Forensic Disputes

The  forensic expert on last night's show, Dr. Butts, had a very interesting theory about how the injuries to the skull occurred, and how the fracture was a complex injury resulting, "in his opinion" (he was careful to say) from a blow to one side of the head that might have been caused (my suggestion) by a hammer striking one side of the head while the child was placed down on a hard surface, and that would account for the way the injuries showed up on the brief autopsies.  Nowhere does he refer to the autopsy findings that we have.  Once again one must ask if because of time constraints something was left out from the interview with Dr. Butts.  Perhaps he did look at them carefully. (I am told he felt they were too sketchy to be of much use)  If so did he notice anything else in these reports that might have challenged his view that the child had a "mild case" of rickets?  Did he note any deformities, such as size of skull, fontanel not closed, shape of teeth, overlapping toes, etc.? For these were all there in the report.  Did he, then, look at the trial testimony of Dr. Mitchell describing the condition of the skull, as so fragile it came apart like an orange peel.  At a key point in the testimony Attorney Reilly promises to come back to that point - as he is intrigued - but never does.  Too bad, might have been interesting.

Then - in related fashion - we have Dr. Butts describing the child as normal with a "mild" case of rickets.  Two doctors who examined Charlie did not call the case "mild."  They were there 81 years and more ago, Dr. Butts was given written reports a few months ago.  I am sure he is very competent as a forensic examiner, but somehow I wish he might be on the stand for a defense attorney to question why his opinion differs so much from that of two attending physicians.

Now, let us come back to the injury.  I frankly have no idea how the child died, and am willing to agree that it could have been precisely as he concludes.  One wonders, nevertheless, if the child was dumped that night (subject of yet another post to come), why kill it in that manner? Remember Prosecutor Wilentz had a lot of trouble, a lot of trouble explaining how the child died, going from one explanation to another - including the idea that the child was bashed against the wall - or possibly struck with that 3/4" chisel left behind.  If it was carried away in a burlap bag (often cited as the transportation mechanism - and only glimpsed in the show as the picture of the men holding the ladder flashes by on your screen), then why not simply bash its head against a tree?  Of course you would need to be sure of death.  So maybe the hammer idea.  But why not strangle the child, a less complicated manner of committing murder, surely? Using the chisel only once in a car or against a car is far less sure than simply smothering the child.  Why I belabor this point is because of a concern that Dr. Butts is a tad too eager to offer his explanations off the cuff.  No doubt I am wrong, and there is much more to see in his interviews.  But, one must say, that as they stand, they are hardly convincing.  And we have the testimony of discovering officers that they poked a hold in the skull when trying to turn it over.  Of course, if Dr. Butts is correct, they must be wrong.  No doubt.  Too bad, however, Captain Harry Walsh the man who did that isn't around to interview. 

A Conspiracy Indeed?

 Here we are at the edge of hard science.  The second important assertion in "Who Killed the Lindbergh Baby" came from John Douglas -- a flat statement that there had to be inside help, hence the official narrative is shattered and in pieces on the floor of the nursery.  In his book, "The Cases That Haunt Us," published in 2001, Douglas first advanced his argument that the death of Violet Sharp provided the necessary clue as to where that help had originated.  Her suicide - he opined - probably came from a fit of remorse over having inadvertently (?) revealed where the Lindberghs were that night.  Interestingly, the police investigating the crime announced that they believed that her death went a long way to solving the case.  Last night the show said he had "refined" his position on Violet, and a picture of her was shown.  But there was not much more said in the show.  Violet remains in a deep violet shadow, then.  But I think Douglas really did not want to go too far on that point, however.  Was something was left on the cutting room floor?  But here is the problem with that "inadvertent" position.  If - as in my first email -- we now agree that it was a conspiracy, how would it be possible to get everything together on that short notice?  Remember, Richard did not have a telephone, and actually reported for work that morning.  It is already mid-morning when the decision is made to stay overnight.  Violet's contacts do not seem to fit anywhere along the path of the crime -- not nearly so close, say, as Betty Gow or Red Johnson.  And the idea that John Knoll was in contact with Violet was never explored, because there is absolutely no evidence that she would have had contact with him.  Perhaps she was involved in a deeper sense, perhaps Douglas's intuition here is right, casting aside her acknowledged emotional state after coming out of the hospital.  Her suicide is discussed in "Case" pp. 106-112. 

When the police came to take her away for questioning for a third time, they were sent to cool their heels in an office -- for half an hour --- (!), while someone fetched her.  What had happened while they were kept in another room was she had staggered down into the butler's pantry and collapsed.  Then the officers were taken to the study where Col Lindbergh and a Dr. Phillips met them and told them Violet was dead.  Once again, the person in charge is Col Lindbergh.  Once again it is Col Lindbergh who informs the police that there had been found  a"partially filled can of Cyanide of Potassium Crystals on the shelf in Miss Sharp's room," along with a glass containing the remaining undissolved crystals and a discolored spoon.  Only then - after all that -- did Captain Harry Walsh get admitted to the "death room," so to speak.  So perhaps it would be a little uncomfortable to pursue that death.


A word on conspiracy.  It is not really that loaded, but I would have liked to use in my interview the term "cut outs," but it was said that word would not be familiar enough to people who had never watched Cold War spy stories.  John LeCarre where are you when I needed you?

Next up Dr. Butts.

Who Killed the Lindbergh Baby?

Hello all!

I have not blogged since October, but the show last night means I should get back to work!  So here goes.

I have been collecting all my thoughts for eight hours,  and have decided to start writing out impressions of what we learned and what we still need to learn.  This will not be just one but a series of them written today, and probably over the next few days.    I have only watched the show once, but I think it will repay a second and third watching. .  And I want to thank NOVA  at the outset for doing this show -- and doing it so well. It was an important vehicle for launching discussions of the most important aspects of the case.  So let's begin!

"Who Killed the Lindbergh Baby" opens up discussion of the case on several points, and advances our knowledge to a different level. Of course it was not a baby but a toddler, and that makes some difference, but we can go into that later. There can no longer be any question of one perpetrator.  John Douglas saying that was the case might not be enough, but the evidence presented about the handwriting seems to clinch that point.  The interesting thing for those who have a deep interest in the case is that Richard in the NJ State Prison readily agreed that at least some of the writing looked like his.  This was during an interview with Ellis Parker, the local detective who was dismissed from the case early on but persisted in his inquiries (for better or worse, one can debate that).  Richard only had this to say in explanation.  That he had given samples of his handwriting to a person who requested them in some vague way for a job or something.  Before last night that seemed totally ridiculous to me.  But perhaps not.  Perhaps there was some effort, clumsy or purposefully "dumb,"  to write like him.  What did not come out was whether the computer guy checked all the notes against one another?  A very, very important question, if, as he concludes, neither Richard nor Knoll wrote them.  Is that the same thing as saying that neither wrote any of them?  We do not know.  But while we are left with many questions, the program has blown wide open the official narrative that one very "lucky" person carried off the child that night, and that the person was eventually found and convicted.

Next up.  "An inside job."

In my last post, I talked about the new Arcadia book on the case, and posted some pictures.  Here is a lot more information on book signings and author appearances!

 www.arcadiapublishing.com/Lindbergh

Friday, November 9 – 7:30 PM

Program, Author Q&A, and Book Signing

Hopewell Valley Elementary School

35 Princeton Avenue, Hopewell, NJ

Hosted by the Hopewell Valley Historical Society

Saturday, November 10 – 2:00 PM

Program and Author Q&A

At the historic Hunterdon County Courthouse,

site of the “Trial of the Century”

75 Main Street, Flemington, NJ

Book Signing

Author book signing immediately following the presentation

at the Hunterdon County Historical Society

114 Main Street, Flemington, NJ

Hosted by the Hunterdon County Cultural and Heritage Commission, and the Hunterdon County Historical Society

Saturday, November 17 – 1:30 PM

Book Signing

The NJ Room at the Jersey City Main Library

472 Jersey Avenue, Jersey City, NJ

Hosted by the Jersey City Public Library

Saturday, November 24 – 7:00 PM

Book Signing

Barnes & Noble

3535 US Route 1 S, Princeton, NJ

Located in the MarketFair Mall

Saturday, December 8 – 10:00 AM
Book Signing

New Jersey State Police Museum

1020 River Road, Ewing Township, NJ

Hosted by the New Jersey Former Troopers Association

Hi everyone!  Have not been posting lately, but really have to put up a big shout out to Mark and Jim for their new book with Arcadia.  It is a winner.  Never have so many photos been put together so well, with a great introduction and captions.  It will be officially out in a few days and you can order it now from Amazon.  Below are some images from the cover and of the authors. The photo with the kids was an inspired find, don't you think!  And also, here they are, standing by the electric chair (brrrr!)

There are many planned events in the area in early November, be sure to check out book signings in Flemington, for example, as well as others.

Hide in Plain Sight II

When writers start planning their stories, they plant clues or items that the police and readers are searching for in different places. Sometimes, these clues are hidden inside something like bedposts, walls, loose bricks, etc. On the other hand, these clues are placed in the most obvious place to throw readers and the police off guard. The most obvious place is in plain sight.

High School Lesson Plan from “LocalSchoolDirectory.com”

In my last post I took up the question of why the body was not found earlier if it had been placed where it was found  on the night of March 1, 1932?  More evidence has come to my attention that makes this question even more relevant, and requires further examination.  At the outset I want to thank Mark Falzini for several photos and documents that are of great importance in this inquiry, which, I believe, opens a new avenue for exploring the Case That Never Dies.  In addition I would like to thank Dolores Raisch for her memories of discussions with the widow of Lieutenant Arthur Keaton. 

The body was found at around 3:15 on the afternoon of May 12, 1932, it will be remembered, in a location just off the Mt. Rose Road near Hopewell.  The finder, William Allen, had left a truck on the opposite side of the road from a wide, cleared area that bordered the woods.  Going into the woods from that area was very easy, and was a logical spot to stop.  “Going under a bush he lowered his head and as he raised his head he saw a skeleton on the ground.”[1]  I have placed this final phrase, on the ground, in italics because of later descriptions of the place as a “burial site,” or “ shallow grave.”  Among these were observations later that same afternoon by two of the best investigators in the case, Lieutenant Arthur Keaton of the NJSP and Inspector Harry Walsh of the Jersey City Police.  Photographs taken of the site by police photographers do not show what one would call a grave, as we would normally understand that term, hardly more than a scratched out place.  Allen’s sighting of a leg of the corpse, clearly visible to a casual eye, further disqualifies the spot as a “grave.” 

Keaton and Walsh reported that they immediately took steps to secure the area from intruders, so that the collection of evidence could be undertaken without the presence of reporters and public gawkers – unlike what had happened the night of the kidnaping.[2]  This is an important point, as will be discussed later.  Meanwhile, returning to the original teletype on the discovery,  William Allen is reported to have said the body was “pretty well concealed,” somewhat at odds with his other explanation, but the teletype adds, “The body was lying in a depression as though there had been an attempt to bury it.”  An attempt to bury it bespeaks someone in a hurry, of course, but re-affirms  the original statement of a skeleton on the ground, not a leg sticking up from a grave.

Let us leave that point for a moment.  Keaton and Walsh reported that they removed “two shirts” and took them to the home of Col. Lindbergh “in a burlap bag for identification,” and after Betty Gow made a positive identification, “retained [them] as evidence.”  This is an important point, because several burlap bags were brought by police to the scene for the collection of soil and any other material.  These bags should not be confused with the burlap bag found some yards away from the corpse and that was evidence itself.  It turned out that the burlap bag later labeled 022 did contain vital evidence that would upset the official narrative. These other burlap bags, brought to the scene by police, were forerunners of the evidence bags used today.   The report says the shirts were “retained as evidence.”  What it does not say, however, is that the shirts were actually taken to Lieutenant Keaton’s home, where they were spread out on the kitchen table – and stayed there for a period of time, at least a few days.  Mrs.Keaton recalled that he stayed up late at night studying them. [3]

And now, once again, back to the original teletype.  “We could not tell how long the body had been lying there.”  Why such a definite statement upon a cursory examination?  It would appear that from the first, from the time of Keaton’s and Walsh’s examination of the site, there were great doubts about whether the corpse had been there from the beginning.  I have already written in another blog that Walsh at the trial was not at all definite about whether the corpse had sunk in enough to account for it being there from March 1, 1932.  Lt. Keaton’s widow remarked later that her husband was, in fact, convinced that the body had been moved there, even after State Police officials questioned him many years afterwards in an effort to shake his conviction.[4]

Keaton’s convictions may also help to account for some other points about the police investigation of the area where the body was found, and what was left out at the trial because they would raise the issue of whether someone had moved the body there later – after the ransom payment was made.  For example, the burlap bag found there was not introduced into evidence.  While it was speculated that the child might have been placed in such a bag, the prosecution did not want to get into a debate over the possibility that the corpse was already in a state of decay when placed in the bag – and dumped out later.  There was no blood found on the bag.  But what was found in the bag was a human bone and some hair that compared to the victim’s hair in all details, color, etc.  The bone was from the right hand, a metacarpal bone from the right little finger that connects to the wrist.  This bone was taken from a vial labeled, “Bone taken from burlap bag 022,” when the investigation was reopened years later.  The bone had been placed in the vial before or during  forensic examinations at the Squibb laboratories in May 1932. The other human bones –eight in number – were found in the leaves and soil around the corpse.[5]

These findings were made by Dr. Wilton Krogman in 1977, who mis-identified the bone found in the bag as a foot bone, however, and reconfirmed and correctly identified by Dr. William Bass, at the request of Anna Hauptman’s lawyer.  It makes sense, therefore, why the “burlap bag 022” was not introduced into evidence at the trial.  The bone’s finding was confirmed as coming from the burlap bag. Introducing that evidence would definitely suggest that someone placed the corpse in plain sight, probably hoping it would be found sooner rather than later.  Of course William Allen’s discovery was a chance encounter, but the area, as noted in the previous post, and again here, was an inviting place for almost anyone passing by, from walkers and picnickers, and people just wanting to pull off for a few minutes’ rest.

 Also, and perhaps important, on the undershirts found on the corpse, a State Police review of the evidence in the spring and summer of 1977, stated that , “Jute fibers found on garment [handmade shirt from body] corresponding to fibers from burlap bag found near body.”  Now, it is possible, that these fibers came from the bag used to transport the shirts to Highfields.  They may have become stuck to the shirt during the placing and removing of the shirt in the burlap bag that was not the one found at the scene.  But there can be fewer doubts that Keaton and Walsh also knocked off a bone from the skeleton when they placed the shirts inside a bag they took to Highfields.   Bones do not fall off recently dead corpses.

Two final points of interest before leaving the scene where the body was found.  In my last post I talked about Trooper Carmody’s discovery of a crumpled newspaper, the New York Daily News, dated March 1, 1932.  It might be argued that this another instance where reporters wished to create stories, and that the newspaper was placed there after the discovery of the corpse.  That is not very likely, however, because before the press got there, police had established the area as a secure  location within a short time, as I say above, unlike Highfields the night of the crime.  What explains the newspaper?  Was it put there at the time the child’s body was, as it were, moved into position for the next stage of the drama? 

The second point refers to William Bass’s examination of the bones from the foot and hands.  These were, he writes, at or slightly under the maximum length for bones of a child his age.  Whether this finding adds significantly to other post-mortem findings about the child’s fontanel and teeth may be a subject for a future post.

---

[1]  Initial Teletype of Identification of the Body of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.,  May 12, 1932, from the New Jersey State Police Museum. 

[2]   Keaton and Walsh, “Report Concerning the Finding of the Body of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.,” May 12, 1932, ibid.

[3]   Dolores Raisch, email to author, March 18, 2012.

[4]   Ibid.

[5]   William M. Bass, “Skeletal Material Associated with the Lindbergh Kidnap Case,” American Journal of Human Biology, 3:613-16 (1991), from a copy in the NJSP Museum.

Hide in Plain Sight

But the more I reflected upon the daring, dashing, and discriminating ingenuity of D——; upon the fact that the document must always have been at hand, if he intended to use it to good purpose; and upon the decisive evidence, obtained by the Prefect, that it was not hidden within the limits of that dignitary’s ordinary search — the more satisfied I became that, to conceal this letter, the Minister had resorted to the comprehensive and sagacious expedient of not attempting to conceal it at all.

Edgar Allen Poe, The Purloined Letter

The concept of “hide in plain sight” has usually been associated with Edgar Allen Poe’s 1844 story, “The Purloined Letter.”  Poe introduced in a series of short stories a “detective,” C. Auguste Dupin who lived in Paris, and was a precursor to the unjustly (?) more famous Londoner, Sherlock Holmes.  In the Purloined Letter a blackmailer deceives the police by not attempting to hide the incriminating letter in a secret niche, but in plain sight on his desk in an ordinary position among other envelopes.  The key deduction by Dupin was that the blackmailer needed to have ready access to his potential means of reward in order to be powerful.  Was that the situation in the Lindbergh Crime?  When the corpse of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., was found on May 12, 1932, there were outcries that the police had not carried out a search near the environs of Highfields.  The New York Times reported that “rural neighbors” of Lindbergh had complained that was the case, and also that Governor A. Harry Moore was under pressure to fire Col. Schwarrzkopf, commander o f the State Police.  What can we learn about the discovery of the corpse that would have any bearing on these questions?

A photo taken on May 13, 1932, the day after the child’s corpse was found displays an aerial view of the scene.  The road is crowded with cars and an enterprising person has set up a hotdog stand across the road.  If you look closely at this picture it is apparent that the police have already stationed guards to keep people from actually tramping across the grass to the point where the body was found. Looked at closely, the photo reveals the existence of a fence on both sides of the road apparently around a dry creek bed.  Another ground level photo taken around the same time confirms the existence of the fence on that side of the road where the body was found.  The site is less than two miles from Hopewell, and the fence and the absence of tall undergrowth would draw attention to the area.   A police report and accompanying map (see below) gives a good impression of the area as well, and confirms how manageable the site would seem to be for someone in a hurry to dispose of the body.  Moreover, the original reports that  the body was found 75 yards off the road were not true; it was a scant 45 feet off the road.

Now look closely again at the photo posted here and you will be able to see two troopers standing near a small tree.  That apparently marks the actual site – or close to it.  Note how much the grass is beaten down or absent, and also note how at this point in the road a wide space exists between the road and the trees that would make it easy to pull over and take the body but a few feet to a wooded area.  There appear to be tracks shown in the aerial photo suggesting cars that have pulled off and back onto the road – although that is not entirely clear.

A few thoughts emerge from this photo.  It appears to be a very easy location for dumping the child, with quick access to a “hiding” place.  But second, and for that same reason, a place that should have been searched immediately after the kidnaping. 

It has never been entirely clear how thorough the searches were.  On April 7, 1932, Col. Schwarzkopf of the State Police wrote in an untitled memorandum that a log had been kept of all the searches, and which included this assertion, “ a re-check of all the surrounding area was made by experienced detectives in a minute search of the territory for a radius of at least five miles.” (italics added).

The location where the child was found was less than two miles from Hopewell. Many rumors surfaced then and later that the child had been moved to that location from another place.  The body had sunk into the ground for a few inches, but Captain Harry Walsh testified that it was not possible to tell if the body had been there from the beginning, or had been placed there sometime afterwards.  Arguments can be made either way.  A kidnaper might well have become fearful after leaving Highfields and  decided to dump the body as soon as possible.  On the other hand, the likelihood of an early discovery in such a prominent place could have cut short ransom negotiations.  Having placed the child’s body so close to the road, moreover, why did “Cemetery John” risk two meetings – one that lasted an hour, the second that sent Jafsie back to Lindbergh’s car to get the money?  Did the kidnaper have reason to feel sure the body had not been discovered?  The discovery of the body goes down with the thumb-guard mystery as yet another unexplained “clue” in the Lindbergh Case.

(Thanks to Jim Davidson and Mark Falzini for the photograph, and our geography lesson.  The photo will appear in their forthcoming book, Arcadia Press book, "Images of America: New Jersey's Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial".)

)

Here is the police report and map.  Note the discovery of a piece of newspaper dated March 1, 1932.  Was this left by accident, or on purpose to help with identification?