ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Oct 12, 2017 0:25:51 GMT -5
I might be jumpy on the conclusions here but if the DNA from the bones and hair matched as a sibling to Reeve or Land they would need not entertain any more "Charlies" (or conspiracy theories that claim the Lindberghs shipped off their deformed child).
BTW, I agree that Olsen and all the others were perfectly nice people with sincere beliefs. I do not believe any of them were Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by truthindna on Jan 23, 2018 12:33:50 GMT -5
I have a question for everyone. Anne did harbor some doubts at times that the corpse found was not Charlie. Did any family members ever do dna when it was available years later, to see if Anne or her other children matched with the corpse that was found in the woods. If they didnt maybe the Lindbergh's should do so know so this mystery can finally be put to rest.
|
|
Harold Hicks is CAL, jr.
Guest
|
Post by Harold Hicks is CAL, jr. on Jun 3, 2018 11:13:21 GMT -5
I met Harold Olsen, his wife, and Laverne Pinkerton( she was the Enrolled Agent for Robert W. Hicks and knew him well), at the home of Mr. Hicks personal secretary and confidant of many years; around 1994.
This is where I learned about the conspiracy and about the facts . I now own some of Mr. Hicks personal effects.
It's clear that Robert Hicks believed that Bruno Hauptmann was innocent. He also believed that Harold Hicks was the Lindberg baby. Mr. Olsen signed a copy of the book which shows the details the findings of Mr. Hicks. When Harold Olsen detailed his experiences over the many years, it makes a profound case of truth and facts to support this finding.
Bruno Hauptmann was Jewish, by the way, and why he received the religious counsel during his trial and execution along with his role as a German machine gunner in the Kaiser's army make this whole thing even more bizarre! Charles Lindbergh by contrast was deeply anti-semitic and a friend to the Third Reich almost to the day before Pearl Harbor, just adds another strong contrast between Hauptmann and Lindbergh.
Can anyone figure why Hauptmann, although not the smartest, some say, would kidnap the baby of the most famous celebrity in the world at that time? There was an infinite number of easier babies to kidnap a baby for money.
|
|
Harold Hicks is CAL, jr. EDITS
Guest
|
Post by Harold Hicks is CAL, jr. EDITS on Jun 3, 2018 11:30:29 GMT -5
Sorry, I need to make some edits.
Corrected herein:
I met Harold Olsen, his wife, and Laverne Pinkerton( she was the Enrolled Agent for Robert W. Hicks and knew him well), at the home of Mr. Hicks personal secretary and confidant of many years; around 1994.
This is where I learned about the conspiracy and about the facts . I now own some of Mr. Hicks personal effects.
It's clear that Robert Hicks believed that Bruno Hauptmann was innocent. He also believed that Harold Olsen was the Lindberg baby. Mr. Olsen provided to me, a signed a copy of the book which shows the details the findings of Mr. Hicks. When Harold Olsen discussed his experiences over the many years, it made a profound case of truth and facts to support this finding.
Bruno Hauptmann was Jewish, by the way, and why he received the religious counsel of a Lutheran Pastor during his trial and execution, along with his role as a German machine gunner in the Kaiser's army make the stage even more bizarre! Charles Lindbergh by contrast was deeply anti-semitic and a friend to the Third Reich almost to the day before Pearl Harbor and adds another strong contrast between Hauptmann and Lindbergh.
Can anyone figure why Hauptmann, although not the smartest, some say, would kidnap the baby of the most famous celebrity in the world at that time? There was an infinite number of easier babies to kidnap for money?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 3, 2018 11:42:22 GMT -5
I met Harold Olsen, his wife, and Laverne Pinkerton( she was the Enrolled Agent for Robert W. Hicks and knew him well), at the home of Mr. Hicks personal secretary and confidant of many years; around 1994. Which one - Tom or Leona?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 3, 2018 11:49:02 GMT -5
Sorry, I need to make some edits. Corrected herein: I met Harold Olsen, his wife, and Laverne Pinkerton( she was the Enrolled Agent for Robert W. Hicks and knew him well), at the home of Mr. Hicks personal secretary and confidant of many years; around 1994. This is where I learned about the conspiracy and about the facts . I now own some of Mr. Hicks personal effects. It's clear that Robert Hicks believed that Bruno Hauptmann was innocent. He also believed that Harold Olsen was the Lindberg baby. Mr. Olsen provided to me, a signed a copy of the book which shows the details the findings of Mr. Hicks. When Harold Olsen discussed his experiences over the many years, it made a profound case of truth and facts to support this finding. Bruno Hauptmann was Jewish, by the way, and why he received the religious counsel of a Lutheran Pastor during his trial and execution, along with his role as a German machine gunner in the Kaiser's army make the stage even more bizarre! Charles Lindbergh by contrast was deeply anti-semitic and a friend to the Third Reich almost to the day before Pearl Harbor and adds another strong contrast between Hauptmann and Lindbergh. Can anyone figure why Hauptmann, although not the smartest, some say, would kidnap the baby of the most famous celebrity in the world at that time? There was an infinite number of easier babies to kidnap for money? Bruno Hauptmann was NOT Jewish. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. If he was Jewish, he wouldn't have received religious counseling from a Lutheran pastor, but rather from a Jewish rabbi. (BTW, though irrelevant to Hauptmann, the fact is that German Jews served in the Kaiser's army. This was WWI, NOT WWII. The Kaiser regime was NOT openly antisemitic, and German Jews as a group were well integrated into German society at the time.) Incidentally, you might as well give yourself a screen name consistent with your (incorrect, IMHO) theory that Harold Olson was Charlie, Jr.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Jun 21, 2018 0:48:12 GMT -5
Then there was Harold Olson, whom I found witty, funny, a charming man to post with, on Ronelle's site. He made a good case for being CAL, Jr., quite different from Aldinger's, more conspiratorial. While Harold was convinced in his own mind that he was Charles Lindbergh's son he had a sense of humor about it, even when he went into "paranoid mode" he did so in such a way as to make his ramblings entertaining and a pleasure to read. I miss him. I thought Bob Aldinger was a nice old fellow too. I think he had had some childhood trauma that gave him PTSD looking back on it. But he had a very kind heard. May he finally have the answers he sought. Rest In Peace, Robert.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Jun 21, 2018 5:30:57 GMT -5
Then there was Harold Olson, whom I found witty, funny, a charming man to post with, on Ronelle's site. He made a good case for being CAL, Jr., quite different from Aldinger's, more conspiratorial. While Harold was convinced in his own mind that he was Charles Lindbergh's son he had a sense of humor about it, even when he went into "paranoid mode" he did so in such a way as to make his ramblings entertaining and a pleasure to read. I miss him. He was a really nice guy. Sometime during the time he was posting he sent along a few things to me. Since then his collection seems to have been divided into 2 parts. One part is at the NJSP Archives. I believe the other is in the Flemington Public Library but I'd have to check with Mark on that to make sure. Here is one of the photos he sent to me: View Attachment I loved HRO. He was a wonderful old gentleman.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 22, 2018 9:06:24 GMT -5
Harold was a great guy, he had a sense of humor because how many times I called him a crazy bastard for thinking he was the baby and he laughed. we were suppose to meet one time but it never happened
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 3:46:03 GMT -5
Thanks Hurt, Yeah Robert Aldinger used to post on this board almost daily about ten years a go. The Aldinger family were clearly an acquaintance of Hauptmann. He lived with them in his early days in American and before he was married.He believed the Lindbergh baby is him and the Aldinger baby who died in the same time line is the one discovered at St Rose. I didn't know Robert passed away.... Although he and I sometimes "disagreed" he was a good guy. The problem is that he had his DNA codified and while it proved his father wasn't really his father it all but confirmed his mother wasn't Anne Lindbergh. This, to me, explained why his dad would say the things he remembered him saying, while he was growing up, which caused this belief. His "father" (Fred Aldinger) took Hauptmann in: View Attachment I liked Bob Aldinger a lot too. Over a decade ago we chatted on the phone a couple of times. I am trying to remember what he told me about Connecticut and a physician being involved. Anyway, he had had s hard childhood. I’m so sorry to hear he has passed away. I hope he has the answers he so desperately sought now . May he Rest In Peace.
|
|
|
Post by 1920istnwdc on May 30, 2019 13:12:37 GMT -5
I met Harold Olsen, his wife, and Laverne Pinkerton( she was the Enrolled Agent for Robert W. Hicks and knew him well), at the home of Mr. Hicks personal secretary and confidant of many years; around 1994. Which one - Tom or Leona? In 1989 Mr. Hicks was already bedridden and being tended too by Leona Schramm and myself. She was from Edmonton Alberta Canada and ran a colon therapy clinic in the property owned by Mr. Hicks for many years before the 1980's. She took care of him on the 2nd floor of 1920 I ST NW Washington DC. Mr. Hicks had been a pack rat for many years, collecting antique chairs, tables etc. and filled every room, closet and hallway with these items. He especially like collecting decretive rocks that he would use in his rock garden at the front of the 5 story townhouse. I met Leona when I was working at "Roy Rogers Fried Chicken" that was located near 21st Street and I Street where I street joined up with Pennsylvania Ave. One day Leona was carrying some groceries up the stairs and I offered to help her. Over the next month or so she would enlist me to help her in some repairs to their property and in general cleaning. a few months later She and Mr. Hicks talked and offered me the basement living space as a kind gesture and that's how I came to live there for almost 2 years. I too have met Mr. Olson (though briefly) and spoke to him over the phone. Mr. Hicks told me he wanted to be buried in his Army uniform and that he did not know where it was. I did find his uniform buried in a steamer trunk covered under rocks as mentioned above in a closet on the 4th floor. I had it cleaned and I polished all his brass. As one can imagine he was totally thrilled to see it. It was one of the few times he would even open his eyes. (his eyes hurt because of age) He was a wonderful man who would talk to me for hours about his life and I still to this day miss him and Leona.. Mr. Hicks & Leona's Residence
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2019 7:40:35 GMT -5
Thanks for your post. I'm not sure of your identity but I have enough material to sort through that I believe I could find out. Since you don't seem to want publicity I'll respect that and forgo the search. Some of the Hicks material on the kidnapping is located at the NJSP Archives now through donation. I say "some" because I am fully aware of the magnitude of his "collections" at the I Street address just as you've outlined. I am also aware that he even kept some of Charles Jr.'s hair there which he retrieved from Highfields while working on the Gaston Means angle for the Federal Prosecutors ... but this wasn't among the material donated to the NJSP. In the existing material that is there and other sources, I've read that Ms. Shramm as well as others who worked for him may have additional material that kind of "scattered to the wind" after Hicks died. Do you happen to have anything, and if so, would you be willing to share it with us?
|
|
|
Post by 1920istnwdc on Jun 1, 2019 22:15:42 GMT -5
Hey Michael, My name in Ronnie or aka: "Red" for the obvious reasons lol
Leona kept as much as she could, as she was planning to write a book on Mr. Hicks, Mr. Olson and even Evalyn Walsh McLean, as well as what she her self learned about Mr. Hick's work and what she learned about the Kidnapping of Charles Jr. As Leona wasn't truly a declared citizen of the US, It was I who posted the death notice for Mr. Hicks and started the probate process on his estate, which was quite a task and covered bank assets and safety deposit boxes in Maryland, Vagina and the district of Columbia.
Then a Sister of his came forth and locked it all down in the courts, this so called sister had little to no contact with Bob in many years, but saw a chance I guess to coop something from his estate, primarily the property on I St, and about $670,000 worth of walking liberty gold coins. But Leona and I had already gathered to items from the banks. The sister in my recollection was quite evil in her mannerisms.
Leona did however grab from the property what she could before that happened including the hair you mentioned and some priceless items that Bob had acquired from a Russian agent that he knew from his past. A fob watch made by Fabergé for Czar Nicholas II and a broach worn by Anastasia. (Later confiscated by order from Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian Government as well as our own Government.)
Sadly I do not know what became of the documents and items Leona took, as once we buried Mr. Hicks we both went our own ways in life. She never did write the book she wanted to do.
So additional information is no longer at my finger tips as the Vultures, left little behind on I Street. We were visited by the FBI as well as the CIA during the probate period.
But Mr. Hicks had no doubt in his belief that Mr. Olson was Charles Jr and the true son of Charles and Anne Lindbergh.
I will make every effort I can to see if I can contact the living members of Leona Schramm's family, to see if they might have some of the things that might interest this group.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2019 7:04:41 GMT -5
I will make every effort I can to see if I can contact the living members of Leona Schramm's family, to see if they might have some of the things that might interest this group. Thanks a lot for the post Ronnie and I appreciate your memories & any efforts you make to help us learn more! Last I knew she was in Canada but my days start to run together and 15 years ago seems like yesterday to me anymore. Tom posted some of his recollections from I Street back in 2004 so I know all about how much stuff packed that place. What was it 3 floors and an attic completely full? I also remember that someone was claiming to be his daughter back when he was still alive but I don't have any follow-up on that. Hicks knew everyone. Presidents, Kings, Spies, Criminals, etc. etc. It's unbelievable! I really wish that someone would write a book about him.
|
|
|
Post by 1920istnwdc on Jun 2, 2019 10:34:22 GMT -5
To the best of my knowledge Mr. Hicks left no children, as I had asked him and Leona had confirmed that to be true. I was 24 yrs old when Leona and I went our ways, I am now 53 yrs old.....wow has it been that long? 1920 I St had 3 floors with attic and basement, though the attic was quite usable as an office as was the basement space. (It housed the boiler which gave me conniptions every chance it could lol) Which "Tom" gave recollections form 2002? In 2002 I was in Lumberton N.C helping my Father, then I moved to S.C. I was adopted at age 6 by a fully ordained Roman Catholic priest or as I like to say "My Father was a Father" lol
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2019 11:13:24 GMT -5
To the best of my knowledge Mr. Hicks left no children, as I had asked him and Leona had confirmed that to be true. I was 24 yrs old when Leona and I went our ways, I am now 53 yrs old.....wow has it been that long? 1920 I St had 3 floors with attic and basement, though the attic was quite usable as an office as was the basement space. (It housed the boiler which gave me conniptions every chance it could lol) Which "Tom" gave recollections form 2002? In 2002 I was in Lumberton N.C helping my Father, then I moved to S.C. I was adopted at age 6 by a fully ordained Roman Catholic priest or as I like to say "My Father was a Father" lol You probably worked for the most famous person nobody knows. (LOL) For real. At one point he was a lawyer for Leopold. I can only imagine those things he was involved in that I don't even know about. Tom worked with Leona on I Street and I believe he's about her age or there abouts. I know his last name but I'd rather not put him on blast because there's no way for me to know if he wouldn't mind. I lost touch with him back in 2009. Concerning the daughter.... I have something in my files where he hired some people to investigate the claim she was making.
|
|
|
Post by 1920istnwdc on Jun 2, 2019 11:57:43 GMT -5
I can respect keeping ones privacy. Seeing that in 1992 I personally rented a uhaul truck and moved Leona with tons of stuff out of 1920 I St to an apartment near 21st & G St ( her apartment was very packed!), I don't know how she was still at the 1920 I St location in 2002, there would have been nothing left at 1920 I Street. I got a bachelors apartment just around the corner from her new apartment. She even traveled with me to Lumberton N.C to visit with my Father. But as we all know, times, dates and memories can become jumbled over time so perhaps... lol I do recall she also had some files and photographs of foot prints and finger prints that she said Bob was trying to definitively identify from the Lindbergh time period. Me 3yrs before Bob & Leona
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2019 12:21:06 GMT -5
I do recall she also had some files and photographs of foot prints and finger prints that she said Bob was trying to definitively identify from the Lindbergh time period. Tom told me he helped pack up and move out the boxes too so I am sure you'd know who he was. All of that stuff is valuable to those of us researching this case for sure. Like I said, "some" of his material was donated (about 10 boxes) but since the hair isn't there and the amount Tom said there existed I'd guess we're talking at least 5X that amount? The footprints aren't there either. It's been a while but I've been through that material about 8 or 9 times already. Maybe one day Leona will donate what she has to the NJSP Archives. BTW: Did you know Mrs. Kent? Could it be possible her relatives got some of this stuff too?
|
|
|
Post by 1920istnwdc on Jun 2, 2019 12:43:29 GMT -5
Cant say I know or recall a "Tom", But I do recall Mrs. Kent, though I cant recall "why" I know that name. I think I spoke with her on the phone once or twice but never met her in person. I seam to also recall Leona saying Mrs. Kent did not like her one bit. Other than that I am uncertain. No 10 boxes would not even make a dent in items that existed in the residence nor the truck load of boxes and furniture we moved to her new apartment. I wish my memories of those days was better, at that age while the stories were fascinating and I liked hearing them, they weren't enough to brand my thoughts at that young age.
In 2002 Leona would have been in her late 60's to early 70's so I doubt she is still with us, but she may be. She had also suffered a stroke that effected her whole left side a little before I met her.
Could I be confusing the "sister" with Mrs. Kent? Uggh, make my brain hurt a tad lol Did Mrs. Kent have something to do with an auction that I think also took place? Its hard to remember some of the events from back then....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 3, 2019 8:23:03 GMT -5
Could I be confusing the "sister" with Mrs. Kent? Uggh, make my brain hurt a tad lol Did Mrs. Kent have something to do with an auction that I think also took place? Its hard to remember some of the events from back then.... Well hopefully we will get lucky enough for that material to surface... I say "we" (meaning everyone here) because, believe it or not, there are actually some who claim to be researchers that I know would hope it stays lost. Sometimes people "like" the status quo so much they resist any proof that shows otherwise. Since Hicks was in this from basically the beginning, he had access to Highfields in 1932 when he search for fingerprints and conducted interviews, Gaston Means (material from his Criminal Prosecutions, interviewed him personally, and anything Evalyn Walsh McLean had), material he had when working for the Hunterdon County Prosecutor, his efforts with Hoffman's re-investigation, his own independent efforts from 1938-1941, and later in life concerning HRO ... then I know there's material in this lot that we can all learn from. "All" meaning everyone - whether they like it or not. I know you said he believed HRO was the child but the material I have shows he was actually more sympathetic to the NJSP concerning HRO's civil action against them. If you can recall any stories he told you I would very much encourage you to share them! On Mrs. Kent... I can't find my notes concerning the conversations I had with Tom but I seem to recall she was also connected to the I St building in some way.
|
|
|
Post by Robert on May 13, 2022 19:41:40 GMT -5
The most obvious fact arising from the post-mortem examination which proves the body was not that of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. was that it was established that in life, the child would have stood 33 inches tall. Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr.'s height, measured in a medical examination by his pediatrician about ten days before the kidnapping, was 29 inches. This is as clear an identifying feature as whether any male of any age is circumcised, or not, and proves that the body was not that of Lindbergh Jnr. Had this been highlighted at the trial, the State would have had no case for murder against Richard Hauptmann. In fact, it seems certain that Harold R. Olson (1930-2006), who grew up as an adoptive child, was, during the first 20 months of his life, Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 13, 2022 22:49:17 GMT -5
The most obvious fact arising from the post-mortem examination which proves the body was not that of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. was that it was established that in life, the child would have stood 33 inches tall. Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr.'s height, measured in a medical examination by his pediatrician about ten days before the kidnapping, was 29 inches. This is as clear an identifying feature as whether any male of any age is circumcised, or not, and proves that the body was not that of Lindbergh Jnr. Had this been highlighted at the trial, the State would have had no case for murder against Richard Hauptmann. In fact, it seems certain that Harold R. Olson (1930-2006), who grew up as an adoptive child, was, during the first 20 months of his life, Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. Robert, Where did you get your fact that "Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr.'s height, measured in a medical examination by his pediatrician about ten days before the kidnapping, was 29 inches"? This is completely not true. Below is the pediatrician's (Dr. Philip Van Ingen) letter to Mrs. Morrow saying that Charlie was 33 inches tall. The autopsy lists the corpse's height as 33 1/2 inches. Please be careful with the facts, okay?
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on May 13, 2022 23:00:46 GMT -5
The most obvious fact arising from the post-mortem examination which proves the body was not that of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. was that it was established that in life, the child would have stood 33 inches tall. Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr.'s height, measured in a medical examination by his pediatrician about ten days before the kidnapping, was 29 inches. This is as clear an identifying feature as whether any male of any age is circumcised, or not, and proves that the body was not that of Lindbergh Jnr. Had this been highlighted at the trial, the State would have had no case for murder against Richard Hauptmann. In fact, it seems certain that Harold R. Olson (1930-2006), who grew up as an adoptive child, was, during the first 20 months of his life, Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. A fairy loved the beautiful child and stole him while he slept. Then she left a dead or deformed child in its place. King Arthur did not know who he was until he was twelve and pulled a sword out of a stone. Perhaps Junge was right about the archetypes. We need to recognize what they are and resist putting them into our systems. Let's go with empirical evidence and let go of the myths.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 22, 2022 16:37:16 GMT -5
The most obvious fact arising from the post-mortem examination which proves the body was not that of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. was that it was established that in life, the child would have stood 33 inches tall. Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr.'s height, measured in a medical examination by his pediatrician about ten days before the kidnapping, was 29 inches. This is as clear an identifying feature as whether any male of any age is circumcised, or not, and proves that the body was not that of Lindbergh Jnr. Had this been highlighted at the trial, the State would have had no case for murder against Richard Hauptmann. In fact, it seems certain that Harold R. Olson (1930-2006), who grew up as an adoptive child, was, during the first 20 months of his life, Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. I have pointed out quite a number of times on these threads that the most convincing reason that the dead child found in the woods was NOT Charlie is the distinct difference in the toe abnormalities described in (A) Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report vs. (B) Dr. Van Ingen's report of his last exam of the living Charles Jr. As for Harold B. Olson, I believe that he was proven by DNA testing to be genetically unrelated to the Lindbergh family.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2022 17:14:16 GMT -5
The most obvious fact arising from the post-mortem examination which proves the body was not that of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. was that it was established that in life, the child would have stood 33 inches tall. Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr.'s height, measured in a medical examination by his pediatrician about ten days before the kidnapping, was 29 inches. This is as clear an identifying feature as whether any male of any age is circumcised, or not, and proves that the body was not that of Lindbergh Jnr. Had this been highlighted at the trial, the State would have had no case for murder against Richard Hauptmann. In fact, it seems certain that Harold R. Olson (1930-2006), who grew up as an adoptive child, was, during the first 20 months of his life, Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jnr. I have pointed out quite a number of times on these threads that the most convincing reason that the dead child found in the woods was NOT Charlie is the distinct difference in the toe abnormalities described in (A) Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report vs. (B) Dr. Van Ingen's report of his last exam of the living Charles Jr. As for Harold B. Olson, I believe that he was proven by DNA testing to be genetically unrelated to the Lindbergh family. I know you've pointed out this apparent discrepancy many times Hurtelable, and your point is a very valid one that's worthy of consideration. Given the preponderance of evidence otherwise supporting that the body on Mt. Rose Hill was in fact Charlie, I have to believe some confusion existed within the reported conditions of both of the the aforementioned individuals and their respective written reports. Making a case that the corpse was not CALjr outside of this one apparent anomaly, is very tough going. I believe Wayne has previously posted a corpse photo which clearly shows the correct toe abnormality possessed by Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 23, 2022 15:20:47 GMT -5
I have pointed out quite a number of times on these threads that the most convincing reason that the dead child found in the woods was NOT Charlie is the distinct difference in the toe abnormalities described in (A) Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report vs. (B) Dr. Van Ingen's report of his last exam of the living Charles Jr. As for Harold B. Olson, I believe that he was proven by DNA testing to be genetically unrelated to the Lindbergh family. I know you've pointed out this apparent discrepancy many times Hurtelable, and your point is a very valid one that's worthy of consideration. Given the preponderance of evidence otherwise supporting that the body on Mt. Rose Hill was in fact Charlie, I have to believe some confusion existed within the reported conditions of both of the the aforementioned individuals and their respective written reports. Making a case that the corpse was not CALjr outside of this one apparent anomaly, is very tough going. I believe Wayne has previously posted a corpse photo which clearly shows the correct toe abnormality possessed by Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 9, 2022 17:18:43 GMT -5
To Wayne:
Are those two photos that you posted directly above supposed to be X-rays of the child's right foot as it lay where the body was found? If so, why no labeling wjth name and date on either of the photos? If so, why weren't the photos attached to the to the autopsy report(s) ? Why are there TWO photos of the same X-ray with different degrees of resolution? Do you have any labeling or note specifying the source of these photos posted? And Charlie's right foot was supposed to be completely missing by the time the body was found, so these X-rays belonged to someone else!
Somehow or another, if the X-rays were purported to betaken when the body was lying in the woods, this just doesn't seem right as far as the lack of technology in 1932 is concerned. X=rays had been done on humans since about 1900 but there would have been no way to take portable X-rays in a wooden area. So I would conclude that there was almost certainly trickery involved in placing an X-Ray photo over a photo showing vegetation and thereby faking that the composite photo(s) were taken in the woods.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 10, 2022 10:46:52 GMT -5
To Wayne: Are those two photos that you posted directly above supposed to be X-rays of the child's right foot as it lay where the body was found? If so, why no labeling wjth name and date on either of the photos? If so, why weren't the photos attached to the to the autopsy report(s) ? Why are there TWO photos of the same X-ray with different degrees of resolution? Do you have any labeling or note specifying the source of these photos posted? And Charlie's right foot was supposed to be completely missing by the time the body was found, so these X-rays belonged to someone else! Somehow or another, if the X-rays were purported to betaken when the body was lying in the woods, this just doesn't seem right as far as the lack of technology in 1932 is concerned. X=rays had been done on humans since about 1900 but there would have been no way to take portable X-rays in a wooden area. So I would conclude that there was almost certainly trickery involved in placing an X-Ray photo over a photo showing vegetation and thereby faking that the composite photo(s) were taken in the woods. Hurteable, You are aware that no X-rays were taken of the corpse, right? The two photos are enhancements done by a forensic pathologist friend of mine using one of the photos taken by the NJSP in 1932. Trickery? Really? That's your conclusion? You can clearly see the toes used in the enhancement in this photo -
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 11, 2022 16:31:08 GMT -5
To Wayne:
I've seen the NJSP photo of the decomposed child's body in the woods several times. It is still puzzling to me as to why what appears to be a right foot would be found very proximal to a hollowed-out femur on the left side of the body. Could wild animals have rearranged the placement of bones to such an extent? Perhaps. Another issue: There appear to be no other parts of the right foot to be seen on the enhancements. Why would the phalanges be pretty much intact, and yet no images of e. g. the metatarsals and tarsals.
Incidentally, it would be illuminating and informative if your friend the forensic pathologist could post here on these threads.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 11, 2022 18:27:12 GMT -5
To Wayne: Incidentally, it would be illuminating and informative if your friend the forensic pathologist could post here on these threads. To Hurtelable, She's a director/pathologist at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia. My best guess is she's too busy with her X-ray/photography trickery.
|
|