|
Post by cal77 on Jun 18, 2009 12:01:06 GMT -5
I overheard Charles Sigman, the first stranger I was sent to live with, yell out to his wife after a telephone call, that Colonel Lindbergh had landed at Wichita and was headed toward the Sigman house “looking for their kid.”
• As a young teenager in San Luis Obispo, California, I worked at Austin's Restaurant and my boss told his wife that he was to take me to a coffee shop nearby to be observed by Colonel Lindbergh and an FBI agent. He said to her “The FBI thinks he might be the kidnapped Lindbergh boy.”
• When I was in my early 20's, I worked for the John Deere Company where Colonel Guy Ade was my boss. He told me that FBI agents had visited with him on 3 different occasions and he said “I know who you are and have known for quite some time. You are the kidnapped son of Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, you are Charles, Jr.”
• While visiting Frank Loveland, a good friend of Charles Sigman, he said to me, asking that his statement not be disclosed, “You should know who you are and how you got here. You are Charles Lindbergh, Jr., the kidnapped son of Colonel Charles Lindbergh.”
• In the early 1970's I was contacted by Bob Shattuck, who lived in Connecticut and was a close friend of the Lindbergh family. After he introduced himself, he said to me “I know all about you. I am here to put you in top shape so I can unite you with your family, Colonel and Anne Lindbergh and your siblings. Your brothers are Jon, Land and Scott, and your sisters are Anne and Reeve.”
• A good friend of Jon Lindbergh, Susan Adams, introduced me to another good friend of Jon Lindbergh, by the name of Bill Nelson, and during that introductory conversation Susan Adams stated to Bill Nelson, “This is Charles Lindbergh, Jr., son of Colonel Charles Lindbergh.”
• And on another occasion Susan Adams introduced me to a visitor in her office , Jan Daukins, and said to her, “This is Charles Lindbergh, Jr., son of Colonel Charles Lindbergh.”
• In later conversations with Bill Nelson, he indicated that Colonel Lindbergh and the FBI were investigating my identity. He made the following statement: “Your father would have suffered embarrassment had he accepted you. The Colonel and the FBI closed down your being identified. You look like the Colonel. Jon is not happy with the prospect that you might be going public with your story.”
• Another extremely close friend of Jon Lindbergh and of Bob Shattuck, one Vladimir Kovalik said to me when we finally met, “My God, Charles, you sound just like Jon and the Old Man. I have a lot of information on you going way back. I know for certain you are Charles Lindbergh, Jr. Your siblings know you're their brother. The Old Man closed down your being identified.”
• When I was in New Jersey in 1998 I spoke with Jay Langley, Editor of the Hunterdon County Democrat newspaper, who was very familiar with the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the events following. He said to me, “Charlie, you are the son the Colonel did not want.”
• In 1997 I took a lie detector test administered by Stan Otremba, a licensed polygraph examiner in Santa Maria, California, and it was his professional opinion and conclusion that I am Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., who was kidnapped in 1932 from the home of Colonel Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2009 17:41:17 GMT -5
Sue, In my opinion, anyone who claims to be Charles Jr. is either: That's not to say we can't learn something from them, but buying into any part of their being the child is a waste of time. Again, that's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 19, 2009 7:46:01 GMT -5
Sue, That's not to say we can't learn something from them, but buying into any part of their being the child is a waste of time. Again, that's my opinion. There is one additional possibilty--lets just do the Math/Statistical Probablilty: - As best we can calculate--CAL had 6 children with AML?
- Someone I forget who, thought CAL had been married with one child before he met AML? total =7
- Sometime in the 2000s we discover that CAL also has 7 more overseas children by 3 German "midwives"? total =14
- Why would any rational person believe this is ALL there is--there could easily be a few more offspring (7) hidden right here in the USA?
- The problem is: Whats the big news/so what/ who cares now? You know the olde saw: "You always know who your Mother is...">?
- I always thought it was curious that Dutch (Hysteria) and Wright/Dunninger (In Search of the Lindbergh Baby) devoted so much energy towards Kenneth Kerwin and HRO respectively? Maybe they wanted us to think about it...
|
|
|
Post by Confused on Jun 19, 2009 8:20:25 GMT -5
If you think you are one of the many Charlies out there, why do you give your gender as female?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2009 7:48:42 GMT -5
It was my understanding that she was merely bouncing this information off of us. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by cal77 on Jun 23, 2009 14:07:14 GMT -5
It was my understanding that she was merely bouncing this information off of us. Am I wrong? You are right, Michael. I am NOT claiming, as I AM FEMALE. ;D I just wanted to hear what others think about those who claim to BE Charles Lindbergh JR. The more I read, the more I am convinced that this had to be an inside job. Is Hauptman innocent? Is he telling the truth about Fisch? And that he left the money, unknown to Hauptman??? It truly is changing my thoughts. I had always thought case closed and that Hauptman was guilty. Done. But now....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 24, 2009 2:51:11 GMT -5
Al Dunlap, Editor of "The Detectives" official publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police addressed two key issues: - In Bungling the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case he and certain Police Chiefs concluded that it was an inside job in 1932(Startling Detective Adventures Feb 1933): some examples...
"Some strange power seemed to build a stone wall around the entire case and in order to get recognition you had to be either a murderer or notorious character" p29 "There were absolutely no footprints or mud in the nursery and there was no blood on the window sill" p56 "...the original ransom note was written by the same hand that wrote the letters to Jafsie; that the symbol was made by the same instrument and that the writer of the notes was probably of German and Hebraic extraction" p59 "innocent people were never known to commit suicide rather than be questioned about a crime of which they have no knowledge"
- In Was the Body of the Lindbergh Baby Really Found Dunlap concluded that it was "impossible" for the body found on Mt. Rose Road to be that of Charlie Jr (Startling Detective Adventures May 1933 p. 9-64/65)
- Lloyd Gardner addresses the latter article on pages 410-411 of TCTND but overlooked the possiblity that almost any kind of head trauma can cause severe brain swelling--eg like running into a tree in a 4 wheeler accident?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jul 2, 2009 15:23:47 GMT -5
I'm reading Gardner's book again right now. I haven't read it in about a year and a half, and I've read it about eight times or so since it came out. Hopefully, the length of time I've been away from it can let me look at it fresh again.
I always had problems with Gardner's book, because I felt he led me in several directions, in terms of possible leads, only to...well, I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it yet.
But this time, I feel Gardner isn't really leading me on a wild goose chase. I feel he's simply bringing up points for me to ponder, so I can decide for myself what might have happened, despite whatever conclusion he himself has come to.
Every time I read the book, I catch something I missed the previous reading. For example, I didn't pay close attention to Gaglio's experiences with Joseph Perrone. Now, I think it warrants more attention on my part.
But getting back to the above quote from your post: Gardner certainly did bring to light the fact that the body was found in an area that unquestionably was searched and scoured by the police. This is a fact he emphasized. Granted, he also stated the possibility that it could have simply been overlooked, but from all the other material I've read, the body wasn't that deeply buried.
So...how could this body have been overlooked by so many people, who searched that area more than once? Could it have been placed there subsequent to the kidnapping?
And if so...where was the body prior? Was the baby alive for a while and died after a period of time? How did the kidnapper(s) (it remains difficult to know if he/she/they killed the child or he died naturally while in custody) return to that area to dispose of the body?
And if it was Hauptmann, when was he able to put the body there? And why would he risk being seen to put the body THERE, and not somewhere else?
Truly bothersome questions.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 3, 2009 4:55:05 GMT -5
Jack--you have identified one of the Key controversies of the LKH: - think...Location, location location--why there? Why May 12th? How did it get there? Where was CAL?
- Since when do kidnappers return a body to be found after death? Unless they want everyone to assume its the Lindbergh Baby? If it was Chas Jr--where was he when he died? The Bronx?
- To reinforce the perception or "prove" a kidnap>>>murder?
- During the Trial, Deathhouse Reilly conceeded the identification of Charlie Jr and Atty Lloyd Fisher was quoted=="You just delivered BRH to the electric chair" What competent defense atty conceeds anything that insures certain conviction? Pretty weird science?
- The autopsy MD--Dr. Charles H. Mitchell was quoted "the skeleton was far too decomposed for any person to identify who it was" --try finding Mitchell's quote in Gardner; also check Dr. Van Ingen's ID--he was Charlie's pediatrician and saw him just 2 weeks earlier?(75)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 3, 2009 12:10:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry Rick, but I really can't understand why on earth the id of CAL Jr's body should be considered controversial ( That is unless you happen to think that you are CAL JR). Are you suggesting that for some totally unknown reason someone killed a child that matched CAL JR, dressed him in Gow's vest and dumped him in the woods knowing that Mr Allen would go to that spot? Is there anything about that scenario that seems even remotely sensible?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 3, 2009 15:14:22 GMT -5
kev--Im still 50/50 and reading on all that so to decide--there is no absolute forensic ID either way: - In Search of the Lindbergh Baby (1981) theon wright "Is the Lindbergh's kidnapped son still alive? (paper) Harold Roy Olson? see page 25-26
- Murder of Justice (1997) Wayne Jones pp.1168 Bill Simons? see pages 140-142; 148-149; 449-458; 785-786.
- Hysteria--Lindbergh Kidnap Case (1975) Andrew Dutch--"I hold the key to my case"--Gov Hoffman; Kenneth Kerwin? see pages 103-104; 191-197; 214.
- Was the Body of the Lindbergh Baby really found? (1933) Al Dunlap--Editor of the National Police Journal. "Impossible" 10p.
- I think we can be confident that Charlies toes and hair didnt fall off into the burlap bag riding down from Highfields on Mar 1st? So IF it is Charlie Jr--who dumped him down there later on?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 3, 2009 16:28:11 GMT -5
I'm surprised that you are 50/50 with sources like those, Rick. Then there's the complete lack of a reasonable motive for killing a similar child and letting the body decompose in the woods with no guarantee of discovery.
To CAL JR With all due respect I think that if you are in the least interested in getting others to believe you I think you need to provide more than a story. Personally, I'd start with the fingerprints. Get a reasonable match and proceed from there. Otherwise all you have is another of the many stories generated from this case. Of course, I guess that if you are really content in your belief that you are CAL Jr then there really is little or no reason to feel compelled to provide evidence to convince others.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2009 7:34:59 GMT -5
I think the real source is the that the child wasn't there originally and his height. This created a whirlwind of speculation which then led to all of these Clamaints. Unfortunately, none who bothered to actually try to prove their claims turn out to be him. So at what point do we take all the real evidence to draw our conclusions?
Look at the corpse. Look at the last known picture of CJr. on his birthday. This alone is more evidence then anything from the other side.
The fact that old women approach children and tell them they are the Lindbergh child can't be our source.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 6, 2009 21:41:49 GMT -5
Yes! Absolutely--I totally agree: - Look at the skeleton page 160 + 2 Scaduto/Scapegoat; OR
- Look at the skeleton page 99 + 2 Wright/ In Search of Lindberg Baby OR page 208 + 7 Behn (washed out).
- Then look at the famous WANTED poster photo from Charlies 1st birthday: June 22 1931? 11 months before? Figure 15 in Ludovic Kennedy or on same page as corpse--(Scaduto above)
- Dr. Phillip Van Ingen refused to say it was Charlie Jr--maybe because then he could be questioned further about Ricketts or other medical issues?
- Dr. Charles H. Mitchell said "the baby found on Mt.Rose was far too decomposed for anyone to identify"? You Decide!
- Quite clearly, this is one of the most disturbing and bizarre aspects of the LKC? If you read the written accounts, the identification of the body was done by counting teeth(16) and curled toes(5), plus the clothing? There is no account of anyone declaring that the skelelton is the spitting image of Charlie Jr--eg "theres his dimple"?
- Even 100% concensus on the identity, which would not be a scientific or forensic certainty, could not resolve the time, cause or location of death, the advanced decompostition of the body or the moving of the body to Mt. Rose Hill.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 7, 2009 7:29:11 GMT -5
Really? Have seen what's going on at the Hoax site recently? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Rick, is there some reason that gives you cause to question the id? I mean, sure the id is far from perfect but given the time and circumstances it was good enough. That is unless there is some specific reason for requiring more proof of id. Is there?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 7, 2009 18:13:46 GMT -5
CORPUS DELECTI: Latin for the "body of the crime." Used to describe physical evidence, such as the corpse of a murder victim or the charred frame of a torched building.
Corpus delicti (plural: corpora delicti) (Latin: "body of crime") is a term from Western jurisprudence which refers to the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred before a person can be convicted of committing the crime. For example, a person cannot be tried for murder unless it can be proven that a person has been killed with purpose and forethought. Likewise, in order for a person to be tried for arson it must be proven that a criminal act resulted in the burning of a property. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines "corpus delicti" as: "the fact of a specific crime having been actually committed."
Corpus delecti merely helps us stay focused on: Timing/Day of Death? County of Death? Cause of Death? Intention or Accident of Death? Person(s) transporting or moving a corpse around Hopewell in a Burlap Bag? Discovery of Death? Motive of Death? Motive of moving any corpse? Motive of Finding or Planting a corpse? Thumb guards in the driveway? Attempt to modify or accellerate decomposition like in The Corpse in the Creek (Cunning Mulatto). Just to tie up a few loose ends/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2009 19:06:20 GMT -5
Rick,
There was a school of thought among some of the Law Enforcement Officers that the body was a "throw away" designed to end the Police from stopping the liquor trucks. But in the end the body was CJr. All of the Claimants have been disproven.
Take Robert Dolfen for example. His prints were sent to the NJSP after he was alleged to be the Lindbergh Baby. Col. Kimberling ordered they be compared to the known prints of CJr. They were and this boy was eliminated - in 1938.
Yet despite this, many people continued to drill into his head he was the Lindbergh Baby. They claimed his mother was a friend of Violet Sharp, which may be true, and that she went to New Jersey returning shortly after the kidnapping with a different child. His Father, Andrew Dolfen even denied "Bobby" was his son. And so this poor guy grows up thinking he's the Lindbergh Baby.
It wasn't until he was an adult that he accepted the important evidence that had existed since 1938 - evidence that he apparently knew nothing about until sometime in the 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 10, 2009 8:04:11 GMT -5
Michael,
Even IF it is Charlie Jr--there are plenty of other "holes" in his death and discard to fill in. AG Wilintz tried and failed at the smorgesborg strategy of how and when Charlie died...it doesnt wash....smothering, fallling off ladder, smashed with the chisel just to mention a few. If someone wanted to replicate Charlies injuries eg death by fractured skull from external violence they might have to crash Charlie into a tree or back over him with a car? Who has the time to do this on March 1st.
More importantly, at first, we need to know why CJR is South of towne, just off the main road from the Centre of Hopewell on the west side of the road--but "remains" un-discovered? Noone facing a certain death sentence ["will I burn?" ]would ever consider of bringing the key element of the corpis delecti back to where it can be so "easily discovered". Looks more like a suicide mission? Ellis Parker's theory of rumrunners wanting the beer roads to open back up gains credence in this dim light...
We dont even have SWAG or Grimm Fairy Tale to explain this odd twist of fate? Unless the Beer Barons decided to take or buy back Charlies corpse from the kidnap gang and return it to its rightful owners? Maybe thats what Garrett Schenk the fish monger saw on Princeton-Hopewell Road a couple days before the 12th of May?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2009 7:40:35 GMT -5
Sure Rick, I will never disagree with taking closer looks at things which may seem suspicious. But in this case, none of those things equal a "replacement child." There are other more reasonable alternatives which could be considered. Taking hold of the "replacement" theory, when it doesn't have one scintilla of truth upon which to rely - is just enabling those who are slipping mentally, con-artists, or just won't accept the truth.
Anyone who ever had any type of claim, regardless of how reasonable or crazy it looked - was disproven. Leaving the door open for others to walk through is a bad idea in my opinion because nothing gets accomplished.
Look at Aldinger for example. He's over on the other board making things up and quoting his real Mother, Nancy, with incredible rants which are supposed to mean something is factual. Whether she even said it or not doesn't really matter. Then he spins off and posts pictures of regular people and makes outrages claims they are Red Johnson, Fisch, and The Mad Russian. He sees or remembers whatever he wants and/or needs to in order to feed his delusion. Anyone who disagrees with his obvious inventions gets attacked with both rage and anger.
His parents knew Hauptmann. That's as far as his involvement exists. We can't even trust what he remembers as far as that goes because he makes too much stuff up.
When you want to believe something so badly you will do anything to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 12, 2009 6:04:22 GMT -5
Either way: (Cjr or sub)--The Body Is A Plant! The 600 pound gorilla in the room in 1932 is the Mob-Mafia and Prohibition coming to an abrupt end? If Capone and Murder Inc. want to find out "who stoled the Lindbergh Baby" then by means of the rumors, criminal networks, death threats and actual murders (eg Conroy-Sanborn)--well they can find out "Who, when, why and wheres the Body"! Everyone talks faster when thier lifes on the line...with some cash in their pocket to boot. This is the reason Condon is packing, needs a body quard and others like Abe Samuelsohn are getting death threats. If the Search is clogging up the booze routes either by land (Waxey) or by sea (Curtis) then the mob has a huge $take to bring this Search to a rapid conclusion...May 12th/ Them that hides/ can find....faster with threat of bullets or cement shoes! Cui bono? ""The person that commits a murder--never brings it back to the Courthouse to be found""[maybe CAL wont deal?]
[there are dozens of red, white and blue herrings in the LKH--a few Cjr imposters really dont alter the key facts--just add interest]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 12, 2009 8:10:23 GMT -5
Sorry Rick, I'm completely lost on this one. Are you saying that Capone found the body and then hid it in the woods? If Capone found the body, then he found the person holding it. Then why wouldn't he offer up that persons head on a silver platter? Why would the bootleggers want to bring attention back to Hopewell and the area?
Never were truer words spoken. Forcing square evidence into the round hole of a theory is generally not a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2009 10:13:05 GMT -5
Well, I seem to think the argument of Cui bono exists not just for the ransom money but for this act as well. I do believe those who remain consistent resist that the body was never moved in the first place and simply missed all the while "John" was continuing to negotiate oblivious to whether or not the body was found.
There are yet others who deviate from this philosophy for each individual point, or still others who try to explain it away somehow.
For my money, the body was later placed there begging the question: "who benefits from this act?"
But still, while I think Rick makes some good points there are explanations to answer these without the need for a "replacement child" that is exactly like CJr. in every way right down to his health problems.
For me the real question is something other then if corpse was CJr. ( I know it was) and rather why a group of unconscientious, lying, and ruthless criminals would risk their necks to do such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 12, 2009 13:09:09 GMT -5
1st beneficiary:
Michael....CAL has been out sailing the ocean blue on Catchalot with his BFF Curtiss for nie on 3 weeks trying to contact Eric, Nils, Hilda, Inez, Swen and Dynamite Larsen--without receipt of the secret signature? CAL benefits immediately--he gets to come home confident there wont be any more pesky ransom demands on the Families bankbook.
2nd beneficiary:
If all the liquor & beer trucks in NJ and greater metropolitan area are sidelined for 72 days then rumrummers, judges, pols, cops and wiseguys are not getting paid. The moment a body is found, any body, the wheels of commerce begin turning again and profits, salaries and payoffs are resumed and life goes back to business as usual.
[sorry Kev but we passed that issue a while ago--lets just say it was found]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 12, 2009 13:40:08 GMT -5
You all seem pretty sure that the body was "placed" in that spot. Could I ask why or what detail of the scene suggests this? As for it being placed there to be found, I think that's even further out on a limb. If you want a body to be found, you leave it where it definitely will be. It's that simple, you don't leave it to chance.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 13, 2009 14:02:31 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 13, 2009 15:36:16 GMT -5
I'm not disputing that the corpse was not there initially. My question concerned the purposeful placement of the body in that exact spot. In that regard, what evidence indicates this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 14, 2009 10:42:39 GMT -5
You are getting away from the question, Rick. What specific forensic evidence suggests that the body was placed at that spot by a person?
Is your conclusion regarding the decomposition based on your own research or someone else? If so who?
There's no way that someone would pick a spot like that if the intention was for the body to be found. Think of the possibilities, hell just toss it on the roadside.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 15, 2009 5:43:25 GMT -5
Only one person, that I know of, directly broached the issue of someone bringing Charlie Jrs body back to where it was found: Arthur W. Jones in his 7 page letter to Gov. Brenden Byrne in 1956: Who Says the Lindbergh Case Was Solved?-- www.state.nj.us/state/darm/links/guides/sintr003.htmlOn pages 2-3 Jones claims that "Jr was taken to the home of Charlie ___*___? in Princeton NJ. where Charlie lived with his wife. (I cant remember Charlies last name)?" "Ten days later the baby died.(Charlie and his wife thought the baby died from pneumonia). Fisch drove the babys body to where it was found. Death for the baby was not in the deal." [*see Fisch's buddy Charlie Schleser page 409 Gardner; at least we know Charlie was married--Joe DiGrasi ran off with his money and his wife--Gardner p. 248]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 15, 2009 7:41:38 GMT -5
What I am interested in, Rick, is the existence of forensic evidence that the body was placed by someone in that spot. I'm sorry but Jones is basically worthless. What about your statement about the decomposition, is that an opinion or is it a fact? Did Fisch have a car and a license? Let's try to put some closure on this. It seems like it's possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 15, 2009 16:02:59 GMT -5
I think the in line with this thought consideration must be given to the fact that the Police were reporting the ground had been "scooped out" and the child placed in a "shallow grave."
|
|