kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 28, 2006 7:44:35 GMT -5
I have heard a lot of interesting and inventive theories regarding this crime and possible suspects. I think it is great to explore all possibilities as long as such are within the realm of known circumstances. Usually, though , I find that these theories tend to focus on or around the more important figures in this kidnapping ie, Lindbergh, Condon, Sharp, etc. While I can understand this, I feel that if Hauptmann had an accomplice it is someone flying under the radar. Someone ignored or possibly unknown is my bet for this accomplice ( or more). Perhaps some of you more versed in peripheral characters could offer some suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by rickIII TrooperIV on Apr 28, 2006 8:09:15 GMT -5
kevin...thanks for the lead-in on Kaiser Soze! Dont you think that Isador Fisch is a great candidate for "flying under the radar"? Here is someone whos knows just about every player in the LKC, maybe even Condon himself, and yet no suspicion is ever cast upon him in 2 and 1/2 years. Heres a guy ripping off all his friends and at the same time laundering Gold Certs in the Bronx poolhalls with his buddy Fritz. And still yet at the Chuzpah Fraternal order all his buddies think he is poor and destitute. Yet, affirmed by Steve he actually owns property in the Hamptons. He is also busy forging stock certs for Klar and Miller furriers. If we place Fisch at center stage and begin to examine carefully his closest friends and associates like Gerta, Uhlig, Klopperberg, Wendel, Schleser and Di Grasi ( the lookout?) it could be rather profitable and enlightening. Wilitnz must have spent many a late nite burying the Dead Fisch Story.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 29, 2006 6:39:13 GMT -5
Rick, I agree that Fisch is involved but I see his relationship with Hauptmann as sort of a mutual con job. Also Fisch has been a blip on the screen since the arrest. I am thinking of a comrade in arms, a Petzold type. Someone Hauptmann would have a extremely strong bond with and perhaps even a fear of, someone he would never give up. Hauptmann has this parallel life that ,according to many, even his wife and friends are unaware of. So who is he orbiting around in this other universe?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 29, 2006 16:15:16 GMT -5
Wow, Kevin, I really dont know....but I am willing to quess:
Hans Mueller? Annas cousins hubby...BRH would protect him/ Meuller gives him the Lilliput pistol.
Carl Henkel? Truck driver at Knichkerbocker? Nope.
Hans Kloppenberg? Took him to California on vacation? Maybe? Do we know what his skills are? jobs? German agent?
Mildred Glockner--BRHs sister? Lives in California?
Anna "under-the-radar" Hauptmann? Seems pretty far fetched. I doubt Anna was at Highfields with Fisch climbing the ladder while Richard waited in the Bakery?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 30, 2006 12:22:07 GMT -5
kevin....the more you think about it "everyone in the world" is under the radar screen in this case. For some inexplicable reasons (read CAL/Schwarzy and JEdgar) there are no leads, no suspects and no arrests. The case becomes so colde so fast its like an Icebergh? I really think the LKC was supposed to end after the Trials and Tribulations of John Curtis, (yachtsman) and Gaston Means, (conman). To his detrimbent BRH screwed up the original plan. If you would have kidnapped and killed the one, the only, Lindbergh Baby do you think you would have gotten out of towne? Or just continued to go about your regular business--spending Gold Certs as you go hoping not to run into John Condon? Is this the Petolds you mean: www.charlespetzold.com/ - 7k
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2006 7:10:36 GMT -5
Rick, I was refering to Hauptmann's partner in crime Fritz Petzold. I still think there might be someone who has escaped notice even after all these years and investigations. I had thought about Kloppenberg, I think he would have fit the mold.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2006 8:24:16 GMT -5
There's a ton of truth in what Kevin said (elsewhere) about conspiracies involving multiple parties. The more people involved the more potential there is to get caught. This is common sense really. However, we base this upon those situations where plots were exposed and people caught....those who never were can not be tested against the odds or factored into the equation. Even today with all of our advancements and technology the percentages of unsolved murders is very near 50%.
There are differing levels of involvement. If Fisch was laundering this money then who would say he "was not" involved? If "someone" is paid $5 to mail the March 7th ransom note and they see where its addressed.....then they would have to be from Mars not to put 2 & 2 together.
You see, the tests which must be put to Kevin's position here are those parties known to be involved but who are not Hauptmann. Where was the person who actually wrote J.J. Faulkner on the deposit slip? We know it wasn't Hauptmann and whoever wrote it knew they did but the mystery continues.
Who was the Needle Salesman? Who was the Scissors Grinder? Who was the 2nd Taxi Driver? Who was the Lookout at Woodlawn? Who was the Lookout at St. Raymond's? Who was Hauptmann having an affair with? Who was the lady at Tuckahoe?
Do we not know because they never existed?
I think its pretty obvious more then one person is involved here. This alone constitutes the dreaded adjective "conspiracy" to be applied.
I personally feel there were multiple parties. I don't think all parties knew who everyone was but I do believe they all knew there was a worse penalty for "squealing" then what would be paid for if caught.
I believe Condon has a degree of involvement but not from the beginning. Inspector Walsh had it right when he said Condon was the extra man "brought in" as explained by the ransom note. When Hauptmann said that Condon "held the keys to his cell" I believe this was very true and he was attempting to send him a message by and through these words.
In Hauptmann's case I believe he was protecting his wife and child from the threat of violence but I also believe he was protecting some others involved who may have been close to him.
Unlike Kevin I do not suspect Kloppenberg. Most of my suspicion has been on Hans Mueller, and as Hoover said Anna's brother was also not above suspicion.
I do not believe Hauptmann or anyone associated directly with him "set this up" or masterminded the events. I have gone on record, along with Gary I believe, as saying I believe these people were "hired" to perform whatever it was they did.
As always, I believe there was an "inside connection" who could have been one of those "usual suspects" which we all have considered from time to time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2006 9:14:46 GMT -5
Michael. I suspect everyone and there is ample supply of suspicion to go around. I don't know if I rate Kloppenberg as high on the list, but I do think there is someone like him, someone Hauptmann would have a special kinship with. I am intrigued by some of his associations, especially with the German cabinetmakers. I remember reading about a cabinetmaker from NYC, Edward Kutchera who reported his weekend house in Neshanic Station was used sometime during the kidnapping. The tale of that priest whose name escapes me regarding the horse farm in Jersey and the sighting of Hauptmann also intrigues me. I just think there is someone who has slipped by notice.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2006 19:02:02 GMT -5
I wonder if any custom woodwork, cabinetry, or furniture was subcontracted out to Bronx cabinetmakers in the construction of Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2006 5:54:44 GMT -5
See Jim Fisher's The Ghost of Hopewell starting on page 76.
I am not sure "slipped" is the proper word. They had "one of them" and decided their focus should be on him.
Tolksdorf was Hauptmann's friend but I think we should study a little more about people before we throw their name into the mix as a possible perpetrator. If this is the case with Tolksdorf what is it you have read that makes you suspicious Rick?
I've always believed there was a "central" figure that brought these people together. Hauptmann wasn't the type to do something like this alone or with people he didn't know unless he was with someone he trusted.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2006 6:55:33 GMT -5
Yes I agree, but how many slices of this pie are there to go around? I can see 2 or 3 involved, after that it becomes unreasonable for 50k . We know Hauptmann has been a major recipient of the ransom money, the proportion of which ranges depending on what accounting method is employed. I will still maintain that big conspiracies make for good reading but in reality their liabilities are overwhelming.
I
Yes, that is why it is most important to take the other option. Start with Hauptmann and look at his circle of influence. Who would he gravitate toward and form such a tight relationship with? Who might provide that which he lacks and who might gain from that which he offers? What is the nature of Hauptmann? What are his strengths and his weaknesses?
|
|
|
Post by jilly on May 5, 2006 8:12:53 GMT -5
I thought the prosecution proved that Hauptman spent all of the ransom money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2006 9:03:41 GMT -5
From my perspective there is no doubt that Hauptmann was enriched substantially and the majority of the ransom did go to him. However, trying to be open minded, I think the nature of his accounting and investment methods make it difficult to prove that.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 5, 2006 9:25:53 GMT -5
Michael--Frank Talisdorf's name was in the little black book of the circus acrobat in the Chicago jail. I had never heard the name before so I just threw it out in case Kevin wanted to snare him as the Mystery Mastermind.
I agree with you on the Connecticut Connection. Was Red Johnson grilled on whether or not he sent the two postcards as quessed by John Sasser on Ronelles board. If so, Red starts right in on Day2? One card was from Hartford, the other from Newark. I find it fascinating how the city names are so interchangable--like Norfolk and North Haven?
I found Denzlers photo in Wright. Good job! What medical facility etc is there in Connecticut? Maybe Edgar Cayce guessed right?
Im still confused about the Al Capone Connection? If CAL was so stubborn as to sacrifice Charlie rather than bend to releasing Big Al then he would not likely want to admit that now would he? I wish we knew if there was a veiled or open threat from Organized Crime ahead of time. Wendel always wanted to impress Big Al/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2006 10:42:02 GMT -5
Trying to find a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court, eh. I will stick around Mr Richards neighborhood. Birds of a feather flock together.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 skeptic III on May 5, 2006 13:36:11 GMT -5
Tilly.....I dont think so on the BRH-ransom bonanza quiestion. Many folks, including BRH, have made various charges of "fuzzy math". It seems to work like this--If AG Wilintz wants the ladder to fit to the house then......abracadabra....it does. If AG Wilintz wants all work records for 1 March and 12 March expunged from the books and deep-sixed for all times....well...Shazam....they are gone. And If ...just if....AG Wilintz wants all of BRH debits and credits to balance out to exactly (precisely) $50,000 bucks well, to the amazement of even the strongest critics...they does. Trouble is, no matter how you cook the books, $30,000 dollars US is still unaccounted for? Its either buried in Summit NJ or it was burned by Schwartzenkopfs orders after BRH was arrested. No loose ends to tie up there. Up in Smoke just like Cheech and Chon. kevin--Did you mean Mr. Rogers neighborhood? Hes dead? PBS Kids - Mister Rogers' Neighborhood Home Page Several activities for parents and children, song lyrics, fun facts about Mister Rogers, input from children and parents, TV-show schedule, and timeline. pbskids.org/rogers/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2006 14:56:49 GMT -5
So is Hauptmann. Since when has being dead been a problem in this case. In fact there are so many dead suspects turning over in their graves I am surprised the earth isn't shaking. Good luck digging for treasure in Summit or Connecticut.
P.S. I would bring a pick, that Summit soil is tough.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2006 21:10:35 GMT -5
I have always believed - and still believe - that someone pre-paid AND post-paid those involved. I don't think the 50K was ever supposed to be collected. We should also remember certain other tid-bits of info that Condon would feed Investigators now and then.... ....John was "dead" and the "Leader" had taken away the symbol maker so it would no longer be on any more notes.... There's a "back-door" deal here and its proven by the fact this corpse is "returned" to a spot where it could be found and thus eliminate any more extortion attempts. Why should a group that killed this child care enough to risk their necks to return it there AND try to make it look as though it was always there? This was their position, however, they really didn't prove it. Rab did a pretty good job of running down the finances and came up about $10,000 short: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141571543It's my position there's some money being applied to these totals as having a "ransom source" but I don't really think it was. I agree with both Rab and Kevin that Hauptmann definitely had unexplained enrichment post April 2nd, but I also believe there are unexplained funds to which Hauptmann utilized to take his California Trip. Not CAL....even he wasn't important enough to get that prize catch released.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 6, 2006 6:50:49 GMT -5
May I make a suggestion in regard to the body being "returned" to where it was found? Maybe it was there all along and the kidnapper returned to it in order to get the sleeping suit.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 6:56:37 GMT -5
I think that is a more realistic position. If finding the body was important then placing it off the beaten path seems contradictory. Not to mention the practical logistics involved with driving around with a decaying corpse.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2006 8:11:16 GMT -5
See below for my points concerning why CJr wasn't there originally. Now the "return" for the sleeping suit has a major problem attached to it outside of everything else.... The thumb guard. If we are to believe the thumb-guard wasn't "returned" and/or dropped there at a later date then it means the sleeping suit was removed from the child on March 1st at the scene of the crime because the ribbon had been tied over and around the sleeve of the sleeping suit. The thumb-guard's ribbon, when found, still had the knot in it which clearly shows the thumb-guard didn't "fall off" and came off when the suit did. I don't think it was found "off the beaten path" nor do I believe the child was in a car the entire time.... I think Rab's research must be taken into consideration. These factors tend not to be considered when general discussion takes place concerning this subject for some reason.... lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141576043Also, the points that I made in the past must be reconciled: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Repost From - Feb 10, 2006] The first point I wanted to raise was that when the emergency telephone lines were run by the telephone men to Highfields after the kidnapping these lines went right past this "burial site." In fact they ran on the ground and were within 75ft. of where CharlesJr. was found. This was early March so I don't believe they had the visual obstacles that existed once Spring set in. Now was the was hole dug out or not? From the 5-12 Wire: The body was lying in a depression as though there had been attempt to bury it, face down. The body was in a bad state of decomposition. We could not tell how long the body had been lying there. Inspector Walsh, 5-12 Report: Body, while partly buried, was clothed in two shirts, which were subsequently identified by the nurse in the Lindbergh home as the shirts worn by the Lindbergh baby at the time of its kidnapping.
Orville Wilson Statement 5-12: We stayed there about five minutes or more and in looking over the little body we noticed that it lay in a sort of a shallow hole and sort of covered up with dirt and leaves. It seem to me as if somebody had put the body there and attempted to cover it up with leaves and dirt. I can't find a quote I know exists but I am going to mention it anyway. A person who was there said the depression appeared to have been "scooped out" .... It's one of those things where I don't think it can ever be said with 100% certainty, but I think a case can be made for about an 85% range. So now I look at the bag and how Rab was so interested in the fact that one of the child's bones was found inside of it. As Rab said "bones don't fall off of fresh corpses" therefore, the baby came out of the bag after decomposition to where it was now found. I also think its important where the burlap bag was discovered too in relationship to the body... Deputy Chief Williamson 5-12 Statement: The only other thing I can say is that Officer Wolf and myself found a bag (burlap bag) along the highway, about where we stopped our car and directly opposite to where the body was found. Anyone who has been to this site knows the child was found on a "V" that is, he had a streams on both sides...front and back of where he was buried. So if the bag was thrown onto the side of the road then animals dragged the body diagonally south and then diagonally north OR they drug him across the stream and then buried him without finishing off all of his internal organs. Regardless, would an animal cover the child up in this way? Or if you believe the animals dragged the bag toward the street and left it there I would have to ask is this is a likely situation and does it explain the scenario?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 9:35:37 GMT -5
It was certainly off the path enough for Mr Allen to feel comfortable enough to do what he had to in private. I did not say that the body was in a car for the entire time. Wouldn't transporting this corpse be a nightmare?
Absolutely. But how does that preclude that the body was always off Mt Hope or prove that it was placed there to be found?
Is it really that hard to believe that linemen pre occupied with the task at hand could have missed the tiny body partially buried 75 ft away? Once again Mr Allen was confident of not being seen from the road so I think the location was somewhat shielded.
Or the bag was taken off the body. Who knows what elements were at work here.
I am not saying that animals dragged the bag to the street, there could be a combination of natural elements at work here. Is it easier to believe that someone trucked around a decomposing corpse at ground zero and then strategically placed it in a location 75ft in the woods with the intention of having it discovered by someone needing to relieve himself?
I am not saying this "dumping" theory is impossible, but I do think it is unlikely. If there was areason for the body to be discovered , why not make the discovery more likely? Certainly our kidnappers are not reluctant to write letters and provide directions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2006 10:18:21 GMT -5
I suppose its how you define "off the beaten path." For me its out in the middle of the woods where no one would reasonably expect someone to stumble upon it. Not a very hard thing to do in this area - even today. Where someone decides is far enough in the woods to take a leak (for me) doesn't qualify.
I believe, when looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, it proves the body wasn't there originally. The reasons for "why" this occurred are very debatable.
For the school of thought this child was simply "dumped" and not partially "buried" then I say it is hard to believe. The bag didn't grow legs and place itself on the side of the road - directly in line from the body despite being separated by a stream. It "marked" the spot as far as I am concerned and those lying the wire would have seen it. We also have to consider the NJSP constantly checked these lines for wire "taps" and would have also seen this bag not to mention buzzards as the body decayed, which by the way - they were looking for.
What other elements? I don't understand this in the context that the body was once in the bag. If its dumped out that night the bone doesn't remain inside. Run down a possible scenario for me so I can analyze it.
Its my opinion that it was meant to appear as if it was always there but still be found by the bag marking its location.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 10:33:06 GMT -5
Even a black man in 1932? I would say that dumping the body off that road at any time would be risky. Therefore there would be a natural limit to the distance one could travel off the road.
I think there are many possible scenarios available when one considers it. Your's is certainly one. I would suggest that it is just as likely that the body was dumped in the bag, where the decomposition started. After a period of time the bag was removed from the body by animals (or the kidnapper to retrieve the suit). After the bag is off wind would easily blow it around.
A burlap bag in a rural farmland area doesn't send any flares up for me. Why do you feel the body was meant to appear as if it were always there?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2006 12:11:14 GMT -5
I don't see the relevance. It seems that "answering the call of nature" along the road-side was a much more common occurrence then it is today. If you go to the spot today you'll see its not that far in and its in what I would call a somewhat unique spot.
I thought the person in question was a "risk taker?" By your theory CJ is negotiating for a Dead Baby that could have already been found.
Regardless, there were many eyewitness accounts of autos stopped by that location during the time nearest its discovery. There were people in that area who say it wasn't there earlier. If you don't want it to be found you go deep into the woods.
I think the bag was too large to be swept away like that and to wind up exactly where it was found would certainly against the odds. Additionally, there wasn't any evidence the bag had been buried and dug up, but there is evidence the child was at least "partially" buried. This too would also have to contend with the thumb-guard "problem" I mention above, and Rab's observations. For example, did they take the diapers and rubber pants when they retrieved the sleeping suit? By your proposed situation they should have been found with the corpse.
You're forgetting that Lupica saw what, by all accounts, was a Perpetrator and Lupica saw this ladder and burlap bags. The Police were aware of this.
I think it was staged to appear as though it was there the whole time for the exact same reason why its hard to accept it was returned. It implies something else was going on for these people to return this corpse to that spot.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 12:44:04 GMT -5
quote]I don't see the relevance. It seems that "answering the call of nature" along the road-side was a much more common occurrence then it is today. If you go to the spot today you'll see its not that far in and its in what I would call a somewhat unique spot.[/quote]
I think Mr Allen would see the relevance.
How much more risky could you get?
Ideally you would dispose of the body in a location that would insure non-discovery. However, why should we assume that the perp had this luxury? Why is it so hard to believe that the disposal of the body was a compromise?
What odds? The odds of nature in late winter? What evidence is there that the bag was not buried?
These issues would exist for either scenario. The body was in the bag at some point and for some period of time. The thumb guard, diapers, and Dr Dentons were on the baby and at some point removed. I don't see the time sensitivity here regarding moving the corpse.
You really think that by April the police assigned locally were on the lookout for burlap bags?
Like what?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2006 14:02:51 GMT -5
In what regard? I am not trying to minimize the discrimination we all know existed, however, I am trying to view this as something which affects the situation and can't come up with anything. He was working with a white guy and had a job. When it came out in the press he discovered the baby he became somewhat of a Celebrity - not a Villain - and when the reward was paid out Allen got a hefty sum of $5000.00. I call it as I see it. What I get out of the source documentation research, directly as it relates to this case, is that Jews were suffering in the same regard as blacks in these times. I am sure there are those who may disagree, however, I think we're getting away from the point of this discussion.
That is exactly my point.
Because of those facts which I have raised above. Additionally, please explain why Condon needs "proof" of anything and why CJ would agree to it. Furthermore, this sleeping suit sent to Condon proves absolutely nothing - yet - we are to believe these people drive back to Hopewell and find the exact location of the corpse it left as a "compromise" and actually found it. And if left as a compromise then it was done so in haste, in the dark, and in an area foreign to these Bronx Perpetrators. So these people come back - find the corpse (somehow) take the sleeping suit off of it, the diaper, and the rubber pants then returned to the Bronx only for the burlap bag to blow onto the side of the road coincidentally.
Again, why did Condon ask for this proof? The symbol proved who the Kidnappers were.
It's my opinion the Squibb Report would have revealed this bag as being covered with dirt at one time if it had been buried.
Because of what I posted above. The thumb-guard as found at Highfields still had the knot in the ribbon. The sleeping suit was removed without removing the thumb-guard first. This either happened at Highfields the night in question or was returned or placed at that spot ex post facto. It's one or the other so I can't see how we can have it both ways.
Also, I see the possibility of the baby as being transported in the bag after decomposition had already set in. We are assuming he was, the entire time of decomposition, in the bag but we just don't know this.
For what reason do these Perpetrators take away the diapers, rubber pants, and other thumb-guard but leave the other items behind? To me this suggests these items were left behind at where ever he had been before being brought to this place.
By your own argument a return trip to this place occurred. The facts, circumstances, and series of events seem to indicate that 'return' was later instead of earlier. When looking at it through this lens the timing is rather sensitive and not random. Perhaps the discovery may have come later but I surely believe it was to come - that seems to be the whole idea.
Absolutely.
Clearly it was done to benefit the Lindbergh's. It gives closure to the "hope" of finding this child alive and ends any potential extortion plots from those who don't have the baby and even those who may have been a party but "splintered" off. I've seen people suggest there was some kind of psychological motive behind it however that isn't my personal belief.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 15:16:58 GMT -5
My point about William Allen is that he would perhaps have been extra careful about privacy. Regardless, the point I am making is that the burial site was out of sight. Now, without dismissing your argument, why does someone who intends for a body to be found take such a precarious means to do so? Why leave it to chance if it is by design? Had Allen not stopped there and noticed the body, had it been allowed to further decompose, it may not have been discovered. I think that anyone who is going to all the risk of dropping off this corpse with the intention of it being found is going to make sure it is found. As for the police on the lookout for a burlap bag, why didn't they discover the bag independently ( and sooner) of Allen? I have no answer regarding the thumb guard, nor do I think anyone else does either. What happened to the other missing garments? Once again I don't know. Perhaps they were , shall we say, un-presentable. Would you or I under those circumstances accept the Dr Dentons as proof of a child? For myself, I honestly can't say for sure. Logically and intellectually no, but as a desperate parent wishing and hoping for the safe return of a child I might see what I want to. The police, with the advantage of experience with crime and objectivity would surely dismiss the suit as proof of anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2006 16:01:13 GMT -5
In the Spring - yes. In the Winter - no. Was there enough foliage on March 1st this day? Anyway, how do these Kidnappers estimate these circumstances in a rush in the dark?
How do we know there weren't measures in place to ensure this? I think there's much that was going on we simply don't know about. It could have been the bag had been placed there for just that reason.
Wouldn't that depend upon how long it was there?
I think its important to consider our options concerning it and apply them when considering this situation.
Who would care if these garments are found on a dead decaying corpse? On the other hand, if they were soiled and the child was "retained" for a period of time - yes. But a "compromise" drop right after the "snatch" doesn't support that.
Oddly, I believe we would both accept those in possession of the Secret Symbol. It was verifiable whereas the Sleeping Suit was not. And it wasn't only the Police who considered it may not be the exact one. Lindbergh himself would not commit to it in Court, so if we believe him then what did it really accomplish?
What's really strange is Lindy dealing with Curtis when he didn't have it AND believing he WAS dealing with someone who knew where the baby was.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 16:39:18 GMT -5
Seems like we are really thrashing this one out. Aren't you making my point here? The kidnappers would not have known the precarious nature of the grave. In any case it must have had enough cover for privacy and to allow the body to go unnoticed for some length of time. I agree there is much going on that we are unaware of. Why do you say the bag was "placed". Was it affixed to something? Did it appear to be "placed"?Well if the bag is "placed" on a main road and the police are actively looking for burlap bags how long would it escape their notice? I have a hard time believing anyone would pay any notice to a burlap bag on the side of the road and I am sure that without Allen's discovery it would have never been noticed.Yes as long as we don't bias those options.A kidnapper playing a game of extortion who suddenly needs some physical evidence might care about the condition of those clothes. Why were the Dr Dentons washed?Yes, but the symbol was only an authenticator of identity. The suit was an attempt , along with the ransom notes to prove a healthy hostage existed when none did.
|
|