|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 3, 2014 19:47:11 GMT -5
I forgot what people said about it. did somebody know mike?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 4, 2014 5:48:50 GMT -5
I forgot what people said about it. did somebody know mike? I don't think so or I'd remember.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 4, 2014 9:57:43 GMT -5
i forgot so much over the years. I even have things I forgot I had
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Nov 22, 2014 21:16:06 GMT -5
This past Monday (11/17/14) I noticed a dead deer on the property where I work. Each day the body was slowly being eaten by scavengers, by Thursday the chest cavity was empty-no guts, heart, lungs, stomach...nothing. This made me think of Charlie's body when it was found. Why was his heart and lungs still there? I believe I read that there might have been some infection or something that would cause the scavengers NOT to eat his organs. My guess is they would eat anything infection or not. This also led me to think of something else I read that the body (Charlie) was embalmed which makes me think this is the reason the animals would not eat the organs. Michael, what's your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2014 9:08:23 GMT -5
This past Monday (11/17/14) I noticed a dead deer on the property where I work. Each day the body was slowly being eaten by scavengers, by Thursday the chest cavity was empty-no guts, heart, lungs, stomach...nothing. This made me think of Charlie's body when it was found. Why was his heart and lungs still there? I believe I read that there might have been some infection or something that would cause the scavengers NOT to eat his organs. My guess is they would eat anything infection or not. This also led me to think of something else I read that the body (Charlie) was embalmed which makes me think this is the reason the animals would not eat the organs. Michael, what's your thoughts on this? I'm glad you've noticed this because it's not something anyone would if not for a specific interest. Many aspects of this case create that situation. The bulk of my research on this particular angle was in the area of 10 years ago. I assembled everything I knew then fired off questions to various Experts for their opinions on my questions. Here's what I know: All organs were missing except for the heart and liver. Here's some of what I've been told: Upon discovering a road kill, a carnivore opens the body cavity with their teeth then consumes the internal organs: spleen, heart, lungs, intestines, kidneys, and liver. After that they typically go for the muscle in the legs and arms. They will consume these things without any regard for whether or not it is loaded with bacteria such as E-Coli. When it came down to "why" these organs were still present most were non-committal and instead I was asked questions we don't have an answer for. Frankly, I believe if someone with Expertise were willing to put real time into this they'd have an answer.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 23, 2014 17:42:45 GMT -5
Also, why does the skin appear to be black? Is that normal for decomposition or embalming for the skin to darken like that?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Nov 23, 2014 19:57:28 GMT -5
We are led to believe that the body (Charlie?) was in the woods since March 1st, over two months in the elements with wild animals all around. But his heart and lungs are still there untouched. As I stated earlier the deer's chest cavity was emptied in 3 days...No heart or lungs...nothing...very strange!
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 23, 2014 21:16:00 GMT -5
what deer chest cavity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 22:12:49 GMT -5
I find the condition of Charlie's corpse unusual too. The heart and liver being present plus the face still having enough muscle tissue left that it made Charlie's chin dimple still recognizable is baffling. Even his eyes were still present making the blue eye color identifiable. How can that be if Charlie died March 1 and was either buried somewhere or dumped in the Mt. Rose woods that night? I can understand why it was suspected by some people that the body found on May 12th had been embalmed. It would explain why those organs were there and why the face and eyes were still present when they shouldn't have been.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Nov 24, 2014 11:17:38 GMT -5
Just an update on the deer in the woods, I saw the deer this morning, all that is left is the rib cage and the bones of two of the four legs, no meat at all, the body is picked clean. All this happened in one week! Charlie was in the woods (dead) for over two months and still had his face, eyes and internal organs???
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 24, 2014 11:37:13 GMT -5
I think he was found face down
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 15:17:08 GMT -5
I appreciate kdwv8 sharing his observations of the decomp of the deer. After only one week not much is left internally. All the organs and muscle tissue are gone. Sounds like the hide and skeleton are what remain. Charlie was much smaller and didn't have a hide and fur covering his skeleton. So why do we have facial muscle, two normally eaten organs and eyeballs left? Personally, I don't think that Charlie was in the Mt. Rose woods for 72 days. I am no expert in Forensic Entomology or Human Decomposition. All I can do is share a personal opinion on the corpse and its condition based on some very basic research. When looking at some photos of the body, reviewing the autopsy findings, Dr. Mitchell's trial testimony, and the Squibb Report, the corpse seems to fall somewhere between the end of the second stage of decomposition and the into the third stage of decomposition. I base this on the horrendous smell of the remains, the putrification evidence found in the leaves that surrounded the corpse and the blackening of the skin that was still present. Taking into consideration exposure factors such as air, temperature, moisture and animals, I have trouble seeing that corpse in the woods for much more than two weeks, if that, considering what is left of the face and eyes unless something was used to help delay decompostion before Charlie ever landed in the woods. Here is a link to an article about human decompostion: www.sciences360.com/index.php/the-5-stages-of-human-decomposition-4307/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 18:14:29 GMT -5
I wanted to add this newsreel video of Betty Gow and Charlie. This was taken at the Morrow's North Haven, Maine summer home. Charles and Anne had left for their survey flight to the Orient and Charlie was staying in North Haven from the end of July 1931 until October 1931. Watching this video, I found myself wondering who allowed this video of Charlie to be taken. This is something that Charles and Anne would not have allowed to happen if they were there. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh2bE32G5xM
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 31, 2015 0:17:19 GMT -5
Great post Amy!
Though it looks more like a newsreel of cool Betty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 10:02:17 GMT -5
Great post Amy! Though it looks more like a newsreel of cool Betty. LOL, Jack!! I knew you would appreciate that video.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 10:05:29 GMT -5
Here is a link to another video. This one goes over the principle people and evidence in the trial. It shows the sleeping suit and other clothing items associated with Charlie the night of the crime. The quality of this video is very good and is worth the 10 minutes. youtu.be/hpbi_LQIlzE
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 31, 2015 20:51:04 GMT -5
To amy35:
Thanks for posting that 10 minute trial video. It reflects the circus atmosphere that was prevalent during the trial. Plus, the narrator definitely had a bias toward the prosecution, implying, for example, that the 87-year-old Hochmuth had sufficient visual acuity to ID Hauptmann. Also, the narrator gave out the names of only ten of the twelve jurors, and said they represented "a cross section of America." How silly that last statement was!
Willentz's demeanor in cross-examining Hauptmann was nothing short of manic. (It was kind of dumb for the defense to let Hauptmann testify in his own cause, considering he had been built up in the media as public enemy #1.) In the short snippet, Willentz makes an error when he specifies the denominations of the gold notes in Hauptmann's possession: there were no $5 gold notes. Neither Hauptmann nor his attorneys objected. Then again, the defense said nothing about the lack of Hauptmann's prints on the alleged kidnap ladder, nor that it would have been virtually impossible for Hauptmann to have climbed it, in part because to the wide spacing between the rungs.
It's also amazing how all those so-called handwriting experts fell right into line with each other to declare with certainty that Hauptmann was the author of all 15 ransom notes. Look how the money shelled out to them by the State corrupted their professional judgment!
So yes, Hauptmann may have lied to the police at some points after his arrest, but the prosecution and its witnesses were less than candid with that gullible jury.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jan 31, 2015 21:30:09 GMT -5
some points? its a long list
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 1, 2015 6:12:02 GMT -5
"Hauptmann may have lied to police at some point after his arrest." Hurtelable
What didn't he lie about?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 1, 2015 22:08:36 GMT -5
83 years ago tonight...maybe one day(soon I hope)this will be figured out! RIP Charlie!!!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 1, 2015 22:43:12 GMT -5
83 years ago tonight...maybe one day(soon I hope)this will be figured out! RIP Charlie!!! Yes, I noticed that tonight is the anniversary of the event. Things have been very slow on this board the last few days, so maybe that reminder will get the ball rolling again.
Don't know if this is the proper thread to mention it, but does anyone have any comments or reviews on a 1976 made for TV film titled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case."? Some of the actors in the cast were pretty well known in their time, like Joseph Cotten, who plays Condon. Cliff De Young plays Lindbergh and Anthony Hopkins plays Hauptmann. Someone uploaded it on YouTube at one time, and I saw about the first half hour of it. My general take was that it was probably standard stuff for the time, without anything varying much from the common wisdom on the case. But that impression is based on only about one quarter of the film. Unfortunately, I couldn't see any more via You Tube, because I had stopped the video, and by the time I got back to it, something was triggered notifying me that the uploading of the entire film by whomever it was on YouTube violated Sony's copyright. ( For the record, since the screen name of the poster on YouTube was given in the Cyrillic alphabet, he/she was most likely Russian.)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 2, 2015 0:27:53 GMT -5
It's very standard for it's time, yeah; and based, it seems to me, on the Waller book. All the standard accepted info, and sort of in the same vein as the Elizabeth Montgomery/Lizzie Borden TV film, which a lot of people always remember (same director I think). But anyway, I have a VHS copy of 'The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case' (and I think it was just released on DVD as well), and it's fun to see Joseph Cotten, Walter Pidgeon, and Martin Balsam, but, unfortunately, the actor playing Lindbergh (Cliff De Young) is pretty wooden--though that's not really his fault, since you can tell he was directed that way; very stiff and stoic. He's been good in other things ('Glory', and, just recently, 'Wild'). The one who steals the show, though, is Anthony Hopkins as Hauptmann. An excellent performance and he's totally got the voice and posture down. It's eerie. Won an Emmy too. The film basically says Hauptmann did it alone (Hopkins also plays CJ), and it's completely different from the other LKC film, another TV film made about 20 years later for HBO--'Crime of the Century'--based on the Kennedy book, which says Hauptmann was completely innocent. I'd like to see another film made on the case--something with a kind of 'Road to Perdition' feel maybe. The closest thing that's been done was Eastwood's 'J. Edgar' a couple years ago, which spent about 15 minutes glossing (badly) over the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 10:25:20 GMT -5
I have never seen any of the TV movies on the Lindbergh case. I am more of a book person and don't often seek out the movie versions of books. I should try to see these however since I am interested in this case.
I went and read the links posted by Michael about the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Michael Beckner of the BPD said JonBenet survived the head trauma she received the night she died and actually died from strangulation a few hours later. I looked at an autopsy photo of the skull fracture she suffered and it was extensive. It made me wonder if Charlie might have survived his head trauma longer than was thought and could have ended up being chocked to death a day or two later. Charlie's autopsy was not done well and I have read that Mitchell had also been drinking that night so what might he have missed or messed up on?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 2, 2015 19:02:26 GMT -5
83 years ago tonight...maybe one day(soon I hope)this will be figured out! RIP Charlie!!! Yes, I noticed that tonight is the anniversary of the event. Things have been very slow on this board the last few days, so maybe that reminder will get the ball rolling again.
Don't know if this is the proper thread to mention it, but does anyone have any comments or reviews on a 1976 made for TV film titled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case."? Some of the actors in the cast were pretty well known in their time, like Joseph Cotten, who plays Condon. Cliff De Young plays Lindbergh and Anthony Hopkins plays Hauptmann. Someone uploaded it on YouTube at one time, and I saw about the first half hour of it. My general take was that it was probably standard stuff for the time, without anything varying much from the common wisdom on the case. But that impression is based on only about one quarter of the film. Unfortunately, I couldn't see any more via You Tube, because I had stopped the video, and by the time I got back to it, something was triggered notifying me that the uploading of the entire film by whomever it was on YouTube violated Sony's copyright. ( For the record, since the screen name of the poster on YouTube was given in the Cyrillic alphabet, he/she was most likely Russian.)
I distinctly remember watching this movie when it aired in 1976. Sian Barbara Allen was the actress that portrayed Anne. I can still hear her reply to the question whether Charles was a normal child. "PERFECTLY NORMAL!!" In the movie, Cliff De Young, as Lindbergh, was filmed sitting in the library when he heard the 'orange crate' noise. I wish I had a copy. I do have a copy of "The Crime of the Century." The actor that portrayed Hauptmann was very good but looked nothing like the man. Anthony Hopkins was much better.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 2, 2015 20:27:42 GMT -5
That was Stephen Rea ('The Crying Game', 'Interview with a Vampire'). Fantastic Irish actor, but wrong for Hauptmann. And Isabella Rossellini as Anna? Not quite. Though they were both good, just from an acting standpoint. And I thought David Paymer and J.T. Walsh were excellent as Wilentz and Schwarzkopf. But Hopkins was just creepy in that first film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 20:50:58 GMT -5
Wilentz put Anne through the paces is this. She was asked, 'Did he talk?', 'Was he a playful child?'. Lindbergh had been asked also if the child was a 'normal' child, etc. I suppose Wilentz wanted this testimony in the record just in case Hauptmann's defense planned to challenge whether or not Charlie was a normal, healthy child. The autopsy showed otherwise.
I shall have to try and see those movies!
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 3, 2015 13:43:30 GMT -5
re: the level of decomp of the body in the woods. just thinking (though maybe it's been discussed before), but what were the dimensions of that hole in the floor of Hauptmann's garage? the one where they found a bucket, or something like that? wondered if it were big enough for the body to be stashed there for a while, handy enough to retrieve the sleeping suite as requested, and then deposit the body nearer the scene of the crime (knowing it would be found eventually) once the money was handed over and to draw attention away from the Bronx. many objections to this theory but i throw it out there to see what anyone thinks of it.
poor Charlie, sad anniversary. while it's interesting to speculate about crimes like this almost as if it's a game of Clue, i never forget that at the heart of it all is an innocent victim, and the people that loved him. many lives shattered that night.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 3, 2015 14:56:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 14:24:43 GMT -5
re: the level of decomp of the body in the woods. just thinking (though maybe it's been discussed before), but what were the dimensions of that hole in the floor of Hauptmann's garage? the one where they found a bucket, or something like that? wondered if it were big enough for the body to be stashed there for a while, handy enough to retrieve the sleeping suite as requested, and then deposit the body nearer the scene of the crime (knowing it would be found eventually) once the money was handed over and to draw attention away from the Bronx. many objections to this theory but i throw it out there to see what anyone thinks of it. poor Charlie, sad anniversary. while it's interesting to speculate about crimes like this almost as if it's a game of Clue, i never forget that at the heart of it all is an innocent victim, and the people that loved him. many lives shattered that night. Gosh xjd, Hauptmann hiding the child's body under the floorboards in his garage is something I have never thought of. I know they found a large crock buried in the dirt under the two loose floorboards. I believe there was a few inches of water in it plus the smell of camphor was present. Could the crock at one time have had camphor in it to mask the smell of a body? Yikes! Don't even like going there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 14:40:19 GMT -5
I like that picture also Rebekah. He was such a sweet child. He only lived long enough to celebrate one birthday which was his first. Sadly, when you go through Ann's diary, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead there are no entries for June 22, 1931. She ends the entries at May 10th and then picks up the entries on July 17th. I know that Charles and Anne were very busy preparing for the Orient flight during May, June and July. What I have read is that there was a small celebration with immediate family and of course the servants. We all know that famous birthday photo of Charlie with his little cake with the single candle on it which looks a bit large for that cake. Nine months later Charlie would be dead. www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/charles-augustus-lindbergh-jnr-son-of-the-american-aviator-news-photo/3096376
|
|