|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 14:19:49 GMT -5
I believe Amy and I had a previous discussion on this. "All blanks" = No description of activity provided, as CAL does for other photos, ie. as seen in Photos 18. and 19. And possibly no location provided. My thoughts. So Joe, do you believe that there were photos taken in February 1932? I have no proof, but I wonder these could have been taken after Charlie's last haircut (2 weeks before the kidnapping)?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 14:22:18 GMT -5
Sorry to interfere here ... I had the same feeling as Ilovedfw, there is something on CAL’s forehead just a moment before. It was the photo used in Scathma’s avatar... Ziki, please interfere away! And now that I see Scatma's avatar, I see what you mean. We need a phrenologist here!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 14:33:29 GMT -5
Wayne, I have only seen one picture of Charlie running. It is in the very beginning of Jim Fisher's book "The Lindbergh Case". I wonder if it is the October picture you are referring to. Charlie looks so cute in that picture, even with the messy hair. Okay Amy, this is getting kinda weird. Fisher credits the photo in his book as being from the NJSP. I just called and that photo is NOT from the NJSP. I'm almost 100% positive that Fisher's photo was among the very last taken of Charlie (form October 1931), but where the heck did Fisher get it? I know he didn't get it from Yale because it's not there. Not a big deal, but I am curious...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2019 14:54:05 GMT -5
I believe Amy and I had a previous discussion on this. "All blanks" = No description of activity provided, as CAL does for other photos, ie. as seen in Photos 18. and 19. And possibly no location provided. My thoughts. So Joe, do you believe that there were photos taken in February 1932? I have no proof, but I wonder these could have been taken after Charlie's last haircut (2 weeks before the kidnapping)? Wayne, I don't know, but if there were actual photos of the child taken after his haircut, it begs the question why wouldn't they have been used for the "wanted" poster, as a much more accurate depiction. Well, along the lines of what's being discussed here, could it be that the new haircut now provided a much clearer indication of any bony traits about the head, which the Lindberghs felt might raise unnecessary questions about the child's health, regardless of their actual validity? Essentially, gone now was the "Brillo pad camouflaging" effect? As for the other photos taken in later 1931, and I don't know them specifically, but I'd speculate strongly that their resolution probably wasn't good enough for them to be the source for a large poster. These would probably have been informal family shots taken while Charles and Anne were on their Orient tour or had just shortly returned. It could also explain why Lindbergh felt compelled to generate a fairly extensive list of photos, as he tried to find one that best suited the timeframe and was suitable for enlargement. A contemporaneous professionally-taken photo had it been taken at the time, might well have changed the face of the Lindbergh's public appeal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 15:03:58 GMT -5
To me, the biggest mystery of the Yale photos is the last line of CAL's photo inventory (the handwritten line). What does everyone here think it means? FYI, all of the photos at Yale had their negatives with them. There are no negatives for any "February 1932" photos, I checked. It really looks like photos were taken of Charlie in February 1932 at Englewood. What does "all blanks" mean? Well, either Lindbergh didn't make any notations about the pictures OR the film had somehow gotten exposed and there were not printable pictures to develop OR someone did not open/or forgot to open the shutter when taking pictures and when the film was developed all frames were blank. Negatives tossed out. If CAL is the photographer, how likely is it that he would "mess up" when taking pictures??
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 18, 2019 15:24:47 GMT -5
Perhaps CAL handed them a roll of undeveloped film or one that was overexposed. Maybe he thought it had something on it but it didn't. I don't know the answer without the negatives but I imagine they threw out the negatives as they were worthless. To me this doesn't mean something nefarious happened. But it does indicate that they were still taking photos of their son just weeks before he was kidnapped.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 15:32:18 GMT -5
Well, either Lindbergh didn't make any notations about the pictures OR the film had somehow gotten exposed and there were not printable pictures to develop OR someone did not open/or forgot to open the shutter when taking pictures and when the film was developed all frames were blank. Negatives tossed out. If CAL is the photographer, how likely is it that he would "mess up" when taking pictures?? Know what Amy? You ROCK. You are so smart and on the ball! I agree with both Amy and Ilovedfw here However, the next question would be... if the photos were no good (for whatever reason), why even log them into the inventory? I mean, why inventory something that is not there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 15:51:37 GMT -5
Wayne, I have only seen one picture of Charlie running. It is in the very beginning of Jim Fisher's book "The Lindbergh Case". I wonder if it is the October picture you are referring to. Charlie looks so cute in that picture, even with the messy hair. Okay Amy, this is getting kinda weird. Fisher credits the photo in his book as being from the NJSP. I just called and that photo is NOT from the NJSP. I'm almost 100% positive that Fisher's photo was among the very last taken of Charlie (form October 1931), but where the heck did Fisher get it? I know he didn't get it from Yale because it's not there. Not a big deal, but I am curious... I did see that Fisher credits the photo to NJSP. I don't understand why he would credit NJSP with that picture if someone at the archives at that time had not shared it with him. Could one of the NJSP Lindbergh case investigators who were available then, have had this picture of Charlie? You mention that Fisher was at the archives for only a week. Who did he interact with when he was there? I believe Fisher's book pre-dates Mark's employment there, doesn't it? Fisher's book was published in 1987. Looking over his photo section, he sources a number of pictures to the NJSP archives and the others to news sources. I have not read all of Fisher's footnotes so I don't know if he ever did research at Yale that would have given him access to their pictures of Charlie. Still, that would not explain him giving credit to the NJSP. Having looked at very few photos available at the archives (can you believe that!!), is there a master list of all the pictures available there or were ever available there? I wonder if Fisher might still have that photo? Steve has had contact with Fisher in the past. Maybe he could ask Fisher about that photo!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 16:09:09 GMT -5
I did see that Fisher credits the photo to NJSP. I don't understand why he would credit NJSP with that picture if someone at the archives at that time had not shared it with him. Could one of the NJSP Lindbergh case investigators who were available then, have had this picture of Charlie? You mention that Fisher was at the archives for only a week. Who did he interact with when he was there? I believe Fisher's book pre-dates Mark's employment there, doesn't it? Fisher's book was published in 1987. Looking over his photo section, he sources a number of pictures to the NJSP archives and the others to news sources. I have not read all of Fisher's footnotes so I don't know if he ever did research at Yale that would have given him access to their pictures of Charlie. Still, that would not explain him giving credit to the NJSP. Having looked at very few photos available at the archives (can you believe that!!), is there a master list of all the pictures available there or were ever available there? I wonder if Fisher might still have that photo? Steve has had contact with Fisher in the past. Maybe he could ask Fisher about that photo! Amy, You're right (as usual). Fisher's "NJSP research" predated Mark's employment. Fisher's primary contact was Cornel Plebani. I can assure you that Fisher did not do any research at Yale. The files were closed to the public for years and I just lucked out when they were recently opened to researchers. According to the archivist at Yale, no one had requested the photos before. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think Berg saw them. So it looks like Fisher got his photo from Plebani. But where would Plebani have gotten it? Steve, if you are listening, would you please ask Fisher how he came upon this photo?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 16:16:05 GMT -5
However, the next question would be... if the photos were no good (for whatever reason), why even log them into the inventory? I mean, why inventory something that is not there? Do we know when this list was created? I don't see a date on Lindbergh's letterhead which is from his New York City office. This notation about the 1932 film is in pencil which means it was added after the fact. This means that we really don't know when that roll of film was handled. Maybe the notation was made because Anne thought it should be included, even if the pictures were no good OR CAL wanted it there so others who research about this case would know that, contrary to what was being rumored about, Charlie had been photographed in 1932, sort of!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 18, 2019 16:29:42 GMT -5
Do we know when Yale acquired these photos? Were they ever in the hands of law enforcement or did they come directly from the Lindbergh estate?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2019 17:49:25 GMT -5
Let's see if we can get those October '31 photos, then try to put all pictures in chronological order, as best as we can. Dying to see these later, October pics...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 18:13:53 GMT -5
Hey, I just remembered something... Maybe from this site? Either LE or reporters who were just arriving asked CAL for recent photos of the baby. He said there weren't any. Weren't any. So they asked if Mrs. Morrow had any, and CAL said yes. So he lied and never took any in February because even if they were not developed yet, any concerned father would have that film developed immedistely and given out to help find his son. Ilovedfw, I think you're on the right track here. I posted this before, but this shows a HUGE lie that CAL told both the police and the media just two days after his son was kidnapped. For all of those who believe that CAL had nothing to do with the kidnapping, please explain this to me -- On March 3, 1932, the New York Times posted this photo – The caption under the photo reads: "Picture of His Missing Son, Given Out Yesterday by Colonel Lindbergh to Help in the Search. It Was Made About Two Weeks Ago." Okay, so on either March 2 or March 3 CAL hands a photo to the NYT and says something to the effect “In my effort to help in the search for my missing son, here is a photo taken of him about two weeks ago. This is what he looks like now.” It's there in black and white. So far so good. But then, note where the photo is cropped on the right-hand side...cutting the toy horse in half. At Yale University, I was able to find a series of photos and here is the rest of that photo – Anyone notice the lit birthday candle, showing everyone that Charlie was celebrating his first birthday? You don't see that in the NYT article. The photo that CAL claimed was “ about two weeks old” was almost 8 months old! CAL was aware of this because he took the photo himself!What was CAL trying to hide? Why was he lying?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2019 22:24:13 GMT -5
Wayne, do you know for certain that Lindbergh told the newspaper the photo was "two weeks old," or might this have been an error on the part of the editor?
Given the fact that two weeks prior to March 3, 1932 would have been somewhere around February 19, this decidedly-summertime period photo would then have to be quite a chronological misfit, would it not?
I'm not sure how the information got so maligned but I'd suggest it demands a bit more of a basic understanding before an accurate conclusion can be made.
What on earth would Lindbergh have to gain by telling the newspapers a warm weather photo of his son was taken two weeks previously?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 23:34:41 GMT -5
Wayne, do you know for certain that Lindbergh told the newspaper the photo was "two weeks old," or might this have been an error on the part of the editor? Given the fact that two weeks prior to March 3, 1932 would have been somewhere around February 19, this decidedly-summertime period photo would then have to be quite a chronological misfit, would it not? I'm not sure how the information got so maligned but I'd suggest it demands a bit more of a basic understanding before an accurate conclusion can be made. What on earth would Lindbergh have to gain by telling the newspapers a warm weather photo of his son was taken two weeks previously? Good questions Joe. Who else would have given the NYT (1) the photo and (2) told them it was only two weeks old? Only CAL would have done that. No one else had that photo. And since he took it on Charlie's birthday, he knew when it was taken. Also, if it was an honest editorial mistake, then why didn't CAL call the NYT to make a correction the next day? It seems that the only logical answer is that CAL was trying to hide what Charlie looked like as of March 1, 1932. He had more recent photos... September and October of 1931. Maybe some from February 1932. Put yourself in CAL's shoes. If you had nothing to do with the crime, why would you give an 8-month-old photo to the press and claim it was taken less than two weeks earlier?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 9:17:03 GMT -5
It seems that the only logical answer is that CAL was trying to hide what Charlie looked like as of March 1, 1932. He had more recent photos... September and October of 1931. Maybe some from February 1932. Put yourself in CAL's shoes. If you had nothing to do with the crime, why would you give an 8-month-old photo to the press and claim it was taken less than two weeks earlier? I do agree with your logic here. There really is no other way to explain the use of photographs that were older and then promoting them as more recent. This is clearly deceptive. Up to this point in time the public really had no idea what Charlie looked like. These old pictures are how CAL wanted the public and the authorities to believe Charlie currently looked. Lindbergh also didn't reveal the fact that Charlie had a very recent haircut and he didn't have a head full of curly hair when he went missing. This lack of information had the public reporting sightings of blonde curly haired children as the missing Lindbergh baby and the police were stopping vehicles with young blonde curly headed children in just about every state in our country. If you want your child found, you provide the public and the police with the most recent and accurate description of your child. That is not what is going on here, though. If there really weren't more recent pictures available of Charlie, there must have been a reason they weren't taking any. Physical changes that would have revealed the true state of Charlie's health would have been hidden from the public. This all goes back to what the motive for this "kidnapping" might really have been, as Mrs. Morrow stated on March 3, 1932 and what Scotland Yard thought should be investigated as a possible motive for what happened to Charlie - the child's health. All this misleading concerning Charlie's physical appearance isn't accidental. There are times when silence speaks louder than words and this is clearly one of those times.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2019 12:06:29 GMT -5
[Hey, I just remembered something... Maybe from this site? Either LE or reporters who were just arriving asked CAL for recent photos of the baby. He said there weren't any. Weren't any. So they asked if Mrs. Morrow had any, and CAL said yes. So he lied and never took any in February because even if they were not developed yet, any concerned father would have that film developed immediately and given out to help find his son. I know its in V1 page 187 although you could also be relying on another source too. The other issue is that Alice Morrow said that everything taken at the baby's 1st birthday was taken by Mrs. Morrow and herself. This was done behind CAL's back because he had forbidden it. Exactly "when" he may have become aware of these photos I don't know. On the Fisher photo... Absolutely NOT at the NJSP Archives. However, its important to be aware that photos exist everywhere throughout and not just in the picture binders. Photos are attached to reports, photos can be found in scrapbooks (e.g. Ellison's where there are some of the child I've never seen before) and in various collections/donations, etc. But again I've been through them all and that photo definitely isn't there now in any location. What I think most people don't realize is how chaotic things were back in the 80s. I've seen so much evidence of "cleaning up" from forms listing evidence all signed by Mark back when he first started. Almost immediately I saw that he hit the ground running once he was hired. And so all of the organization we can all clearly benefit from today didn't exist back then. Now having said that, a guy like Fisher would have to rely on certain people and Wayne is right that Plebani was his main asset - but I wouldn't say sole asset. So anyone connected to the NJSP may have given him a photo or copy of one. With that in mind he may have assumed it came from the Archives, was "told" it did, or frankly who else would get the credit regardless? And of course it just be a simple mistake which can also occur.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 13:13:43 GMT -5
I can personally attest to how wonderfully Mark has the archives organized. He has created many very helpful guides to assist researchers with locations of materials and documents among the 1000's of items that are there. I use his guides every time I am there. Mark is truly an amazing and gifted archivist!!
Wayne,
The list you posted that CAL created about the photographs at the Lindbergh Yale archive collection, there is a movie reel listed, item #12, that was done by Oren Root. Are these movie reels included in the collection there? If so, are they viewable?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2019 14:20:00 GMT -5
I have to admit, I’m a little confused by something here. Who took these post-birthday photos? And if Lindbergh had forbidden pictures, why were they taken, Betty Morrow even writing on the back of one about how “C. says note the resemblance...”? I do agree with why Lindbergh gave LE an old photo—only one explanation for that—but I would think that same logic would’ve led to him destroying any later photos, especially if he had forbidden them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 19, 2019 15:40:41 GMT -5
The list you posted that CAL created about the photographs at the Lindbergh Yale archive collection, there is a movie reel listed, item #12, that was done by Oren Root. Are these movie reels included in the collection there? If so, are they viewable? Interesting Amy! I was just looking at that entry myself. What happened at Yale was this... the archivist gave us several large boxes that contained all of the photos and negatives (and the 2-page inventory). It took almost 7 hours to photograph all of these photos and many other documents that we had requested. At the time, I didn't notice the reference to Oren Root's movie reel... I simply had it photographed and moved on to the next item. SO... I will contact the Yale archivist on Monday and see what he can tell us about Oren's movie reel. I am curious about it as well.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2019 16:33:19 GMT -5
You're asking why CAL didn't allow Charlie's picture to be taken? The guy was a control freak! He was full of stupid rules. Don't go in his room to check on him until 10:00 even if he's crying. Pin his blanket to his mattress, don't spoil him, don't cry or show emotion when you're kid has just been kidnapped. No wonder Anne had an affair with her therapist.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2019 16:43:01 GMT -5
What I’m asking is, given that Lindbergh was a control freak—hence his forbidding post-birthday photos—how were these photos taken? Lindbergh even seems to be aware of them, considering Betty Morrow writing on the back “C. says note the resemblance...” Given this, did he or didn’t he forbid photos?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2019 17:01:06 GMT -5
To some extent he was probably trying to maintain some level of privacy for his family and keep the press away as much as possible, but I think some family members didn't always listen to him and defiantly took some pictures.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2019 17:01:19 GMT -5
Okay, sorry, ignore my previous post. I see that Michael answered the question. Betty and Alice Morrow took any and all post-birthday photos of CAL Jr. behind Lindbergh’s back because he had forbidden pictures. They had the photos, keeping them out of Lindbergh’s hands, which is why they weren’t destroyed, and the photos later wound up in the Yale collection. Meanwhile, Lindbergh supplies the police with an old photo to run in the papers. But that being said, Lindbergh does seem to be aware of these later photos, given Betty Morrow’s inscription on the back of one, which would indicate that she even showed it to him, so why wouldn’t he have, say, taken and destroyed it?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2019 17:17:58 GMT -5
Also, I see now that the photo on which Betty Morrow wrote “C. says note resemblance” was taken on June 30, by Lindbergh himself. I guess, at that point, only a week after the first birthday, photos were still allowed, with the post-birthday photos being taken behind Lindbergh’s back and/or while he was abroad. Bottom line, we’ve got to get ahold of the Yale photos and lay them all out in chronological order as best as we can, with the spring-summer 1931 photos, to see if there are any real physical anomalies or progressive physical changes taking place.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2019 17:34:23 GMT -5
I agree, LJ, those October photos could tell us a lot. Wayne, does the Yale collection have more to do with Lindbergh in general as he was a notable Connecticut resident? Or is it specific to the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 19, 2019 17:52:46 GMT -5
Also, I see now that the photo on which Betty Morrow wrote “C. says note resemblance” was taken on June 30, by Lindbergh himself. I guess, at that point, only a week after the first birthday, photos were still allowed, with the post-birthday photos being taken behind Lindbergh’s back and/or while he was abroad. Bottom line, we’ve got to get ahold of the Yale photos and lay them all out in chronological order as best as we can, with the spring-summer 1931 photos, to see if there are any real physical anomalies or progressive physical changes taking place. Just to get this straight, CAL himself took the photo I'm talking about. I was mistaken when I said the photo shows Mrs. Morrow holding Charlie. According to CAL's inventory, #11, it's CAL's mother who's holding Charlie and now I'm beginning to think that it's Anne who wrote on the back of the photo. Either way, CAL did take photos of Charlie and, according to the back of this photo, he was "proud of his skill as a photographer." Here is the back of the photo-- Here's my two cents... CAL had no problems with photographs taken of Charlie prior to October 1931, j ust so that the press did not get them. We have photos of Charlie right after his birth, his first Christmas, his first birthday, his first Easter, and many other events up to July 1931. Then from July 31, 1931 to October 23, 1931, CAL and Anne made their flight to China and abruptly returned to NJ at the end of October when Anne's father died. During this time (July to October 1931), I believe Mrs. Morrow (who I believe loved Charlie dearly) wanted to have photos to show to Anne (and I would guess Charles) documenting what Charlie was doing when they were gone. A great grandmother doing what great grandmother's do. Good for her! Then CAL comes back to Englewood at the end of October and... ALL. PHOTOS. STOP. Could CAL have arrived back home after being gone 3 months and noticed something was different about Charlie? It seems like that's what happened. Two big things stick out: 1) Charlie was photographed at his first Christmas. We have the photos (Christmas gifts all around). Why wasn't he photographed on his 2nd Christmas? 2) Why did CAL never take a photo with Charlie? What father do you guys know who has a son but not a photo of the two of them together?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 19, 2019 19:19:30 GMT -5
You're asking why CAL didn't allow Charlie's picture to be taken? The guy was a control freak! He was full of stupid rules. Don't go in his room to check on him until 10:00 even if he's crying. Pin his blanket to his mattress, don't spoil him, don't cry or show emotion when you're kid has just been kidnapped. No wonder Anne had an affair with her therapist. I do wonder if the pinning to the mattress, and a lesser extent the thumb guards, have more to do with Charlie's illness than his strict rules. His teeth were seriously growing in quite deformed and the thumb guard was probably a feeble attempt at not making that worse. While the pinning of the blankets to the mattress was somewhat related to keeping a child unable to balance himself or stand properly in a proper non-dangerous sleeping position.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 19, 2019 20:22:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2019 20:53:42 GMT -5
Thumb-sucking has been frowned upon for a long time, just like the controversy surrounding whether to use a pacifier or not. I had a daughter who could climb out of her crib like a pro at 18 months, so they may have been trying to keep him still and from from climbing. I don't think they were worried about him hurting himself while standing because there is that photo of him standing on the bench at about a year old with the Skean and Wagoosh, they are trusting him not to fall off the bench and from the distances in the photo it would seem that no one is close enough to catch him if he does. It may be that his health declined seriously after a year and was no longer able to stand, hopefully these October 1931 photos from Yale will give us a clue.
|
|