Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 18:45:53 GMT -5
Do you think the pins were somehow related to his health? If he had trouble standing or could easily get injured, it would make sense they could be used to secure him under the sheets. Betty says in her March 3rd statement that she "...fastened his covers to the bed with large safety pins..." but says this was done after Charlie was asleep. Do you think they were securing him because of his rickets and soft bone issue? Children at this age do try to climb out of their crib. I understand your point about injury if he managed to get himself over the top rail of the crib! Do you think two large safety pins would be enough to keep him contained in that crib?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 18:51:45 GMT -5
I've always thought the opposite, that Charlie was pinned down because, as many 21 month old children will do, he was starting to climb out of his crib and they didn't want him to fall. I agree that children this age do start climbing out of their cribs. I will ask you the same question I asked USC above; do you think two large safety pins could contain a child enough to keep him from climbing out of the crib? Wouldn't these pins need to be really large? Would it depend on how tightly you pinned the blanket to the mattress to keep the child securely in place?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 10, 2019 19:10:01 GMT -5
It would never occur to me to pin a child into his covers, was that a common practice in the 30's? The only reason I could think to do it would be to keep the child still while they're sleeping.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Aug 10, 2019 21:07:13 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 8:16:06 GMT -5
What about the possibility, the safety pins were used just to keep Charlie Jr. covered? In a way this item (which "Prevents your child waking up cold in the night, if they tend to kick off the covers") does? Thanks so much for finding and posting this! I have been doing some more research through LKC materials/books about the use of these pins. Were they used to simply help keep Charlie covered at night or to somehow secure him in the bed to deter climbing out and getting hurt or because of his health or something worse? I think the placement of those pins in the crib would help establish their purpose. So far, here is what I have been reading. Going back to both of Betty Gow's statements in March 1932, she is clear that she used the large safety pins to secure the blankets to the mattress. I think this suggests what you are saying in your post. Betty wanted to keep the covers in place, as much as possible, over Charlie. Betty does not say where she placed the pins to secure the blankets. In Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, Chapter Two, Page 19 (paperback) he says, "She (Betty) saw that he (Charlie) was resting easily and pinned the blankets down to the mattress with two large safety pins near his head." Dr. Gardner's footnote references Betty Gow's March 3, 1932 statement. When checking that statement, you will learn that "near his head" is not said or implied in the statement. Only the pinning of the blankets to the mattress is said. Nothing about the placement of the pins near his head. So, where was such placement of the pins referenced that Dr. Gardner added it in to this text? What I have found so far that addresses the placement of those pins in the crib comes from Jafsie Tells All on page 40. Here is what Condon says. I have underlined the relevant sentences: imgur.com/kJzjiu9I cannot say for certain that this is where Dr. Gardner picked up the "near his head" portion of his text, but I have not as yet come across this anywhere else. I certainly do not have every report available that is at the archives, so I cannot say whether this is referenced in some other reports I have not read yet. All I have is Condon claiming this. Is what Condon says here absolutely true about the placement or is he just promoting his own theory about what happened to Charlie in that crib? This very tight placement of those pins near Charlie's head seems more dangerous to me and suggests the pinning was done to keep Charlie "in place" under those blankets. So, do we believe what Condon says about the placement of those pins being only 12 inches apart? If anyone knows about any other references to these pins and their placement, please share!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2019 15:29:44 GMT -5
Thanks so much for finding and posting this! I have been doing some more research through LKC materials/books about the use of these pins. Were they used to simply help keep Charlie covered at night or to somehow secure him in the bed to deter climbing out and getting hurt or because of his health or something worse? I think the placement of those pins in the crib would help establish their purpose. So far, here is what I have been reading.
On the p. 40 of "Jafsie Tells All" posted by amy35, Condon alludes to he himself being threatened with the loss of a child in "by-gone days," by which he empathizes with the plight of Charles and Anne Lindbergh. Would anyone know the details of this incident in Condon's life? Did he actually lose one of his children early in life?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 11, 2019 15:53:02 GMT -5
All I know of is Condon's description of his daughter Myra having diphtheria--the only thing missing from it is an silent-movie organ accompaniment--but she recovered.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Aug 11, 2019 16:43:04 GMT -5
Thank you for your inspiring post, Amy. These blanket/safety pins seem to be very important for Jafsie’s narrative, he mentions them on pages 40 and then 43-44 (finding and taking them from the crib and keeping with himself), 80-81 (using them as a proof he is speaking with the right person [CJ] - as he anticipated on pp 43-44), 185-186 ([after the finding from the corpse] position of this pins leads Jafsie to a thought that baby was killed in the crib: „The child did not cry because the cruel hands of the callous kidnaper had strangled the baby in its crib and then safely pulled its dead boby [sic] between the pins and from under the blankets!“) and finally page 207 (Jafsie retained the pins together with wooden animals in commemoration of the case). Is he a tale-teller or a honest man in this part of his story?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 19:22:16 GMT -5
Very nice research of Jafsie Tells All regarding the safety pins, ziki.
I think in Jafsie Tells All, Condon is doing what he has done regarding his whole involvement with the LKC. He is taking elements of truth and weaving them into a narrative that is reflective of this man's narcissistic personality. Condon needed things from that nursery in order to advance the negotiations by legitimizing the extortionists he represented. The safety pins would help him accomplish this as would another item from that nursery - a sleeping suit. Condon has CJ "identify" the pins which was supposed to "prove" he had been in the nursery. And CJ offers to send Condon the baby's sleeping suit as "proof" that they have the child. So I don't see Condon's actions as those of an honest man. He had an agenda when he came to see Lindbergh and Condon would not hesitate to tell tales or modify his actions when it was needed to protect himself and the extortionists. And, of course, make himself look heroic in the process.
Commemorate his involvement by keeping things that belonged to the baby?! This is right up there with keeping a photo of the corpse!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2019 20:22:47 GMT -5
All I know of is Condon's description of his daughter Myra having diphtheria--the only thing missing from it is an silent-movie organ accompaniment--but she recovered. Daughter Myra was born in 1904, so, given the tendency for diphtheria to strike young children (before the current vaccination became available decades later), it is probable that Myra contracted diphtheria in the first decade of the twentieth century. At about that time, the death rate from the disease was about 10%. So assuming that Condon was telling the truth about it, there would be legitimate concern about little Myra's survival at the time. Although there were no antibiotics available in that era, a specific diphtheria antitoxin had been developed in the 1890s, which would have been the best treatment available. Don't know if the antitoxin was administered, but yes, Condon would have a legitimate fear for his daughter, regardless.
|
|