looking burial of the corpse.
Given the corpse's missing limbs, where would these have become detached, and under what conditions? Before the corpse was put in the bag, during its movement from the location alongside the road, or after it reached its final resting spot?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 21, 2024 7:58:59 GMT -5
Assuming the body to have been put in the sack shortly after death it is likely the limbs became detached after a period of decay i.e. during movement of the body from the roadside location or as a secondary removal of limbs from the "burial" site to further afield.
One would expect a grieving father, on discovery of his kidnapped/murdered son's remains:
(a) to consult with wife, grandmothers, aunts, uncle and all who had contact with the child during his short life. All these would welcome , if that is the right word, an opportunity to come together in a moment of shared grief and respect at the child's funeral. Especially in view of the cruel,sudden, and dramatic nature of the youngster's death.
(b) to postpone any funeral/burial/cremation until after a very thorough autopsy had been conducted by the most qualified and experienced experts available. Not only to ascertain the most likely cause of death but to opine on any evidence e.g enlarged skull, which may indicate a pre-existing medical condition. This would include, as far as possible, a toxicology analysis. Alkaloid narcotics/poisons have been detected in South American mummified remains so this opportunity should not be neglected.
Needless to say, none of this was done and there was an indecent rush to cremation ordered by Charles Lindbergh, the boy's father.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 21, 2024 10:25:18 GMT -5
Assuming the body to have been put in the sack shortly after death it is likely the limbs became detached after a period of decay i.e. during movement of the body from the roadside location or as a secondary removal of limbs from the "burial" site to further afield. One would expect a grieving father, on discovery of his kidnapped/murdered son's remains: (a) to consult with wife, grandmothers, aunts, uncle and all who had contact with the child during his short life. All these would welcome , if that is the right word, an opportunity to come together in a moment of shared grief and respect at the child's funeral. Especially in view of the cruel,sudden, and dramatic nature of the youngster's death. (b) to postpone any funeral/burial/cremation until after a very thorough autopsy had been conducted by the most qualified and experienced experts available. Not only to ascertain the most likely cause of death but to opine on any evidence e.g enlarged skull, which may indicate a pre-existing medical condition. This would include, as far as possible, a toxicology analysis. Alkaloid narcotics/poisons have been detected in South American mummified remains so this opportunity should not be neglected. Needless to say, none of this was done and there was an indecent rush to cremation ordered by Charles Lindbergh, the boy's father. I believe you're projecting yourself into Lindbergh's shoes here in the manner you would prefer him to have acted, instead of just allowing him to be Lindbergh and seeking to fully understand the scope of the actual circumstances You've outlined those circumstances which would reasonably apply to the death of the son of an average man living out of the eye of press and general public. Yes, one would expect all of what you suggest as appropriate behavior within the grieving and investigative processes in such circumstances. But you don't appear to be offering for consideration here, the almost rabid attention caused by the kidnapping and subsequent death of the son of a world famous personality who almost painfully rejected this kind of attention, or Lindbergh's overall and often difficult relationship with the press and general public. Those are very important considerations here.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 21, 2024 12:06:44 GMT -5
Assuming the body to have been put in the sack shortly after death it is likely the limbs became detached after a period of decay i.e. during movement of the body from the roadside location or as a secondary removal of limbs from the "burial" site to further afield. One would expect a grieving father, on discovery of his kidnapped/murdered son's remains: (a) to consult with wife, grandmothers, aunts, uncle and all who had contact with the child during his short life. All these would welcome , if that is the right word, an opportunity to come together in a moment of shared grief and respect at the child's funeral. Especially in view of the cruel,sudden, and dramatic nature of the youngster's death. (b) to postpone any funeral/burial/cremation until after a very thorough autopsy had been conducted by the most qualified and experienced experts available. Not only to ascertain the most likely cause of death but to opine on any evidence e.g enlarged skull, which may indicate a pre-existing medical condition. This would include, as far as possible, a toxicology analysis. Alkaloid narcotics/poisons have been detected in South American mummified remains so this opportunity should not be neglected. Needless to say, none of this was done and there was an indecent rush to cremation ordered by Charles Lindbergh, the boy's father. I believe you're projecting yourself into Lindbergh's shoes here in the manner you would prefer him to have acted, instead of just allowing him to be Lindbergh and seeking to fully understand the scope of the actual circumstances You've outlined those circumstances which would reasonably apply to the death of the son of an average man living out of the eye of press and general public. Yes, one would expect all of what you suggest as appropriate behavior within the grieving and investigative processes in such circumstances. But you don't appear to be offering for consideration here, the almost rabid attention caused by the kidnapping and subsequent death of the son of a world famous personality who almost painfully rejected this kind of attention, or Lindbergh's overall and often difficult relationship with the press and general public. Those are very important considerations here.How about holding asking for a meat slicer at the morgue and cutting open his son's corpse to inspect it for the number of teeth, showing zero emotion? I guess when you spend the boy's whole life referring to him as "it," you can do such things.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 22, 2024 3:14:18 GMT -5
No funeral / No autopsy: these were not choices forced onto Lindbergh due to his fame and desire to avoid publicity. He had all the resources of the Federal Government to help him arrange a private autopsy and a funeral as exclusive as a Mafia wedding. These were deliberate choices showing his callous disregard for the feelings of the child’s relatives and an indifference to what an autopsy might reveal. What was he afraid of?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2024 7:27:07 GMT -5
No funeral / No autopsy: these were not choices forced onto Lindbergh due to his fame and desire to avoid publicity. He had all the resources of the Federal Government to help him arrange a private autopsy and a funeral as exclusive as a Mafia wedding. These were deliberate choices showing his callous disregard for the feelings of the child’s relatives and an indifference to what an autopsy might reveal. What was he afraid of? Lindbergh was legally obliged to go along with an autopsy by the Mercer County Coroner. I see no evidence that he was personally attempting to avoid any legal obligations here. And had Lindbergh chosen to go with a private autopsy only even if he could actually have arranged this, what would you have said then, in the absence of the legally required investigative transparency? Perhaps something like, "What was he afraid of?"
I understand Lindbergh's hesitancy in having the discovery of his son's body turn into any more or a carnival sideshow that it was in danger of becoming. He actually believed that the press and public were in large part, responsible for Charlie's death. I also understand and respect your right to speculate here, so in that spirit, what could he have been attempting to hide here? I mean, the whole world was essentially aware of the fact Charlie was being treated for a medical condition through Anne's alert to the media about his daily diet. You ask, what was Charles Lindbergh afraid of. Do you have any ideas or are you just asking the question for effect?
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Apr 28, 2024 1:51:11 GMT -5
Assuming the body to have been put in the sack shortly after death it is likely the limbs became detached after a period of decay i.e. during movement of the body from the roadside location or as a secondary removal of limbs from the "burial" site to further afield. One would expect a grieving father, on discovery of his kidnapped/murdered son's remains: (a) to consult with wife, grandmothers, aunts, uncle and all who had contact with the child during his short life. All these would welcome , if that is the right word, an opportunity to come together in a moment of shared grief and respect at the child's funeral. Especially in view of the cruel,sudden, and dramatic nature of the youngster's death. (b) to postpone any funeral/burial/cremation until after a very thorough autopsy had been conducted by the most qualified and experienced experts available. Not only to ascertain the most likely cause of death but to opine on any evidence e.g enlarged skull, which may indicate a pre-existing medical condition. This would include, as far as possible, a toxicology analysis. Alkaloid narcotics/poisons have been detected in South American mummified remains so this opportunity should not be neglected. Needless to say, none of this was done and there was an indecent rush to cremation ordered by Charles Lindbergh, the boy's father. I believe you're projecting yourself into Lindbergh's shoes here in the manner you would prefer him to have acted, instead of just allowing him to be Lindbergh and seeking to fully understand the scope of the actual circumstances You've outlined those circumstances which would reasonably apply to the death of the son of an average man living out of the eye of press and general public. Yes, one would expect all of what you suggest as appropriate behavior within the grieving and investigative processes in such circumstances. But you don't appear to be offering for consideration here, the almost rabid attention caused by the kidnapping and subsequent death of the son of a world famous personality who almost painfully rejected this kind of attention, or Lindbergh's overall and often difficult relationship with the press and general public. Those are very important considerations here.I agree with Joe. Remember famous and infamous Graves have been dug up (i.e., wanted to hold Lincoln's body for ransom), Graham Parsons body Kidnapped, taken to Joshua Tree and set on fire, etc. I can just imagine what sickos would do to the Lindberghs and Morrows. End it all quickly and leave nothing behind. Would probably have done the same.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 28, 2024 4:03:32 GMT -5
Hi IloveDFW, Exhumation of the corpse by sickos applies only to a burial which is probably why Lindbergh chose to scatter his son's ashes at sea. Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 28, 2024 7:01:19 GMT -5
I believe you're projecting yourself into Lindbergh's shoes here in the manner you would prefer him to have acted, instead of just allowing him to be Lindbergh and seeking to fully understand the scope of the actual circumstances You've outlined those circumstances which would reasonably apply to the death of the son of an average man living out of the eye of press and general public. Yes, one would expect all of what you suggest as appropriate behavior within the grieving and investigative processes in such circumstances. But you don't appear to be offering for consideration here, the almost rabid attention caused by the kidnapping and subsequent death of the son of a world famous personality who almost painfully rejected this kind of attention, or Lindbergh's overall and often difficult relationship with the press and general public. Those are very important considerations here. How about holding asking for a meat slicer at the morgue and cutting open his son's corpse to inspect it for the number of teeth, showing zero emotion? I guess when you spend the boy's whole life referring to him as "it," you can do such things. I'm certainly not suggesting you or I would have done what Lindbergh did in the morgue, but I do believe Lindbergh would have behaved like Lindbergh here, even within the spectre of having to view his first born son's body. At the same time, I highly doubt he would have felt any degree of emotional attachment to the blackened, stinking mass of flesh and bone he had before him after 72 days of uncertainty over Charlie's fate. I'd also ask just to what extent would he have actually had to slice anything to fully view Charlie's sixteen teeth, when Betty Gow had already identified the the same number without the benefit of such a utensil.
As for your "it" reference, you're simply off the mark as to this name's true significance, by equating and confusing it with something degrading and insulting. Try researching the origin of this pet name as well as "Little It" a bit before you reply.
|
|