|
Post by Michael on Aug 28, 2006 19:05:10 GMT -5
You make some good points Gary. Why would someone go through the trouble to "return" this body here? Rab had advance a theory once that they were fulfilling their bargain - so assumed the body was placed there after the ransom was paid.
For me, the corpse being discovered assists Lindbergh because it ends the extortion end of the crime immediately upon its discovery.
This could also tie into the thumb-guard being found. Who put it there and when? Was it overlooked? What about the sleeping suit? Did the Kidnappers return to Mount Rose for it or did they remove it the night of the kidnapping? If the latter, how'd they know they were going to need it? CJ certainly didn't seem prepared and expected the money at Woodlawn.
So your question of 'why' is a good one Gary. For me the circumstantial evidence indicates this happened so why must be asked.
This is an interesting thought. I believe Rab and Kevin have independently kicked this idea around.
Your instincts were correct. All charges dropped because the DNA didn't match. Too bad for the Handwriting Expert who was just on CNN declaring Karr's handwriting matched the notes. He indicated that 15 points of similarity proved he wrote the notes.
Another miserable failure for this "science" it seems. Whatever happened to that computer comparison I posted about in the handwriting thread?
Anyway, even though its bogus, something Karr said gave me a flashback. He said he had hidden in the house and came out after everyone had fallen asleep. It made me think of one of Leon Ho-age's investigations where someone had hidden inside of a building. Is there any possible way someone could have hidden themselves in this house and aided those on the outside from the inside? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 28, 2006 21:45:45 GMT -5
1. Another huge embarrassment and failure of the hocus pocus of handwriting analysis! Think of all the brilliant forgers in the world forging money, paintings, letters of Mormon John, George Washingtons signature--need we go on. Criminals can forge anyding and anyone. Never even consideredin the LKC? Even Bornmann is judging handwriting? Yikes/ All handwriting is presumed normal? Two letters in one word "IS" proved that the Nursery Note was not copied...absurd...no proof at all. And, it was disquised....no sh*t sh*rlock? So lets review the bidding: the chisel fails, the ladder falls, and the handwriting isnt even science? Similar?
2. Unfortuneately Ellis Parker was certain that the body wasnt Charlie Jr. and was dumped by rumrunners and bootleggers to get the boose flowing down the highways again/ money was being lost? Parker was still solving hard cases in 1934 so we cant just blow him off on the 2'9" = 34" screwup. Very convenient. But if CAL and Gow were lying on 1 March about the wipe down of evidence, then they are Persons of Interest and may have been lying all along. Dr. VanIngen hangs up the entire process by refusing to make the call up or down: dont care about chit-chat later....its not under oath when it counts. Either i) the decomposition was way past Medical confirmation or ii) VanIngen did not want to raise the specter of Charlies defects....those of a one year olde in permanent limbo? You cant have it both ways so "pick your poison" Ellis picked #1? One thing we can all agree on ........Murderers do not Return Dead Corpses".....which then lead to the chair/ At least not on this planet? So, the dumpers had no fear of getting caught!
3. I suppose that retribution is the same as Revenge. This Theory or Motive could go miles explaining how this mess all got started or maybe "intercepted" down the road halfways. This theory would go miles to explain why Chalrie was dumped along the road in a burlap bag to be found for certain. Wendel for one had bootlegging Mafia organized crime connections.....and Capone did not get released from Prison as requested. Only persons like this make death threats and then make good on the threat. Maybe the truth is somewhere inbetween...some from column A and some from column B and then.....everyone wins and looses something? Maybe Charlie was physically and mentally subpar and also got caught up in a death threat situation? CAL and JFC thumbed their noses at the gang and got what they bargained for?
4. I agree Michael, the scariest thing Karr said was that he went to the Xmas party and hid under a guest room bed. If it werent for all the forensic evidence I would pick Santa Bill? Noone ever suspects Santa? AS for the LKC, that too is scary possibilty, who was there that day Charlie Ellerson for one driving the car. BUT the dog didnt bark/
|
|
|
Post by lp708 on Aug 28, 2006 22:38:43 GMT -5
Hope you don't mind if I jump in on this thread, albeit a little late.
My theory about the bag has been that the person who brought the body on Mount Rose dumped it into the shallow grave, then took the bag back to his car to wipe down the seat, floor, trunk or wherever the body had lain, and then tossed it. This would explain how the black soil, which does not match the Mount Rose soil, came to overlay the Mount Rose soil on the bag. Of course, that isn't the only possible origin of the black soil, but it works for me.
The only problem I have with the body in the bag being deposited at roadside and animals dragging the body out is that Squibb found NO animal hairs on or in the bag. Some trick. I would would imagine that animal hair would adhere to rough burlap even better than cat hair does to my freshly washed bedspread ;-)
The Squibb is very problematic as far as the soils because they did not have the soils examined by a mineralogist or a soil petrographer. If they had, they would have specified the minerals, not just saying black, white, yellow, etc.. I had a great deal of difficulty trying to match their descriptions to my soil samples and eventually gave up on that part of my soils research. I did make some headway, though. Anyway, if I can answer any questions about the Squibb soils ... fire away! I'll do my best to answer them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2006 5:16:09 GMT -5
Liz,
1. What is the difference between the soil at the Mount Rose site and Highfields?
2. Could the samples taken at Highfields have possibly matched the soil on the burlap sack?
3. Is the black soil on the bag consistent with a specific "target" area?
Glad you joined in on the discussion - we need a "rock-hound's" perspective.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 29, 2006 6:10:19 GMT -5
Rick, I don't know about murderers, but some kidnappers do. I will be glad to look up the case names for you, but there have been instances of a kidnapper returning a dead hostage.
Liz. would the recently disturbed soil at Highfields due to excavation change anything?
|
|
|
Post by leah on Aug 29, 2006 9:03:38 GMT -5
i wanted to comment on the bones foound at the site. bones with no flest at all and no evidence of dhewing animals would seem to indicate very advanced decay in that time frame. also if the body had decompsed within the bag i think there would have been massive staining of the bag from bodily fluids during the process. no animal chewed on a bone inside the bag? i want to say mairi is right about rudeness and i certainly have seen it here.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 29, 2006 11:32:11 GMT -5
Leah....this is an excellent point. When Ellis Parker compiled the weather data for the 72days and then went and inquired about the decomposition to "real forensic pathologists" they said: This advanced decomposition would require 70F for all or part of the time. Conclusion: There wasn't enough time available, without even higher indoor temps for Charlie to decompose that far??? therefore, its not Charlie??? Could be? Maybe not? Who knows? You also make another excellent point: eg where exactly did all the blood go? I see persons post that Charlie was inside this burlap bag from 1 March 32 all the ways up to 12 May 32??? Well, then did all the blood & fluids evidence just....pooof...begone? Theon Wright went even further to suggest that the remaining Heart and Liver was not eaten.....even after all this feeding by critters...suggesting some form of "embalming" Makes perfect sense to me, you pump out the b-l-o-o-d and replace it with dilute formaldehyde! Very clean and tidy/ DH Reilly may have cavalierly "conceded" the baby discovered was Charlie Jr. but this is just one blowhard drunk up against the rest of the evidence and medical reports? DNA . as we see in the John Mack Karr case, is still the gold standard/ Do footprints match fingerprints in any meaningful way? Was there any blood typing at all in 1932??? Was Aunt Sallys other thumbguard found with the corpse? Whered it go?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 29, 2006 18:35:21 GMT -5
Am wondering if we might take another look at the term "advanced decomp". My first question is "advanced" relative to what[/u ? In the photo it's poor little face looks so much the same as in life, right down to the dimple in the chin. The little foot with over lapping toes are virtually intact (by look). The awful damage we see is primarily predators plus insect. Once predators have done damage then insects would make even quicker inroads. That the liver and heart were still there puzzles me some. Then again because the corpse was found face down perhaps the posterior ribs worked as something of a block from animals(?) Regarding the small bones found without animal teeth marks, Might this have been insect work(?) Might the term have even become more"advanced" (in our minds)in the years of the retelling? My questions on this do have a reason. It is what if anything might it open in terms of how long the child was at the grave site and whether or not it was exposed to any real degree of heat elsewhere. Someone made a good point that the bundle probably wasn't dragged to the site. I harken back to the countryside being more cleared as farmland, then.. (though not the site itself) Am now considering whether the vehicle transporting the corpse there may have for the most part or even all the way driven to the site(?) Am thinking there may have been a pretty fair chance of that. I also agree with Leah's post that the body is unlikely to have been in the burlap for most of that time.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 29, 2006 19:04:41 GMT -5
Hi Mairi~yu all know how I hate playing Devils Advocate? I see what you are saying....if all this decomp is so severe then how does Charlie look so good? Well, first we all need to look at the hijacked or illegal photo published in....Theon Wright and Scaduto....this is not the same? I really dont know what the state of the art of photo fakery was in 1932.....but unless im a monkeys uncle these two photos look more like the skeletons in Curse of the Mummies that Charlie? This whole notion of the face being so protected in the mud should be considered more closely since it did not look exactly like Charlie to Dr. VanIngen who observed the entire autopsy? Did VanIngen ever suggest that Charlie had clubfoot? www.massgeneral.org/ortho/ClubFoot.htm
|
|
|
Post by lp708 on Aug 29, 2006 19:56:40 GMT -5
What is the difference between the Highfields and Mount Rose?
Primarily, the High Fields soil has a slightly darker hue of reddish brown due to the higher percentage of mafic minerals (hornblende & pyroxene) in the Highfields soil.
Could the sample taken at Highfields have possibly matched the soil on the bag?
The reddish brown soil - not an identical match, but certainly close. The black soil does not match the sample I examined, any of the USDA report soil specimens or the Squibb Mason Jar box samples.
Os the black soil on the bag consistent with a specific "target" area? Sorry, no.
Would the recently disturbed soil at High Fields due to excavation change anything?
The 'stock' answer would be that the soil texture and structure might change with depth or climatic conditions, but the mineralogy would vary only a little - given that the underlying bedrock is so close to the surface.
I'm not sure where you're going with the question (and I'm a little intrigued). The excavation was prior to both the kidnapping and the recovery of the body. So, what would change, already?
Also, the soil sample I examined a couple of years ago was fairly consistent with both the Featherbed Lane soil sample I examined at the same time and the USDA description of the Lindbergh yard soil and typical of the mineralogy of the underlying bedrock which produced the soil. In that area of the yard, at least, if any 'fill' was used, it was probably taken from elsewhere at Highfields (or in close proximity).
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 29, 2006 20:02:28 GMT -5
Hey Rick~ I don't see club foot at all in the baby's photo. Just overlapping toes. The other photo you speak of-- was that at the morgue? If so , I've seen that and agree it looks worse, but then again how do we know that , that isn't the doctored one? More "tabloidy" or potentially so? Also, I've read more than once in my life that exposing a dead part to the air (previously unexposed) will quickly blacken. Don't know that the face was in the "mud"--may have been a bed of leaves? (Just playing devil's advocate to the devil's advocate Cheers!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 30, 2006 5:38:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I wish my question was worthy of intrigue, but I was only thinking of the possibility of imported topsoil at Highfields. If it is not too general of a question, where would you expect to find that black soil?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2006 18:14:32 GMT -5
Where are you going with this Kevin? Sounds like you have an idea or two up your sleeve...
|
|
|
Post by lp708 on Aug 30, 2006 19:27:18 GMT -5
Glad you asked that. It reminded me of something I had given some serious thought to awhile back - I'll get to it in a minute.
Generally speaking, black soils aquire their color either from a high percentage of mafic minerals or because of a high percentage of humus. As for the first, I haven't done much research on that as far as the NY/NJ area is concerned. I could, but it would take awhile. As for the latter, your best bet would be bottomlands with alot of vegetative growth, alot of decomposing vegetative material and alot of soil moisture.
Now, not only vegetative material produces humus, but, to a lesser degree, decomposed animal material. It's just a possibility and not really my area of expertise, but I had given some thought to the possibility that the (greyish) black soil found on the bones was the product of blood and other fluids soaking into the soil with which it came in contact and decomposing. As the tissue decomposed, that material would have soaked into the soil, particularly in wet weather. And that, combined with decomposing leaves in the depression, may account for the (greyish) black soil. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 31, 2006 0:43:55 GMT -5
Men in Black:
Lizz....that is a very interesting theory! I hadnt considered the bodily fluids contributing to the darkening of the blackened skeleton.....but we do know the blood went somewhere and blood contains hemoglobin? Please consider that the dark wood I have seen in direct soil contact this summer surely did not include blood, just oxidation/Fe chemistry? It bugs me to think that we too could want it to be Charlie Jr just like Gow and CAL...thus be fooled? Or fool ourselves?
Kevin and Michael...I was saving this notion for the proper time:
Page 292 Loss of Eden:
Could this be our furnace room? Or one just like it!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 31, 2006 6:25:15 GMT -5
Bottom land, the lower 40, good for farming, hmmm Thanks Liz
You and Rick's idea about the staining is quite interesting. One more reason to get a forensic pathologist involved.
Michael, I am trying to go where I think they did that night, and I don't think that was North. I have several 1930/32 official NJ road maps and some things in Brittingham as a guide.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 24, 2009 18:50:35 GMT -5
heres some more info on the burlap bag from 2006! 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....MM Michael can you tell us now why Murray Garrson searched the basement@Highfields?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 25, 2009 0:29:56 GMT -5
So now I've read pages and pages of fascinating information and squabbles of Mairi and Kevkon and Michael the grand arbitrator and know absolutely what I knew before reading all - the bag would be untraceable. Just because Hauptmann incorrectly used a board that could be traced, doesn't mean that the criminal community will sign their dires. This (except for BRH's board) was a perfect crime. They happen all the time. How many unsolved murders were in NJ last year? They are perfect crimes. So it sounds unusual, but it's not. High profile means extra attention, but to a well planned one like Lindbergh or a poorly officiated one like Ramsey, it makes no difference.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2009 8:51:25 GMT -5
The bag is traceable right back to the factory.....
Rick, I will someday go into as much detail as possilbe about Garsson. I am writing now, and eventually he will find his way into anything I put out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2009 14:45:56 GMT -5
Sure but tracable to whom?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 15, 2020 22:54:11 GMT -5
If the burlap bag was traced back to the factory, what was the name of the bag maker?
The bag had markings of letters and numbers, either of the bag manufacturer or the shipper.
|
|