|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Aug 21, 2006 16:02:52 GMT -5
I stumbled on the Squibb & Sons Report on Ronelles Board: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/squibb.pdfIts dated 27 May 1932 and covers all the leaves, soil, clothing, gloves, table cloth, hair, burlap bag found with the corpse at the MT. Rose gravesite.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2006 5:13:49 GMT -5
The coal is in the seam of the bag....
Of course since the bag had been used previously, the argument could be made this was in the seam before it was used to carry out the crime. I think what else is telling is the different type of soil found on the bag, one which matches the area but one which doesn't AND the soil on the gloves which seem to connect them to the bag.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 22, 2006 6:32:58 GMT -5
We are talking about a "clump" of what appears to be coal that is only 3/64" in diameter. Is this what all the furnace room theorizing is based on? Look at what else was found in that report, there are far more interesting clues contained in it.
|
|
|
Post by Santa and Coal on Aug 22, 2006 11:03:52 GMT -5
kevin--did you really expect to find huge lumps of coal in the bag? From page 3/Squibb Report:
" No indications of blood stains were found on any of the articles examined by Mr. Thomas. Much of the soil on these articles is characterized by particles of cinder, slag and coal dust. the types of soil found on these articles and that received in the fruit jar box on May 23rd are distinctly different in microscopic characteristisc from any of the soil found on the aritcles described in sections I ot VIII of thei report."
1-how sensitive are the blood tests vis-a-vis lumenol?
2. cinder slag and coal dust would not be found in the woods? But this proves little since the bags past is unknown? However, FEED is usually not associated with these types of particles/
rick/
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 22, 2006 13:40:05 GMT -5
Rick~ Thanx so much for posting this report. Had tried to open from Ronnele's board but kept getting "page not found". It was such interesting reading and gives one a better sense of what a few things were about. I have to say evidence collection has come a long way since those days! For instance, Swartzy's lack of sourcing on the second hair sample. Am wondering if the bone in thebag takes on a different slant, now since it was found in amongst some leaves also in the bag? Though to my mind it adds a new puzzle-- why were leaves in the bag, at all? Though again, I can't rid myself of the question as to whether the remains were put in the bag to transfer from the woods to a receiving vehicle, which might account for both the bone and the leaves being inside it?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Aug 22, 2006 13:56:08 GMT -5
Where was the bag found, in relation to the body?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 22, 2006 16:59:30 GMT -5
Yes Rick:
No indications of blood stains were found on any of the articles examined by Mr. Thomas. Much of the soil on these articles is characterized by particles of cinder, slag and coal dust. the types of soil found on these articles and that received in the fruit jar box on May 23rd are distinctly different in microscopic characteristisc from any of the soil found on the aritcles described in sections I ot VIII of thei report."
And what articles are in sections I to VIII?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2006 19:55:54 GMT -5
The first thing I want to make clear is there were several forensic reports made by Squibb concerning many items - some in this report Ronelle was kind enough to host on her site. In fact, her version is different then mine insofar as the above linked copy has different notes in the margin. It's important to read everything very closely so as not to get confused (and its very easy to do). Next I want to say my suggestion was just that - a suggestion. I made no assertion then nor do I now. It's something I felt was an option to consider based upon (3) things: - The body appears to have been in an advance state of decay which may have not have occurred under the climate conditions presented by the period of time in question.
- Murray Garsson's search of the Lindbergh's furnace and my knowledge concerning why he made that search.
- Squibb reporting the coal dust in the seam of the Burlap Bag coupled with the fact coal wasn't found in the surrounding soil of the area in which the child was found.
That's it. My name isn't Allen and I won't be misleading people, embellishing, misrepresenting, quoting people who never said what's quoted, and/or portraying speculation as fact. I agree with Kevin there are a ton of very important details found within this report. First to answer Gismo's question - the bag was found alongside the road and by most accounts was in line with the body which was found on a "V" shaped piece of land with a stream between the body and the road. Fiber from this bag was found on the clothes of the corpse. A bone from the corpse was found inside the bag. Only soil found common with the ground the corpse was found existed on the bones. Therefore: The child never left the bag until he had been in a state of decomposition AND had only left the bag in this area. It's my position the child could not have been buried inside the bag because of its location vs. the corpse. The corpse still laid mostly buried in its shallow grave while the bag was along side of the road. In my opinion the bag was being used as a "marker" to identify the location of the child. If one assumes animals somehow 'moved' the bag I highly doubt they would have done so across a stream in a direct line with the corpse, towards the road, and then left it there never to return again. In the meantime they ate some of the corpse but did not move it AFTER removing it from the bag. If one assumes the bag and the corpse were once in the same place I believe the animals would be more interested in the corpse then the bag. Then as a final variable to consider...Rab always asks where the rubber pants and the diaper went. The animals surely didn't eat or run away with them. Here is another report I linked from Ronelle's site: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/bassreport.pdfI find it best to right-click "save as" then read it once its done downloading....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 22, 2006 20:22:58 GMT -5
So how do you feel about the opposite scenario? That is that the body (in the bag) was dumped on the side of the road and animal(s) dragged the body to the leaf litter while leaving the bag. I have seen deer carcases dragged into the woods by fox or wild dogs.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2006 5:29:41 GMT -5
Another great suggestion Kevin, and I think its definitely a work-able hypothesis. It makes sense... I once saw a St. Bernard pick up a dead rabbit in a field then take it into the woods and bury it.
Let me digest this new idea. I think there are some things to both support and possibly question it as well. Hmmmm.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 23, 2006 6:36:00 GMT -5
It would certainly explain the so called "shallow grave" and perhaps the presence of the other animal bones. I guess it is an instinct with some animals and serves the purpose of hiding their "find" from carrion eating birds such as vultures. Of course if this is the case, we are still left with the mystery of why the kidnappers brought the body back to this general area. Perhaps they intended to drop it closer to Highfields and had second thoughts about that upon seeing the NJSP gatehouse detail. www.imagecabin.com/?view=1563329305a614cf413340cbe
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 23, 2006 21:56:49 GMT -5
The burlap bag as a marker? I fail to see how a burlap bag laying at edge of road sends any message other than a burlap bag laying at edge of road (?) In the Squibb Report I can't spot the origin of the soil in the Mason jar box. Anyone know? The pair of gloves: Any significance to the left handed glove more faded (suggesting more wear and tear?), I wonder. Am even more inclined to rule out bullet hole, since no blood stains were found (though I don't know the caliber of blood stain testing back in that day and time). Also wonder about the extra long burlap strips found. An odd find, to my mind. Very interesting reading..
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 24, 2006 7:02:10 GMT -5
Those "extra long" burlap strips are commonly used in tree farms and other farms to wrap and protect the tree trunks and crops. Also makes for good shoe wraps, ladder mitts, and gags.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2006 18:59:34 GMT -5
I believe Lupica saw a Confederate. Lupica also saw the burlap bags in the car. I had believed the site was staged to present a scenario that this child had been dumped there March 1st. And I believe he was meant to be found. My belief was the child was buried in a very shallow grave and the bag discarded on the side of the road to either mark the spot for the Kidnappers or knowing the Police were aware of a burlap bag being in one of the Kidnappers cars - draw the suspicion of the Police and therefore lead them to the child's corpse. They would also find the shovel on the other side of the road, the dated newspaper article nearby, and the gloves used in the crime all suggesting the child was placed there the night of March 1st. However, if Kevin's theory is correct - then it appears the child was dumped on the side of the road intended to be discovered this way. While I haven't finished John's book yet, I didn't come across reference to Parker's letter to Hoffman where he mentions the fact Hopewell Drug Store owner George Pearson told him that about (15) days prior to the finding of the corpse he almost ran over a "bundle" in the middle of the road which was "opposite" to where the baby was found. If true - I think this supports Kevin's theory. I also think that if Kevin's theory is correct it proves the child was 'brought back' to this location much later then the night of March 1st. A burlap bag with a child in it would simply not remain unchecked during the time in question - especially since the phone lines were ran so close - just as Parker had pointed out. As stated in Liz's Ladder report: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/lizpagel.pdfThis soil came from under the nursery window at Highfields. As you can see, there were similar components to the soil there and at Mount Rose where the corpse was found - however - there were some differences. The color was the same.... But one thing that bothers me is the statement Dr. Anderson makes concerning the soil in the jars being different from the soil found at Mt. Rose on any of the items. Of course that would include the burlap bag. Furthermore, we have the same color, the same fine sand particles but no humus found in the Highfields soil. It could be a stumbling block to Kevin's theory, although Mr. Thomas wrote he made his observations "under low magnification." I would like to get Liz's opinion on this matter.....
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Aug 25, 2006 2:03:29 GMT -5
Hi all. One problem with the suggestion that the bag and body were dumped by the side of the road and the body then dragged to the site where it was found - the Squibb report mentions that among the items found was a patch of burlap. This patch was found near the body (I think in the baskets of leaves and soil taken from immediate vicinity of the body). The patch also had 'rootlets' growing through it. This tends to make me think that the bag was originally with/near the body, began to deteriorate and was blown to where found. Also indicates the body was there for a while, although I don't know what type of rootlets and how fast they grow.
Also, even though there was a bone found in the bag, I wonder if the bone was in there because it was caught up in the leaves - 4oz when dry, from memory. I think the statement referring to this is something like "Burlap bag containing leaves and soil found near body" which reads to me that the leaves were near the body, and so the bone could easily be caught up in those.
One more thing, the report states that there were two fibres found on the babys clothing that matched the bag.
I should mention I have only seen one Squibb report, the one on Ronelle's board, and it is this report I am referring to.
Cheers
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 25, 2006 6:18:47 GMT -5
One potential issue regarding soil comparisons at Highfields involves the disturbed earth around the house due to excavation. In those days before modern hydraulic excavators, foundations were often dug much larger than absolutely necessary. That is a lot of earth for a large house and it would be " shuffled" or distributed around the site. I don't think the final grading and topsoil had been done yet. So what you have all around that house is soil comprising of what exists down to a 9' or 8' depth all mixed together. I wonder if this would change the composition from that of an undisturbed area? And if any exported material was brought in, as often happens, then that would definately change the composition.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 25, 2006 14:23:39 GMT -5
The following is from LindyKidnap #6074 and discusses William Bass and Deaths Acre:
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 26, 2006 17:24:12 GMT -5
The extra long burlap strips keep hanging in my mind. Here's a thought I'm toying with. Might they have been used to tie the (bundled) remains to the back of a vehicle to transport to where the remains were found? (Whether an untimely "come loose" regarding the the man who drove past a "bundle in the road" is linked, who knows?). Were the strips used to drag the bag to the site, untied and the remains then dumped out? Then I have to consider a vehicle being left on side of road while doing this. If we just use, say a month/ month and an half after the crime, would there have still been masses of police and newshounds around that area(?) Could the vehicle have pulled up closer to the site(?). I remember someone recalling that , that area of land was more cleared back then, than now. That from there the Lindbergh house could readily be seen .
Have meant to say that moving along to other aspects of the case, of late, has been great. Really interesting and informative. Thanks for sharing all the good info and additional things to think about!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2006 20:47:32 GMT -5
Here's a picture of the burlap bag taken by Ronelle: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/burlapbag1.jpgThis is an interesting point. I believe the child never left the bag until he wound up in Mount Rose. While there is evidence the bag came into contact with two very different types of soil - there is no evidence on the clothes that the child did. As the child began to decompose while in the bag - during this process some of the jute fiber consistent with this burlap was transferred onto the corpse and its clothing. Further decomposition and animal interference could explain how this "patch" was found where it was. What exactly is meant by "patch" is anybody's guess. The issue of the "rootlets" would probably best show how long CJr. could have been there before being discovered but of course I am quite sure the first question a Botanist would ask is "what kind of plant" did these rootlets come from. This is the problem with the report -- its too general. I have another problem with the bag being delivered "inside out" yet they assert finding a "mass of leaves" in the bag and apparently after being "dried" (were they wet?) and weight with the hair also found there weighed 4 oz. What exactly is meant by "mass" and were these leaves found inside before the bag was turned inside out? Was what they found clinging to the burlap on the outside after they rec'd it? There is no way to know for sure - even Lt. Peterson doesn't make mention of this in his report. Someone else also mentioned wind as a factor.... I just don't see it. I've been in those woods and have been told it was the same back then. From the reports it sounds like there was even more brush at the time and we have to consider is that W. Allen went to a point where he felt he would not be seen. It's a pretty big bag and for it to blow out of the woods through this brush and land neatly onto the side of the road then stay there doesn't sit well with me. Additionally, if this bag had been buried it would have been plastered with mud. Ever bury a burlap sack? I believe that bag would have still been partially in that hole since the object the animals wanted was in it. What Allen thinks, believes, knows, or thinks he knows is useless drivel. Unless he quotes his source, which he rarely (if ever) does, then we simply can't trust his information. He's been caught, among many other things, making things up and I just don't think anyone has the time to go off on a wild goose chase trying to double-check his thoughts as a result of one of his irrelevant posts. I have too. It could simply have been "junk" but then again could have been associated with the crime and/or Kidnappers. Are you suggesting this method because of the smell? I certainly like Kevin's options as they concern these items.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 27, 2006 23:49:17 GMT -5
One thing that comes to my mind ,if to believe the child was left at Mt Rose later, why the trouble? Wouldn't one ordinarily dispose of the body? Obviously there was no such DNA evidence but why risk anything to tie to the killer let alone be discovered bringing it back. Its even hard for the" Lindbergh did it corner " to believe Lindbergh would do this. I think finality would be weak.
I don't think retribution has been looked hard enough.
Adding my thoughts on JBR case....its hard to believe karr's is the killer. I ask how would he ever know this family or the little girl. How would he ever come up with $118,000 the same amount of the bonus? Just like the Lindbergh case. Simple things that just don't make sense.
Hauptmann who really had no record of crime in the USA, family man with a child coming, decent skills, ability to save money with hard work pulls this rail out of an attic that you can barely get into. Add pulls off a professional job leaving no evidence and would have to know the room, the house, and the schedule of those that move within it. Simple things that just don't make sense.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 28, 2006 1:21:48 GMT -5
Gary~ I appreciate some of the points you make. Keep them coming Michael~ Thanks for your insightful posts, too. Yes I did consider the smell in referring to the remains being tied to the back of a vehicle, and some consideration of same as to being possibly dragged by those long strips to the grave site. I, like you have also wondered about the burlap bag being turned inside out. Somehow I don't think the bone fell off in the bag. I wonder if it was just somehow scooped up with that "mass" of leaves found in the bag. Even that is something of a puzzle to me. Sorry to bring it up again, but I do keep wondering if the remains may have been put back in the bag for transport out of the woods. Might explain the bone being caught up in the mass of leaves. "Mass" suggests to me stuck or clumped together, which in turn may suggest the decomp in effect rather gluing that together.I feel sure you've seen the bag first hand. Did you have any impression of it's condition showing advanced decomp? In the picture even the little blue thread shirt seems to show that evidence ( though naturally it was directly against the remains). I don't get "the patch" of burlap, either. Kevkon~Have refrained from posting the following , but don't aim to hold back any longer. Your tact and manners strike me as bad to none. Your demolition tactics had me dropping off the board for a good while. I will add that there are others who have dropped off for same reason. You make remarks such "the only coherent blah, blah, blah" "The only rational, blah, blah blah", which leaves those who don't agree with you as INcoherent and IRrational. I can be and no doubt am mistaken in some of my views, but I am neither incoherent nor irrational. In my view you could well stand to employ CIVILITY. And if you don't know the concept - I suggest you go look it up. Else get the job of deleting all posts you don't agree with before they can ever see the light of day.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 28, 2006 7:11:34 GMT -5
Mairi Sorry that my"tatics" are so brutal and impolite. Interesting, I thought this board was extremely civil and devoid of the name calling, labeling and general low brow posts that seem to appear elsewhere . But you will get no apology from me for challenging a post . And the day I don't get challenged in return is the day I stop posting.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 28, 2006 11:32:26 GMT -5
Kevkon~Challenging a post is appropriate in any discussion/debate. Rudely blowing someone out of the water because their opinion differs from yours is , of course, quite a different matter.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 28, 2006 14:28:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think I have ever "blown anyone out of the water". If you are referring to the exchange between Rick and I, then you should be aware that Rick is a big boy and more than able to handle my ruthless attacks. Furthermore it is only because I respect his knowledge and intellect that I do challenge him. You may notice that I don't bother with posts by those I don't. If being candid and straightforward is considered "rude", then I plead guilty. Sugarcoating is not my forte.This is an intense and sometimes passionate subject for some of us and I see the intensity of responses as being a natural result. It doesn't bother me, I am just thankful that this board has a diverse group and that the discussions take place without degenerating into personal attacks and name calling, something that you may notice only occurs with another group.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 28, 2006 14:35:02 GMT -5
Its right there in front of you again Kev....the barns on Condon's Street is far from a random sample? Pearls before swine? Please be reminded that AK is a "wood expert" not a dick? Although he did intend to look specifically at Condon's House or barns!!! Use your imagination........try and connect the dots/
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 28, 2006 16:33:48 GMT -5
KUSA - 9NEWS has confirmed from two sources that the DNA taken from John Mark Karr does not match the DNA samples taken from the crime scene in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case.
If the base pairs dont fit--you must acquit!
No charges will be filed?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 28, 2006 16:44:28 GMT -5
Rick, don't you mean Please connect the dots.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 28, 2006 16:45:51 GMT -5
No question in my mind as to whether Rick can handle "ruthless attacks". None whatsoever. Incidentally, candor and straight forwardness don't equal rudeness. Rudeness stands on it's own.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 28, 2006 17:27:37 GMT -5
Yes, I have seen some outrageous examples of it, but fortunately not on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 28, 2006 18:46:35 GMT -5
With the diversity that exists here little disagreements are bound to happen and I find it healthy to vent now and then... Some personalities will clash or hit a specific person's nerves more often then others.
New readers who may see a specific thread might see Joe and I debating and think 'whoa, these guys are really going at it' .... well we are but we aren't - if you know what I mean. Anyone who has been around long enough wouldn't even be fazed and know that I value Joe's opinions and view him as an essential voice on the board....always have and always will regardless of any heated debate.
All I ask is that we abide by some simple common sense rules such as: no lying, cheating, or stealing. I think we should be balanced in our requests of others, that is, if we demand something of someone we should demand it of everyone including ourselves. I was emailed a recent post where someone made up some rules demanding things of us (apparently) when no one there follows such rules - including the Poster in question at times. For example, don't demand forensics then blow off the accepted forensic guidelines in order to create an appearance of conclusiveness - to me that's unconscionable.
Fortunately, I have never seen anyone here do such things so I believe we've got a great board with an awesome bunch of knowledgeable people. It's a very valuable situation which has and will continue to benefit all of us.
|
|