Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 8:54:22 GMT -5
I am not a huge TV watcher but the American Heroes Channel is running an interesting series about various historical events and crimes that have continuing questions about the events and their outcomes. Last night's episode three had a 15 minute segment on the Lindbergh Kidnapping case. This was really interesting because it was coming from the perspective that Lindbergh might have been a facilitator in his son's kidnapping. Appearing as part of the program were Mark Falzini, NJSP archivist, and Dr. Lloyd Gardner. emeritus professor at Rutger University and author of the excellent book, "The Case That Never Dies". There were several other professionals who were interviewed for this program. They touched on Charles Lindbergh Jr. and his health, and Charles Lindbergh's personality.
Dr. Lauren F. Schwartz, Pediatric Neurosurgeon practicing in Hackensack NJ, put forth an interesting theory about Charlie's remains. She was of the opinion that Charlie's corpse (what was still present) showed evidence of serious health issues. Then she added that she thought there had been selective removal of certain organs (her words) from the body to help conceal what some of the health issues were. Quite a suggestion!
Charles Lindbergh's personality and beliefs were discussed during the program. A basis for Lindbergh's involvement in his son's kidnapping could stem from Lindbergh's Narcissistic personality combined with his belief in Eugenics which was being nurtured by his association with Dr. Carrel, an avowed believer in Eugenics and the master race. Charles Jr. would never be an example of Lindbergh's genetic superiority. He had ongoing health problems that were not going to get better. Dr. Gardner felt that Lindbergh arranged for Charlie to be "kidnapped" so that he could be placed anonymously in an institution but that something went amiss with the plan and Charlie died as a result.
Was Lindbergh's narcissistic personality and his eugenics beliefs at the core of what happened to his first born son? Many of Lindbergh's actions/behaviors surrounding this kidnapping are now being evaluated on what we know about personality disorders. Here is the Mayo Clinic's list of symptoms for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Many experts use the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, to diagnose mental conditions. This manual is also used by insurance companies to reimburse for treatment.
DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features: •Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance •Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it •Exaggerating your achievements and talents •Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate •Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people •Requiring constant admiration •Having a sense of entitlement •Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations •Taking advantage of others to get what you want •Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others •Being envious of others and believing others envy you •Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others.
I am not a medical person, so I am not diagnosing anything here. I am just sharing what was brought out in a very interesting presentation regarding Lindbergh's personality. Dr. Gardner closed his comments with Hauptmann's words, even though they killed him to close the book on this case, the book, it will never close. Both men are right!!!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 7, 2016 12:43:43 GMT -5
I read an article in a local Princeton newspaper recently that one of Lindbergh's grandchildren was going to give a lecture at the Present Day Club. In the article she described her grandfather as possibly being on the autistic spectrum(albeit high functioning) as he would focus so intently on his projects, have a hard time expressing emotion or communicating with others. Another something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 9, 2016 2:06:30 GMT -5
Sounds like an interesting segment, Amy. I hope maybe I will get to see it at some time.
I think Lindbergh having a personality disorder to the extent that it contributed somehow to what happened to Charles Jr. is an interesting possibility, but I am wary of labeling him too easily. For one thing, narcissistic personality disorder seems to be such a buzz term today, it just bothers me to attach it too glibly. (And I do realize that YOU weren't attaching, just throwing it out there for consideration.) The truth is, I did not know the man, and neither, as far as I know, did anyone who now is, in some professional capacity, suggesting that label fits him. I know we have evidence that it MIGHT...but, at this point, it is hard for me to think we will ever know for sure. Another thing that clouds the issue, for me, with Lindbergh is that he was not the only one putting Lindy on a pedestal -- it seems darn near the whole world did, at one point. That, to me, makes it very hard to get a real look at the "real man".
Some type of high-functioning autistic disorder is an interesting possibility, as well.
Regarding the remains found in the woods, I think Michael just posted recently that it will be revealed in his book that "something was done" to the corpse, and of course I have been wondering, wondering, what he means. (Waiting patiently -- hah! Well, waiting, anyhow.)I wonder if it might tie in with what the pediatric neurosurgeon suggested, regarding removal of organs. One thing that always seems to nag at the back of my mind is the association with Dr. Carrel. It is so easy for me to imagine that, if Lindbergh were part of the "kidnap" in any way, he may have called Carrel in to help at some point, in some way.
Another thing I have wondered is whether, in addition to the real and rumored health problems, Charlie might have had one of the conditions that made his gender ambiguous. That might have been a hard thing for CAL to deal with, and it could explain that strange "It" nickname and even some of the reluctance to release information about, photos of, etc., the baby. I got started on that line of thinking a while back when we were discussing the rumor of Charles Jr. having been taken to ... I think it was Johns Hopkins? Anyhow, wherever it was, I stumbled across some information about a well-known doctor who was, about that time, doing some pioneering work there in the field of gender ambiguity -- intersex -- in children. And I thought: Hmmm. I couldn't link anything up concretely though ... so it was just a "thinking theory". Goes to show how easy it is to "fill in the gaps" in this mysterious, long-lived case with all kinds of hypothetical things...which may or may not have any relevance at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2016 9:22:32 GMT -5
I think Lindbergh having a personality disorder to the extent that it contributed somehow to what happened to Charles Jr. is an interesting possibility, but I am wary of labeling him too easily. For one thing, narcissistic personality disorder seems to be such a buzz term today, it just bothers me to attach it too glibly. (And I do realize that YOU weren't attaching, just throwing it out there for consideration.) The truth is, I did not know the man, and neither, as far as I know, did anyone who now is, in some professional capacity, suggesting that label fits him. I know we have evidence that it MIGHT...but, at this point, it is hard for me to think we will ever know for sure. Another thing that clouds the issue, for me, with Lindbergh is that he was not the only one putting Lindy on a pedestal -- it seems darn near the whole world did, at one point. That, to me, makes it very hard to get a real look at the "real man". Hi sweetwater. Enjoyed your post! I am not sure it was the intention to "label" Lindbergh as having a personality disorder; I just think it was an attempt to explore and understand, through today's psycho-analytical spectrum, what might have caused Lindbergh's actions and behaviors before, during and after this terrible tragedy. Lindbergh was a very guarded man who liked to be in control of his circumstances and those of the people he was attached to. He wanted people to see only what he chose and everything else was off-limits. I have done a huge amount of reading about Lindbergh's life plus his father's and his mother's life. One thing that you will see from early on in Lindbergh's life is a need to be noticed. He would do the craziest things to stand-out and take great risks to get that attention. It is not surprising that he would take up the challenge of a non-stop flight across the Atlantic. When you read his books, "WE" and "The Spirit of St. Louis" you get a clear look at his drive and determination to leave his mark on the world and have control over how he would accomplish it. He was also an emotionally remote man, who was raised in a divided home by parents who were not affectionately demonstrative. This is something that would rule his relationships as a husband and father, much to the lament of Anne and his children with her. I realize I still have much to learn about Lindbergh. There was a definite facet to his personality that embraced Eugenics, even before he had his first son. That must be taken into consideration when seeking to understand Lindbergh's motivations and beliefs. His "Autobiography of Values" which was written later in his life shows that these beliefs were still very much a part of the fiber of this man's character. This is a part of the "real man". I do stop at the point where I think this would make him want his first born dead on purpose. Charlie had issues that Lindbergh would have found unacceptable by his standards and I can see him wanting Charlie removed before it could be found out and publicized. Lindbergh was a world hero, the perfect man with the perfect wife and now a perfect son making them the "perfect" family. When you are a perfectionist (as Lindbergh was), maintaining that public image is a must. I found that suggestion by Dr. Schwartz surprising. I have given it some thought since. It has always been thought that animals are responsible for the missing organs. If that were so, then why did they not devour the heart and liver? Something is definitely off with that corpse. WOW!! I have seen it suggested that the corpse found was actually that of a girl (Wayne Jones book, Murder of Justice), but your idea never occurred to me. Truly, that would have been over the top as far as Lindbergh is concerned. My thoughts on the Johns Hopkins issue were that Charlie had epilepsy and Charles and Anne had sought help from this institution because they were doing groundbreaking research on control of epilepsy through the use of diet. I agree that we do speculate while we are trying to understand all the issues that are not clear in this case. I am hoping that Michael's book will offer at least some clarity on aspects we still don't have answers for.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 10, 2016 0:20:07 GMT -5
I think Carrel and Lindbergh met sometime in late 1930, and, as I understand it, a real kindred spirit/mentor-pupil relationship developed between them. We know that both Lindbergh and Carrel were eugenicists (Carrel so much so that, after WWII, the French government wanted to put him on trial for being a Nazi), and, since I think there were indeed health issues with CAL Jr., Lindbergh may have taken him to Carrel--a trusted and like-minded friend--who privately diagnosed CAL Jr. and confirmed Lindbergh's suspicions that there was something wrong with him, that he would never be a normal, healthy adult. I think this is where it all started. As to the corpse in the woods, I think some organs were eaten by scavengers, while others--usual sweetmeats for animals--were untouched. This could indicate disease or making these organs undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 10, 2016 2:05:05 GMT -5
Just in case anyone is interested in my sort of half-baked idea as outlined in my post above, here's Wikipedia on Hugh Hampton Young, the Johns Hopkins doctor I mentioned: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hampton_YoungHere is Wikipedia on the history of intersex surgery, mentioning Young as a pioneer: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_intersex_surgeryI had some other links bookmarked as well, but since I never could link anything up, really, to my idea, just putting these out there for the basic info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2016 22:57:17 GMT -5
Just in case anyone is interested in my sort of half-baked idea as outlined in my post above, here's Wikipedia on Hugh Hampton Young, the Johns Hopkins doctor I mentioned: Thanks for sharing the links to Dr. Hugh Young. I really enjoyed reading the information. I think your idea is a unique one. I have never encountered it before. When considering this as a possibility, I do want to share with you that my understanding is that Charlie was circumcised as an infant so I really think that everything was as it should have been at birth. I think it is great, however, that you are considering all possible options concerning Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 11, 2016 2:32:15 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing the links to Dr. Hugh Young. I really enjoyed reading the information. I think your idea is a unique one. I have never encountered it before. When considering this as a possibility, I do want to share with you that my understanding is that Charlie was circumcised as an infant so I really think that everything was as it should have been at birth. I think it is great, however, that you are considering all possible options concerning Charlie. Amy, sometimes you put things so diplomatically it makes me smile! Don't worry -- this "theory" is not my front-runner. I was pretty excited about it and devoted to sleuthing it out for, oh, maybe a couple of days a while back -- but, as I said, it came to nought. I never posted about it on the board until the wave had passed -- and then I (who was still very much a newbie here) remember thinking, whew, I'm sure glad I didn't propose THAT, or I would have been laughed off the board. Now I don't worry so much if I get laughed at, and the neurosurgeon's remarks that you quoted just brought this to mind again, so thought I'd mention it. What is your source that Charlie was circumcised in infancy? I've heard that mentioned before, but I don't know that I've ever seen it sourced...or maybe I've just forgotten. Anyhow, I do think, since there are a number of different ways intersex can manifest, that it would be POSSIBLE for an infant to, um, have what it takes to get circumcised and yet be of indeterminate gender. I agree with you, though, that most likely Charlie's gender was not ambiguous ... but who knows. Back when I was exploring this, one thing that did kind of "click" a little bit was this: Remember that one of the Lindbergh baby "claimants" was a black woman (I can't recall her name just now) who said that she was CAL Jr. but that her skin had been darkened and her gender altered, to disguise her true identity? I think part of her claim was that she figured all this out from some kind of information an FBI agent she dated confided to her. (Whether or not she actually did date an FBI agent, I have no idea.) And I got to thinking, hmmm, wonder if somewhere in that wild story is some little nugget of truth -- not that she was CAL Jr., but maybe some of the underlying information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 9:55:02 GMT -5
Amy, sometimes you put things so diplomatically it makes me smile! Don't worry -- this "theory" is not my front-runner. I was pretty excited about it and devoted to sleuthing it out for, oh, maybe a couple of days a while back -- but, as I said, it came to nought. I never posted about it on the board until the wave had passed -- and then I (who was still very much a newbie here) remember thinking, whew, I'm sure glad I didn't propose THAT, or I would have been laughed off the board. Now I don't worry so much if I get laughed at, and the neurosurgeon's remarks that you quoted just brought this to mind again, so thought I'd mention it. I am really glad that you mentioned your theory. We are all dealing with a limited amount of available information regarding the true state of Charles Jr.'s health so speculating certainly comes into play. Believe me, I would never laugh at anyone's ideas. I have had a number of them myself and I know it takes some courage to put ideas/theories onto a discussion board. There is an advantage to doing that though. For me, it has brought new information and facts I did not previously know about which is always very helpful when it comes to this case. Plus it opens new doors of inquiry and discovery when people share thoughts and ideas! Well, if you heard this before then maybe we encountered the same source for it. A few years ago I was reading through some rather old posts that were made on Ronelle Delmont's Kidnapping Hoax Discussion Board. One of the posts contained the information that Charlie had be circumcised. I put this info into my notes on Charlie because the person who posted it is a very reliable source. I trust this information.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 13, 2016 3:59:00 GMT -5
Well, if you heard this before then maybe we encountered the same source for it. A few years ago I was reading through some rather old posts that were made on Ronelle Delmont's Kidnapping Hoax Discussion Board. One of the posts contained the information that Charlie had be circumcised. I put this info into my notes on Charlie because the person who posted it is a very reliable source. I trust this information. That could well be, although I don't remember that what I had seen/read before about it was very detailed at all. It could be just that you or someone else had mentioned circumcision briefly on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 14:37:11 GMT -5
That could well be, although I don't remember that what I had seen/read before about it was very detailed at all. It could be just that you or someone else had mentioned circumcision briefly on this board. Not me. I never posted that Charlie was circumcised as a baby before. Never had occasion to until you posted your theory about Charlie's gender. Like I said before, your theory was unique and I thought how you linked it to Lindbergh calling Charlie "it" was quite clever. Charlie was Lindbergh's first born and a son, something which a father usually takes pride in. Obviously, that didn't work out in this case. Sadder still is that Charlie did not call Lindbergh "Da" or "DaDa". Charlie called Lindbergh "Hi". So go figure that out!! Any chance you might be willing to post something on any other theories you have about Charlie? I am always open to other possibilities about Charlie's health. I have posted in the past about the possibility that Charlie might have suffered from a mild form of epilepsy which would have troubled Lindbergh very much. The theory has been advanced that Charlie's health was such that Lindbergh sought to have him taken permanently out of the picture. So I guess this would mean that Charlie's condition could not be cured, fixed, however you want to classify it. Do you take this into consideration when researching what might have been wrong with Charlie? Like you, I have more than one theory myself, and a surgical removal of organs to cover up what might have been wrong does not seem so far fetched to me. In fact, it plays right into the Lindbergh/Carrel dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 15, 2016 3:55:10 GMT -5
I'm enjoying the discussion on this board a good deal, have little to add but that I'm looking forward to what Michael says in his book, and to what the finding were regarding the remains of CAL, Jr. I have this strange sense that we are collectively,--with Michael handling the lion's share of heavy lifting--coming very close, maybe closer than we realize, to perhaps solving the riddle of the LKC once and for all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 20:15:01 GMT -5
Hey John, I think we all will have a much clearer understanding about how this kidnapping actually went down once Michael's first volume comes out. We will have much to discuss with all the new facts and documents that will be revealed by Michael. I came across a short video of Agnes Morrow Scandrett. She was Dwight Morrow Sr.'s older sister. She was interviewed about Charlie's kidnapping and she points the finger of responsibility at prohibition, bootleggers and the women who wanted a dry country. She felt the family would still have Charlie if there was no prohibition. I was not aware that some of the family felt that way. Here is the video clip: www.gettyimages.com/license/518445632
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 15, 2016 20:59:33 GMT -5
That's an old story about Prohibition, Amy. I remember reading about that back shortly after the Kennedy book came out,--it may even have been mentioned there--that many felt the kidnapping was a "warning" to CAL and other "aviators" to not snoop on them for the feds, or something to that effect. Someone in a plane,--remember this was well before jets, when planes flew low--could essentially survey the entire Jersey coast for offshore ships doing business where, shall we say, they shouldn't be doing business. I believe Long Island was another place like that. Down from Canada most likely. There was a lot of that up where I live, in New England.
The gender bending speculations regarding CAL, Jr. are fascinating. I'm disinclined to believe them,--till there's more evidence, that is--and yet it all strikes me as an apposite and kind of hip topic, Milleninally (sic) speaking, viz. Caitlyn Jenner and his (or rather her) kind.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2016 19:53:07 GMT -5
I have begun to re-file my material since finishing the book when I came across this picture which is located among Gov. Hoffman's material at the NJSP Archives. Since this is the most recent thread involving the Child's remains I thought I'd post it here. What I like about is that it's at "eye level" giving a different perspective instead of the overhead shots I'm used to seeing: Here is the other one I posted a couple of weeks ago that got lost in the Hauptmann thread:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 20:55:06 GMT -5
Great pictures, Michael!
I especially like the one that is a street view photo. I have never seen one like that before. The aerial shots make the road look larger. In the photo you posted, you can see that the road is more narrow, very much a country type road. I can understand why the burlap bag with the body in it would have been dropped along this roadside. It would have easily caught the attention of a passing motorist.
Now that your book is done (Yay!!!!), I want to ask you a question that I hope you can comment on. Was Charles Lindbergh actually turning in (to NJ authorities) the locations of the stills that existed in the Hopewell/Sourland mountain area or was this just a rumor? The Morrow family was blaming bootleggers for the kidnapping of Charlie. Was there really a serious resentment of the Lindberghs living in the Sourland Mountain area?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2016 6:52:13 GMT -5
Now that your book is done (Yay!!!!), I want to ask you a question that I hope you can comment on. Was Charles Lindbergh actually turning in (to NJ authorities) the locations of the stills that existed in the Hopewell/Sourland mountain area or was this just a rumor? The Morrow family was blaming bootleggers for the kidnapping of Charlie. Was there really a serious resentment of the Lindberghs living in the Sourland Mountain area? Well, I'm done my part and now just waiting on the Publisher. Although my limitations include basic writing skills, it's the facts I'm most proud of. As I've often vented to everyone the hardest part is locating and re-locating reports that are scattered in various files. I've kept them out so I didn't lose them now I wanted to finally get them back to their "homes" so I don't create another problem by misplacing or misfiling them. The Sourlands was the home to a lot of illegal activity. Once the kidnapping occurred, there were many theories to explore. Some theories had different versions. So when it came to illegal alcohol this idea splintered into many different pieces/probabilities. Like, for example, the idea the child found wasn't Charles Jr.'s body. One theory was this body was placed there by Bootleggers in the area tired of being stopped by Cops looking for the child and/or investigating the crime. Another was the one you mentioned above. Here is a USBOI (FBI) investigation that reveals Lindbergh's position on that matter: Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 15:16:21 GMT -5
That report really clears up those rumors Charlie's kidnapping and death was the result of angry bootleggers!
I have heard the theory that the body found was a plant to end police activity in the area. I think Wayne Jones mentions this in his book. I also believe that Ellis Parker, at first, thought the body was not the Lindbergh child. Will your first volume touch on any of the theories surrounding the identity of the child?
Thanks for posting that document!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2016 17:33:47 GMT -5
That report really clears up those rumors Charlie's kidnapping and death was the result of angry bootleggers! This is one of a number of sources which ruin the idea. There's always a possibility of another source saying something different but I've never come across one. Thanks for posting that document! No problem. The amazing part is that it was where I expected it to be so I got lucky in finding it. I have heard the theory that the body found was a plant to end police activity in the area. I think Wayne Jones mentions this in his book. Well I'll have to take your word for it. After reading your post I set out to find the reference but found it impossible. Every time I pick up that book all I see are letters and can't make anything out. It's like I instantly become dyslexic or something whenever I try to read that book. I also believe that Ellis Parker, at first, thought the body was not the Lindbergh child. Will your first volume touch on any of the theories surrounding the identity of the child? Yes but probably not exactly what you are asking about. Chapter 15 surrounds the child's discovery through to his cremation. I do mention some interesting observations made by those who saw the corpse, however, his identity was never a question in my mind so I didn't want to venture down a path simply to wander down it. Believe me, there's stuff I could have brought up that no one knows about but I honestly believe it would have been disingenuous to do that when there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that it was him. Certainly anyone can disagree with me and I will always listen to those positions but I'm at where I'm at on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 21:13:34 GMT -5
I have heard the theory that the body found was a plant to end police activity in the area. I think Wayne Jones mentions this in his book. Well I'll have to take your word for it. After reading your post I set out to find the reference but found it impossible. Every time I pick up that book all I see are letters and can't make anything out. It's like I instantly become dyslexic or something whenever I try to read that book. LOL!!! Well, I will now have to take up the gauntlet and see if I can find it in his book. What scares me is that I might be mistaken about it being in that particular book. I have read so many books on this case, it is easy to "mix up" which book I read something in. I will dive in, though, and see if it is in Wayne Jones book or not. This may take me days to find. If it is in there I will post the page number or quote the book in a future post. Sounds good to me. I will be very interested in reading those observations. I do hope that some time after your book has been out, you might share some of that "stuff" no one knows about. I am sure all those bits of information would make a very interesting thread on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 21:13:54 GMT -5
I have heard the theory that the body found was a plant to end police activity in the area. I think Wayne Jones mentions this in his book. From Wayne Jones book "Murder of Justice" Chapter 13 Page 151"Although Evalyn Walsh McLean, the Washington D.C. socialite had been bilked out of $104,000 by Gaston B. Means, it by no means deterred her from seeing justice done in the Lindbergh case. By this time she had hired a prominent private investigator, Lieutenant Robert W. Hicks, a Washington criminologist. His reputation for ferreting out true facts in criminal cases was excellent.
Upon his entrance into the case he became involved in substantiating the identity of the body that had been found. Here is that portion of his report to Mrs. McLean: 'First of all, it would have been to the advantage of certain interests to have planted a body. The great police activity centering around the search for the Lindbergh child had seriously interfered with the enormous bootlegging industry, resulting in the seizure of many whiskey trucks plying between New York and Philadelphia. And the big bootleggers were just the men who would have stopped at nothing to remove an obstacle; and the planting of a body, so that the police activity would be curtailed, would have been a most logical thing for them to do.'"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2016 19:52:04 GMT -5
From Wayne Jones book "Murder of Justice" Chapter 13 Page 151This is true. I say this because there's some stuff in his book that isn't correct so it's important not to take everything there at face value. It's also important to point out that Hicks never saw the corpse himself but did conduct a lengthy investigation by interviewing just about everyone who had. Further, he reviewed all of the available documentation. He had originally worked for Anthony Hauck, then later hired by McLean. McLean then loaned him to assist with the Governor's efforts. So he was in a position to have seen and heard a lot of good information. I've got quite a bit of his material but one thing pertaining to this issue indicated he believed the corpse had been " taken from a buried coffin." There were several reasons for this but one being that he believed the body had been embalmed. He concluded that because, he wrote, " the heart and the liver are the first to go without an embalming."
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 28, 2016 14:33:29 GMT -5
Michael, I think you must be pointing out the lack of of logic of the author in regard to this subject. IIRC, there were NO INTERNAL ORGANS present in the corpse that was found. So, if there was an embalming, it would be much more likely that there would be remnants of the heart, liver, and other internal organs. So why the belief that the body had been embalmed? Just doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 29, 2016 1:26:14 GMT -5
Hmm...as I'm remembering, the heart and liver WERE present, and were pretty much the only organs that were. I believe there has been a good bit of discussion touching on why heart and liver would remain, when, normally, those organs would be a main target of scavenger animals. If I'm remembering correctly here, then their presence could fit, somewhat, with the embalming theory, seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 29, 2016 2:15:53 GMT -5
That could well be, although I don't remember that what I had seen/read before about it was very detailed at all. It could be just that you or someone else had mentioned circumcision briefly on this board. . (sweetwater)Not me. I never posted that Charlie was circumcised as a baby before. Never had occasion to until you posted your theory about Charlie's gender. Like I said before, your theory was unique and I thought how you linked it to Lindbergh calling Charlie "it" was quite clever. Charlie was Lindbergh's first born and a son, something which a father usually takes pride in. Obviously, that didn't work out in this case. Sadder still is that Charlie did not call Lindbergh "Da" or "DaDa". Charlie called Lindbergh "Hi". So go figure that out!! (amy35)
Any chance you might be willing to post something on any other theories you have about Charlie? I am always open to other possibilities about Charlie's health. I have posted in the past about the possibility that Charlie might have suffered from a mild form of epilepsy which would have troubled Lindbergh very much. The theory has been advanced that Charlie's health was such that Lindbergh sought to have him taken permanently out of the picture. So I guess this would mean that Charlie's condition could not be cured, fixed, however you want to classify it. Do you take this into consideration when researching what might have been wrong with Charlie? Like you, I have more than one theory myself, and a surgical removal of organs to cover up what might have been wrong does not seem so far fetched to me. In fact, it plays right into the Lindbergh/Carrel dynamic. (amy35) Amy, I guess my comment that my theory involving ambiguous gender is not my front-runner probably gave the wrong impression ...that is, that I HAVE a front-runner, when I really don't. I've looked and pondered over a number of "possibles" for Charlie's health problems, given what we know and what we think we MIGHT know. I'm sure you've done the same. There are a lot of interesting possibilities -- I think your epilepsy idea is a good one. But, as with so much with the LKC, there is so much we can't be sure of (or I can't, at least) that I can only call what I've done pondering, really. I am SO eager to learn what Michael may be able to reveal in his book. I will mention one other idea that I played with a good little bit. I do want to stress that it is ONLY an idea, not anchored in anything much. I imagine some will find this line of thinking distasteful, maybe consider it scurrilous, since I have nothing much to back it with...but it is somewhere my mind wandered when thinking what MIGHT have been wrong with Charlie. And that's all it is. I think that I have read that at one point (post-LKC), one plan was to turn Highfields into a home for women with venereal disease. I don't have a ready link to the source, and I don't believe Highfields was ever actually turned to that purpose, but mention of a plan something like that is "out there" somewhere. This was interesting to me, because one possibility I've considered was that Charlie might have suffered the effects of congenital syphilis. Possible scenario could go something like: CAL was not, let's theorize, quite so virginal at his marriage as he has been represented. He could have acquired the disease and, since symptoms and course can vary so dramatically, not realized it. Anne could have contracted it from him, and the baby could have acquired it in utero or at birth. With congenital syphilis, as I understand, again, symptoms and progression can vary greatly. It could cause stillbirth, obvious and severe problems at birth, or more hidden and more slowly progressing deterioration. There was a time in history when the symptoms of rickets and some possible symptoms of congenital syphilis were somewhat confused, apparently -- and understandably, in my opinion, as there seems to be some overlap. Though I think that time was largely past by the 1930s, I think it might be POSSIBLE that, when dealing with the firstborn child of the illustrious Lindberghs, there might be hesitation/reluctance on the part of medical people to suspect/pronounce congenital syphilis if initial symptoms were mild and might be explained otherwise. There could have been a delay in diagnosis...but, as things progressed, the diagnosis might have come. (I think of the apparent lack of pictures during the latter months of Charlie's life.) At that point, Charles and Anne might have also been diagnosed and received treatment -- there was no penicillin yet, of course, but I think cures were possible by the 1930s -- with some arsenic-based compounds, I believe...? It would not surprise me if, in that case, this might be one part of their lives that they might keep secret from even close family members. I'm sure that, in this scenario, Charlie would have received what treatment was possible, too -- but, with a congenital case, there likely would have been damage done that could not be undone, even if the disease could be halted. I have thought that, IF this was the scenario, once Charles and Anne were "clear" and it became evident, by Anne's becoming pregnant again, that they could have more children ... well, that could have been a spur to CAL to "do something" about Charlie, in line with the many theories discussed that he MIGHT have been involved, of course. In this scenario, I can see that not only would CAL have had the problem of a "defective" child but he would, in Charlie, also have the constant reminder that it was his own "fault". Maybe he wanted to simply close that chapter in his life and move on ... without Charlie, with new "untainted" children. Whatever part of the "dark side" of CAL that has sometimes been painted may be true, it is still very hard for me to entertain the possibility that CAL might have knowingly arranged the murder of his son. I have always favored more the ideas that he may have arranged to have Charlie spirited away to another home or an institution, with Anne unaware, but that something "went wrong". I still favor that idea more, but, in the PURELY FICTIONAL (as far as any proof) scenario I've proposed here, I can ALMOST see his mind wrapping around the idea of a "mercy killing", if the condition had taken grave toll -- especially adding in the different and possibly strong impetus to remove a reminder of his own "failings". Just another far-fetched theory...possibly some food for thought in it somewhere for someone, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 20:44:56 GMT -5
I've got quite a bit of his material but one thing pertaining to this issue indicated he believed the corpse had been " taken from a buried coffin." There were several reasons for this but one being that he believed the body had been embalmed. He concluded that because, he wrote, " the heart and the liver are the first to go without an embalming." This information is interesting. I have found the fact that the heart and liver were still present to be troubling. If animals had eaten the other organs then they would have eaten these for sure. It is a fact (I assume in 1932 also) that when a body is embalmed the circulatory system is filled with a formaldehyde solution. Once that is completed, the organs of the body are treated to retard decomposition that would occur if left untreated. The fact that the eyes of the corpse were still present at the time it was found is unusual also. I can understand why Hicks believed what he did. Thanks for sharing that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 22:31:36 GMT -5
I think that I have read that at one point (post-LKC), one plan was to turn Highfields into a home for women with venereal disease. I don't have a ready link to the source, and I don't believe Highfields was ever actually turned to that purpose, but mention of a plan something like that is "out there" somewhere. This was interesting to me, because one possibility I've considered was that Charlie might have suffered the effects of congenital syphilis. Thanks, sweetwater, for sharing your well thought out theory about congenital syphilis. I think it is definitely worthy of consideration. I saw the possibility in it myself when I started researching epilepsy. Epileptic seizures were linked to syphilis (both congenital and acquired) because of the effect of syphilis on the brain. The lack of current pictures is such an important point that seems to get passed over by many people who look at this case. Charlie was the first-born for Charles and Anne and the first-born grandchild for the Morrows and Evangeline Lindbergh. This is supposed to be a big deal, right?? If you stop taking pictures then something has changed about the child. I had read that there were similarities in some of the symptoms between congenital syphilis and rickets, some of them being deformities in the teeth, bone deformities such as frontal bossing (enlargement of the brow bone area) and hearing issues. You are right that there was no penicillin yet to treat any form of syphilis. I went back to my research on this and what they were doing in the 1930's was IM injections (at least 20) of arsenic compounds supplemented by topical applications of a mercurial ointment. I know this was used on adults. I don't know if it would have been the course of treatment for a child. I have and still do spend time researching Lindbergh's early years. Ever since all that information came out about the children he had with the German women, I have wondered about whether he might have been involved with anyone during his barnstorming years (1923, 1924?) or even while he was an airmail pilot in 1926. I think there was a letter sent to the FBI from people who knew him when and they said that he was involved with women. I don't know if what they wrote is true or not. I will have to look for it again and will try to post it if I can. You would think that once Lindbergh proposed to Anne and the Morrows realized how serious the relationship was, that Dwight and Betty would have had Lindbergh's background checked before they allowed the marriage. If this was done, I am not aware of it. This would be something Michael might have knowledge of. This is the position I prefer also. It is hard to think that a father would want to eliminate his son's existence but I have to give that consideration also. I have learned on this board that you investigate all the options on a point, even if you don't like them. Every theory is worthy of consideration. You have given me much to think about again concerning this issue. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 29, 2016 23:49:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 30, 2016 1:30:20 GMT -5
Thank you so much for the tip, trojanusc! I, for one, was not aware of this -- and I am sure going to check it out.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 31, 2016 1:14:21 GMT -5
Just finished reading it. He reuses a lot of his new afterword from 'The Case That Never Dies', but he elaborates on that a ton, which is great. For instance, he's named the disease that CAL Jr. suffered from: Hydrocephalus, or some variation of that, which produced a so-called "copper-beaten" skull look--something that's caused by hydrocephalus and other diseases which I've come across in trying to figure this out. A couple of other things he says are very interesting too, which I'd like to get verified: It was Anne's idea to stay at Highfields through Tuesday; and Betty made a flannel band, not an overshirt, for CAL Jr. on the night he disappeared. Micheal, how accurate is this?
|
|