|
Post by rick62 on Apr 5, 2006 11:09:44 GMT -5
Where did Charlie go for 72 days and why did CAL accept an article of clothing for i) payment of the ransom money? and ii) the identification of the baby on Mt. Rose Road?
At least four gangs stepped up to the extortion plate to collect the ransom money: Bronx, Norfolk, El Paso and Cape May NJ? At one time they were all in direct competition. BUT there is not one iota of evidence proving that any of them had Charlie or had even seen Charlie. The standard of evidence that Charlie was alive and well was......"knowledge of the Dr. Denton Sleeping Suite" is so ridiculous to be patently absurd! If it wasnt for Charlies demise it would be laughable. 50+ servants would have known about the correct sleeping suite. OK so someone mails JFC a sleeping suite from Connecticutt, but so what. it could have been bought and laundered at home. We could start a list of real proof that Charlie is alive and well:
1. Photographs 2. Birthmarks 3. Fingerprints/Footprints 4. Call his Mom on the phone 5 . Words he can say--daddy, mommy, doggy, woof 6. a lock of his curly hair + the sleeping suite 7. "add your own"
For my two cents--for CAL and Anne to accept the sleeping suite as anything PROVES THE LIE OF THE KIDNAPPING HOAX.
II. Since when are corpses identified by blue-thread clothing.?OK-Never!. Dr. Van Ingen refuses to ID Charlie Jr. Anne refuses to even go down to the morgue in Trenton. Only Reillys ridiculous concession proves the con that there was no proof of it being Charlie. [Only CAL and Annes say so] But maybe they knew already because someone must have known where Charlie was ALL THAT TIME and it sure wasnt the gangs above? Did Betty Gow dress Charlie in the blue threads for a reason? Just this once? Do you really beleive that?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 5, 2006 14:50:27 GMT -5
No .....because Lucky Lindy was our most famous American Hero and the Flag, Apple Pie, Baseball, Motherhood and our National Image were at stake.....had nothing to do with Charlie. You cant burn the Flag and you cant question CAL as to his recollection or truthfullness. its a given.
|
|
kathy for Anne and Rick
Guest
|
Post by kathy for Anne and Rick on Apr 5, 2006 17:46:49 GMT -5
I think that little shirt is a clue. Betty doesn't live at Highfields and its unusal for her to be there at all. Yet she makes the little shirt out of one of her old petticoats. the baby's other shirt is from B. Altman. Why did she pack an old petticoat to come to Highfields? Why did she use an extra shirt when the baby had on a undershirt already? I think it was to ID a body.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 5, 2006 23:21:09 GMT -5
Was the blue thread suit realy on Charlie, or was it used by CAL, Anne, Betty, to affirm something to the media by sending the suit back to themself? If The suit was sent to themself, but the suit shows no signs of wear tear, and Charlie's body is decaying somewhere with a bullet hole in the head, What proof is there the blue thread suit was worn by Charlie?
|
|
anne50
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by anne50 on Apr 15, 2006 12:48:25 GMT -5
Kathy, I think that the extra petticoat shows a little premeditation. Betty must have know already what was about to go down. Ana or anne50
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 15, 2006 20:14:07 GMT -5
Well I dont really want to be the one to aske this...especially on Easter but...What exactly did Anne and Betty surmise was "going down" on the evening of 1 March 1932. If Charlie is going on a long journey, then where do those that love him the most think hes headed? Is he alive when he leaves Highfields? Not one person ever mentions the blue thread t-shirt until the blackened skeleton is found on Mt. Rose Road 72 days later. Was it saved for the id?
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 15, 2006 22:47:29 GMT -5
The blackened body found on Mt. Rose had a bullet hole in the head, but yet there was no blood on the blue thread or suit. This prove the suit with blue thread was intended as sole item of identification for a future body ID that was questionable.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 r2c on Apr 19, 2006 20:04:54 GMT -5
Well one thing is a certainty...all 3 of the main extortion plots were phoney. Phoney as $3 bills. If we can so easily see thru them, why couldnt BRK and well, Jafise? So now we have to ask...how did they manage to get so far with virtually nothing to trade? What did they hold? 2/3 got ransom money for an empty promises and if Charlie hadnt turned up Curtis might have paid off too? So what was CAL searching so high, and so low down for anyway? Aha, what about the body on Mt. Rose Hill? For 30 days CAl seems to be negotiating for return of Charlie, just not the "alive and well one" Why is that? Who benefits? I think this helps us solve one sliver of the LKCake?
|
|
mairi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by mairi on Jul 8, 2006 13:55:28 GMT -5
Was thinking about the sleeping suit. There may be a bit more significance to it. Somewhere I read---sorry, I can't recall where-- that the suit was either not described to the newspapers or was mis-described. Anne was elated with it's return because it's description had been secret. Also, addressing doubts as to the blue thread homemade shirt being valid for an ID. I've also seen where the other undershirt also remained on the baby's body, which would have lent further validity to the ID, wouldn't it? I don't buy the "bullet hole" in the baby's head. I believe it was accidental i.e. turning the baby over with a stick---soft bones from Rickets. Am also thinking about the small bone and bits of blond hair in the burlap bag. Is anything known about how the baby's body was removed from the "grave" spot to whatever vehicle it was then carried away in? I wonder if it may have been carried that distance in the burlap bag? I see nothing suspicious about the baby being cremated. Cremation is very often the method used for badly degraded remains.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jul 8, 2006 15:37:59 GMT -5
Rickets doesn't soften bones to the extent commonly believed, and also is reversible easily even back then. I read the forensic data on burned bodies, and bones can not be easily damaged until the last stage of cremation or bone turning from black to white frosted condition. In the blackened stage they are still as strong as unburned bones, and would not be able to have a poked hole.
The instant cremation of a criminal case body is suspicious under any circumstances, as all issues pertaining to family or other responsible parties are still under investigation and should not have been allowed. It was cremated for special circumstances only to let someone off the legal hook, or play out some sort of special condition that may have been necessary, eg. end extortion, protect child's life if still in kidnappers hands, or to protect Lindbergh if guilty.
|
|
mairi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by mairi on Jul 9, 2006 22:49:10 GMT -5
Some of the literature on Rickets says there can be "fractures without reason". If the autopsy saying multiple skull fractures is correct, the stick used to turn the body could have penetrated between the fractures-also, recall unclosed fontanels. What reason would there be to disclaim a "bullet hole" if one was actually there? It strikes me as an initial mistake which was promptly corrected (by Walsh, was it?). As for cremation, who in all the world is going to tell Charles Augustus Lindbergh -the great hero- he can't cremate his child's remains?? Recall, also that the sanctity of the child's body had already been violated by photographers breaking into the morgue, exposing the body to take pictures of. Cremation would also preclude any further desecration whether it be of the remains or of a gravesite. Given all the circumstances, I might have done the same.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jul 10, 2006 1:14:19 GMT -5
Bones are easily fractured by Rickets, but the density is not different only the calcium structure binding makes fracture and leg deformity. Children have 85% caregiver cause for injury or death range, and would be a reason to hold a second autopsy. In a criminal case the body is evidence and cannot be disposed of without the second or even third autopsy which is Dependant on circumstances.
The doctor who did the preliminary autopsy described in detail the standard internal skull damage from a gunshot wound, and Walsh certainly didn't have the education to contradict the doctors findings. When a bullet enter s on side of the skull it usually leaves a small hole, and then bounces from the opposite side inside the skull leaving a large swelling observed from outside. If it would have been a stick cracking already fractured skull the hole would have conformed to the shape of the fractures or straight line not circular hole.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 skeptic5 on Jul 10, 2006 23:53:54 GMT -5
Hi Angels...in a massive Sea of Lies, how can one ever hope to be able to discerne truth from fiction? If a Presidential Election is funded and stolen by criminals the likes of Kenny Boy Lay from Enron how can we believe anything that follows? Personally, i dont think that the sleeping suite proves anything at all except a hoax! the number of servants and family and unrelated individuals that would know the brand and nature of the Real Sleeping Suite is literally astranomical. Dont be fooled by such crap. A Sleeping Suite does not a kidnap or "alive and well" by any stretch of anyones imagination! Its a joke and a red herring. You can fool most of the people most of the time, but Charlie was dead all along. Maybe CAL wanted to decieve Anne? I dont beleive Charlie Jr. was alive on March 1st let alone AFTER March 1st? Show me one shred or tiny iota of proof of that? There is virtually none. The entire ransom negotiation was also one huge HOAX. with Condon at the helm steering the ship of lies and fabrication. Noone was sposed to get caught, but if they did, Jafsie had described whoever as CJ and everyone in the Bronx. Therefore, since Dr. Mitchell described clearly and perfectly the bullet hole in Charlies skull the day he(?) was discovered...then WHY NOT A Gunshot? The stick and poke ruse was afterthought. Its absurd. Like a Fairy Tale. Sure it might have been a drainage tube at Johns Hopkins Univ. Hospital...but try and prove that? Do you really believe that Anne Morrow Lindbergh, deathly tired and sick with a colde was out under Charlies window in the damp and rain throwing pebbles at his window? Just how far does your gullibilty and naiveite abound?
|
|
mairi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by mairi on Jul 11, 2006 16:46:03 GMT -5
Well, my mercy! Gullible and naive? I may very well have a dash of those, but not to the degree of 'a bounding (Nor paranoid. I think the child likely died the night of the kidnap. And yes, there are others who could have known the brand of the sleeping suit. (Likely insiders, I should think). It also seems to me it could have been the kidnappers and that the secrecy of it's brand may have relevance, there. I've been outside when I've been sick-the fresh air feels good and yes, I can see tossing a pebble to get my child's attention to wave at it. To take every last thing down to it's tiniest fragment and cloak it in deep, dark suspicions, seems to me only to further muddy up already murky waters. By the natural law of things, or even accidentally, there surely must be a few straight forward aspects to this event. What theory makes a gun shot necessary? The one doing the autopsy wasn't even a pathologist was he? Wasn't he just a funeral home attendant, being coached through the procedure? What do you think the motive would have been for Walsh to say he had accidentally caused the hole in the body's skull to refute a bullet hole?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Jul 11, 2006 17:05:15 GMT -5
No disrespect intended Mairi....but it should be evident by this time that all truths must be obsfucated in the LKC so that nothing ever is truly discovered or found out with the exception of the prosecution and execution of the Lone Wolfe. eg case closed. All roads must double back to BRH and he alone.
I agree that Charlie died on the 1st of March or shortley thereafter. but not for the sake of the $50K....some other reason possibly related to his genetic and or physical defects? All this had to be buried and hidden forever and ever...or at least until Anne Morrow Lindbergh dies and the 75 year rule kicks in.
The most likely scenario from my vantage point is that CAL wanted Charlie to disappear, or at least go to a permanent home elsewhere. This is what the upper crusty aristocrats do with thier "imperefects"--like Dwight Morrow Jr. Send them to an institution. Maybe Charlie did catch pneumonia or fall down the stairs as well in the process/ .
there is no need for violence or a gunshot wound, unless its a Mercy killing after the fact? But, Dr. Mitchell was no funeral director. Sure he wasnt the star of CSI, but he did appear to know a bullet hole whence he saw one--or at least the appearance of a roundish hole "not poked in a skull with a stick"> To conceal the truth, any crazy idea can be dreamt up and run up the flagpole...thats what any coverup is based upon, lies and halftruths.
In the Trial we are led to believe that Charlie was smothered with the ransom note, banged in the head with the chisel and then fell off the ladder and smashed his head. Wouldnt this be considered "overkill"? Even in a capital murder-kidnap trial?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on Jul 11, 2006 22:12:40 GMT -5
Ahhhh, finally someone who agrees with me!!!! You also wrote in a previous note:
That's another thing I agree with. You are so on the mark with that one, too, Mairi!! I have so understood CAL's reason's for doing it. Now as tot he reasons the NJSP allowed it to happen - well, that was just a miscarriage of justice in my estimation. If Charlie couldn't have been autopsied by a real ME at the time, then they should have put the body on ice until one could have been made available. They carried their idol worship way too far, IMHO!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jul 12, 2006 1:02:36 GMT -5
I think thats where the idea for Wierd New Jersey came from, as they do things a little different there. I saw The Blob on cable and it seems like they changed some sections of the movie. I wonder how Korman would have directed a his interpretation of the Lindbergh Case?
|
|