Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2018 8:03:28 GMT -5
Yes, the relative concentrations of Viosterol available in the 1930’s is the key. Most studies from the time reference a number of concentrations, quite often ranging from 10D (10 Units Vitamin D) all the way up to 5000D and 10000D.
We know that Anne Lindbergh had published in the newspapers, an appeal to the kidnappers that they provide the child with his recommended daily dosage of Viosterol. What she recommended was 14 drops of Viosterol. For the sake of argument, let’s assume this was the correct daily dosage. In order for Gardner’s assertion (10 drops of a 1% solution of irradiated ergosterol is equivalent to about 50 teaspoons of cod-liver oil) of a “megadose” to be accurate here, Anne would in effect be stating to the world that her child required the equivalent of 70 teaspoonfuls (14/10 X 50) of cod liver oil per day to deal with his condition!
Here’s another reference from this discussion board and citing bookrefuge’s post of July, 1932:
"Viosterol was such a “preparation.” Let’s look at the Viosterol. We know from the diet published for the kidnappers that Charlie was getting 14 drops per day. [Person] referred to this as a “megadose” in the other thread. But it wasn’t. Let’s quote the article “Viosterol (Irradiated Ergosterol): Prophylactic and Therapeutic Dosage” from the Journal of the American Medical Association (1930)."
www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19312700903.html;jsessionid=8B7464EEC377D65601C6C53CF3D0F5CA
“It is concluded that for the average normal infant from birth to one year of age, under varied environmental and seasonal conditions, in the temperate zone, 10 drops of Viosterol (100D) in oil daily, is the minimum dose for prophylaxis. It should be started during the first weeks of life. Therapy with Viosterol was studied in 17 cases of rickets, and no rigid standard of treatment can be advised for the degree of rickets must be considered in every case. Mild rickets will frequently heal on from 10 to 15 drops daily whilst in some severe cases 15 and even 20 drops does not prove adequate.”
From Anne Lindbergh’s published recommendation and as she is not specific about the required strength, it seems reasonable to conclude the Viosterol dosage she recommended was based on the understanding of a commonly-available and accepted concentration of Viosterol for the treatment of rickets at the time. Based on bookrefuge's information, this would appear to have been in the range of a 100D concentration. Clearly, Anne would have saved all of us a lot of trouble by specifying the concentration required!
What I find troubling in in both Gardner’s 2004 conclusion, (The Case That Never Dies) as well as his statement 14 years later on national television, is the complete lack of any reference to the relative concentrations of Viosterol which might provide any level of justification towards his claim. For Gardner to have concluded then and now, that Anne Lindbergh was recommending a “megadose” of Vitamin D for her child, given such a potentially apples and oranges background comparison, seems not only misleading, it also suggests a major disconnect within his research.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 20, 2018 9:49:48 GMT -5
This is too inaccurate a description, since "on top" is too vague of a term and is not used in anatomical contexts. The heart is in the thoracic cavity and the liver in the abdominal cavity, which is below (inferior to) the thoracic cavity. And it seems as if the lungs, which extend superior to (above) the heart were missing. The brain, which is the most superior organ, was NOT intact, but had turned into mushy matter.
Ironically, both the heart and liver, which were reported to be present (presumably in their normal anatomical positions), are generally cut out during modern-day autopsies and inspected carefully and weighed. But that was not done in this case; rather, those two organs remained where they were. Then too, legit medical people examining a corpse aren't likely to dump it on the side of the road after they have done their examination. So some psychopaths outside medical professions were far more likely to have caused these organs to be removed than medical personnel.
BTW, I'm still not 100% convinced that the body was that of Charlie, as are quite a few other LKC investigators and researchers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 10:30:32 GMT -5
I have been looking at this whole Viosterol issue for sometime. I am doing this to the best of my ability to understand the medical science behind Vitamin D and rickets. I am also doing it in as unbiased a way as I can.
So what can I add to this discussion? I happen to own a bottle of viosterol from this time period. What I can share is what the dosing instructions say for this bottle. Viosterol was acquired by physician prescription and Anne administering 14 drops daily was, in all likelihood, what she was told to give to Charlie.
Here is what the dosing instructions say on the back of the bottle:
For premature infants - 15 to 20 drops a day
For general use by infants, children and adults - 5 drops a day
For the treatment of rickets - 10 to 20 drops drops a day
The cover of the box says a daily dosage of 5 drops supplies 2.6 times the minimum daily requirement for infants, children and adults. The back of the box says that this box is standardized to contain not less than 10,000 vitamin D units, U.S.P. per gram (approximately 210 vitamin D units per drop)
I am not even going to venture an opinion on how this works mathematically. The important point to take away from what I am posting is the dosage for treating rickets. According to the dosage range, Charlie falls into the lower end for treating rickets. In my opinion, I think this lines up with what Dr. Van Ingen said in his November 21, 1934 statement to Assistant Attorney General Robert Peacock and Captain John J. Lamb. During Charlie's physical examination of February 18, 1932, Van Ingen noted the square appearance of the boy's head that went with a moderate rickety condition. So it seems to me that the 14 drops of viosterol Charlie was being given is consistent with treating a moderate level of rickets.
Was even a moderate rickety condition acceptable to someone like Charles A. Lindbergh? This is something we should perhaps think about and decide for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2018 10:49:58 GMT -5
So what can I add to this discussion? I happen to own a bottle of viosterol from this time period. What I can share is what the dosing instructions say for this bottle. Viosterol was acquired by physician prescription and Anne administering 14 drops daily was, in all likelihood, what she was told to give to Charlie. Great post Amy and it looks like you have the complete package of some of the bottles I was looking at. This might clear up one Viosterol mystery but I don't see it clearing up the other. VanIngen never prescribed this but did say to give a modest 1 teaspoon of cod liver oil. Since you've accurately said that Viosterol required a physician's prescription when and where did this change occur? This is a major sticking point for me. It suggests that Charlie had to be seeing another Doctor, or they were medicating him with this prescription on their own. We know that Anne Lindbergh had published in the newspapers, an appeal to the kidnappers that they provide the child with his recommended daily dosage of Viosterol. What she recommended was 14 drops of Viosterol. For the sake of argument, let’s assume this was the correct daily dosage. In order for Gardner’s assertion (10 drops of a 1% solution of irradiated ergosterol is equivalent to about 50 teaspoons of cod-liver oil) of a “megadose” to be accurate here, Anne would in effect be stating to the world that her child required the equivalent of 70 teaspoonfuls (14/10 X 50) of cod liver oil per day to deal with his condition! Your point is somewhat of a double-edged sword. First of all, it suggests that Anne would rather see her child deteriorate rather than get him the he needed. This might be a moot point now but consider it nevertheless. Next, what average person would know what the hell Viosterol was? I assume very few. This brings me to another point which means why mention something that requires a Doctor to prescribe? Where else would the Kidnappers get it? I can't imagine there was a black-market for it but who knows at this point.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2018 11:38:57 GMT -5
No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was using Anne's published request as a reference to demonstrate what I believe to be the means in which Gardner came up with his conclusion Charlie was being given a daily "megadose" of Vitamin D through Viosterol. If he didn't use Anne's recommendation, I'm all ears as to how he determined his assertion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2018 12:34:04 GMT -5
No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was using Anne's published request as a reference to demonstrate what I believe to be the means in which Gardner came up with his conclusion Charlie was being given a daily "megadose" of Vitamin D through Viosterol. If he didn't use Anne's recommendation, I'm all ears as to how he determined his assertion. That was my point. If Lloyd is right she would have been announcing to the world he needed that much.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 20, 2018 12:57:17 GMT -5
Hi All,
I hope this helps.
Dr. Michael Holick, MD, PhD, Boston University School of Medicine, is one of, if not the, leading authorities on rickets and Vitamin D.
I just emailed him and asked if 14 drops of Viosterol (circa 1932) would be considered a normal dose or a megadose.
His reply: "That amount of vitamin D given for a short period of time would be fine."
I think we can finally put the dosage amount to rest.
Now... who prescribed it is an excellent question.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2018 12:59:13 GMT -5
No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was using Anne's published request as a reference to demonstrate what I believe to be the means in which Gardner came up with his conclusion Charlie was being given a daily "megadose" of Vitamin D through Viosterol. If he didn't use Anne's recommendation, I'm all ears as to how he determined his assertion. That was my point. If Lloyd is right she would have been announcing to the world he needed that much. (Michael) IF Lloyd is right? Well, he certainly seems to think he is. After all, he's been talking "megadose" for about fourteen years now, so you would think he's had plenty of time to back up such a controversial position with actual proof, before declaring it on national television. There's little on this subject in his book that does that and I believe the house of cards just took another broadside.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 20, 2018 15:12:20 GMT -5
I have been looking at this whole Viosterol issue for sometime. I am doing this to the best of my ability to understand the medical science behind Vitamin D and rickets. I am also doing it in as unbiased a way as I can. So what can I add to this discussion? I happen to own a bottle of viosterol from this time period. What I can share is what the dosing instructions say for this bottle. Viosterol was acquired by physician prescription and Anne administering 14 drops daily was, in all likelihood, what she was told to give to Charlie. Here is what the dosing instructions say on the back of the bottle: For premature infants - 15 to 20 drops a day For general use by infants, children and adults - 5 drops a day For the treatment of rickets - 10 to 20 drops drops a day The cover of the box says a daily dosage of 5 drops supplies 2.6 times the minimum daily requirement for infants, children and adults. The back of the box says that this box is standardized to contain not less than 10,000 vitamin D units, U.S.P. per gram (approximately 210 vitamin D units per drop) I am not even going to venture an opinion on how this works mathematically. The important point to take away from what I am posting is the dosage for treating rickets. According to the dosage range, Charlie falls into the lower end for treating rickets. In my opinion, I think this lines up with what Dr. Van Ingen said in his November 21, 1934 statement to Assistant Attorney General Robert Peacock and Captain John J. Lamb. During Charlie's physical examination of February 18, 1932, Van Ingen noted the square appearance of the boy's head that went with a moderate rickety condition. So it seems to me that the 14 drops of viosterol Charlie was being given is consistent with treating a moderate level of rickets. Was even a moderate rickety condition acceptable to someone like Charles A. Lindbergh? This is something we should perhaps think about and decide for ourselves. Amy, where die you find that bottle of Viosterol from the 1930s? Regardless of the number of drops of Viosterol an individual may take, it would be ineffective in treating Vitamin D resistant rickets, which is what we surmised Charlie may have had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 21:41:38 GMT -5
Since you've accurately said that Viosterol required a physician's prescription when and where did this change occur? This is a major sticking point for me. It suggests that Charlie had to be seeing another Doctor, or they were medicating him with this prescription on their own. I wish I had a crystal ball so I could see how all this really went down. Unfortunately, all I can offer you is my own opinion about when and where. Looking at things like diary entries Anne made and documents that have been generously shared with me by members of this board, I think that Charlie was probably switched to Viosterol in January of 1932. I think a visit was made to Dr. Hawks in New York and he prescribed the Viosterol along with the sunlamp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 21:54:21 GMT -5
Amy, where die you find that bottle of Viosterol from the 1930s? Regardless of the number of drops of Viosterol an individual may take, it would be ineffective in treating Vitamin D resistant rickets, which is what we surmised Charlie may have had. Hurt, I purchased the Viosterol from a collector who sells on ebay. It was the only bottle he had. In my opinion, I would not rule out the possibility of Vitamin D resistant rickets. Charlie's lifestyle - good nutrition, lots of sunshine and no doubt some cod liver oil as a preventative measure - would have made something like rickets highly unlikely to happen to him. Yet we know that Charlie did develop rickets anyway, making it necessary to put him on Viosterol and a sun lamp to try to halt the progression. I think this is a good indicator that Charlie had a more serious health condition that was the root cause of his rickets.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2018 6:12:14 GMT -5
IF Lloyd is right? Well, he certainly seems to think he is. After all, he's been talking "megadose" for about fourteen years now, so you would think he's had plenty of time to back up such a controversial position with actual proof, before declaring it on national television. There's little on this subject in his book that does that and I believe the house of cards just took another broadside. Yes. If you go back to my original question I think you'll see what I meant. As far as Lloyd being "wrong" on this point I think one has to consider that he probably did about 1000 more times research than any previous author on the case. So if he is saying something there's a degree of research behind that no one before him bothered to do. If its a mistake it isn't one made in bad faith. And again, if it is than why is the child still taking nearly 9X the dose he was prescribed? Regardless if its an acceptable level or not, the child was under the care of one of the very best Pediatricians and he did NOT prescribe that. The guy would eventually become the president of the American Pediatric Society and the Academy of Pediatrics. Who was qualified to over-rule him and prescribe something else? And more importantly - why? Now... who prescribed it is an excellent question. Good work Wayne.
I wish I had a crystal ball so I could see how all this really went down. Unfortunately, all I can offer you is my own opinion about when and where. Looking at things like diary entries Anne made and documents that have been generously shared with me by members of this board, I think that Charlie was probably switched to Viosterol in January of 1932. I think a visit was made to Dr. Hawks in New York and he prescribed the Viosterol along with the sunlamp. Interesting theory Amy. The family certainly trusted Dr. Hawks.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 19, 2018 12:57:33 GMT -5
I remember reading this in V1, and thank you for remembering exactly where. I think Mrs. Morrow was very involved with Charlie and kept a close eye on what was happening with him. Trojanusc brought up Lloyd's theory that he might have been hydrocephalic. I don't agree. Without a shunt, his symptoms and the progression of the condition would have been far more pronounced at the age of 20 months. I do think that he could not metabolize Vitamin D, and that it was more than likely genetic, and inherited. I know that all we can do these many years later is to speculate, but he was certainly not a healthy baby. Rebekah, I've talked with a pediatric neurosurgeon who specializes in hydrocephalus (who has in turn checked with many of her colleagues) and they all agree that the small hole found in Charlie's skull underneath his right earlobe could be consistent with a shunt.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 19, 2018 13:49:59 GMT -5
Wayne, are you suggesting the possibility that Charlie had something going on like this?
Was this type of shunt technology and procedure even available in 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 19, 2018 16:04:02 GMT -5
Wayne, are you suggesting the possibility that Charlie had something going on like this?
Was this type of shunt technology and procedure even available in 1932?
Hi Joe, Let me answer your 2nd question first. Yep. Siglinde Rach first brought this article to my attention. In the early 1930's neurosurgeon Dr. Walter Dandy was the first to pioneer a procedure to treat hydrocephalus. In 1938, after years of experimental treatment, he published his findings in a paper entitled: THE OPERATIVE TREATMENT OF COMMUNICATING HYDROCEPHALUS. The paper can be found here -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1386892/I've been in touch with Dr. Dandy's daughter over the years and want to guess where Dr. Dandy was the only neurosurgeon at his hospital from 1918 to 1946? Johns Hopkins. Interesting, huh?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2018 16:05:30 GMT -5
Hypophosphatemic rickets seems to cover a lot of the bases, in terms of what he might have had. It’s a severe, vitamin-D resistant issue, but one that doesn’t necessarily involve major outward deformity. I’ve never seen an indication of a bald patch though; can you post a photo where this is visible?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2018 8:48:47 GMT -5
Wayne, are you suggesting the possibility that Charlie had something going on like this?
Was this type of shunt technology and procedure even available in 1932?
Hi Joe, Let me answer your 2nd question first. Yep. Siglinde Rach first brought this article to my attention. In the early 1930's neurosurgeon Dr. Walter Dandy was the first to pioneer a procedure to treat hydrocephalus. In 1938, after years of experimental treatment, he published his findings in a paper entitled: THE OPERATIVE TREATMENT OF COMMUNICATING HYDROCEPHALUS. The paper can be found here -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1386892/I've been in touch with Dr. Dandy's daughter over the years and want to guess where Dr. Dandy was the only neurosurgeon at his hospital from 1918 to 1946? Johns Hopkins. Interesting, huh? Wayne, I think I'd really be interested if there was any evidence at all that Charlie required some very specific and inordinate degree of medical care and treatment, far beyond the relatively pedestrian requirement of a nursemaid, who wasn't even there all the time. Given what is written within Anne's diary accounts, their extended Orient trip away from the child, reported observations by the child's doctor, interactions with family, friends and staff members of both households, as well as those at the Little School that Charlie attended, is there actually any evidence of this?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 20, 2018 9:41:09 GMT -5
Wayne, are you suggesting the possibility that Charlie had something going on like this?
Was this type of shunt technology and procedure even available in 1932?
Hi Joe, Let me answer your 2nd question first. Yep. Siglinde Rach first brought this article to my attention. In the early 1930's neurosurgeon Dr. Walter Dandy was the first to pioneer a procedure to treat hydrocephalus. In 1938, after years of experimental treatment, he published his findings in a paper entitled: THE OPERATIVE TREATMENT OF COMMUNICATING HYDROCEPHALUS. The paper can be found here -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1386892/I've been in touch with Dr. Dandy's daughter over the years and want to guess where Dr. Dandy was the only neurosurgeon at his hospital from 1918 to 1946? Johns Hopkins. Interesting, huh? If anyone is insinuating that Charlie had a shunt for hydrocephalus inserted as a then-experimental procedure at Johns Hopkins, that simply can't be. Dr. Dandy's paper on surgical treatment of hydrocephalus does not discuss any shunt procedure, but rather a cutting out from the brain tissue producing excess cerebrospinal fluid. The shunt procedure came later.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 20, 2018 11:55:59 GMT -5
Wayne, are you suggesting the possibility that Charlie had something going on like this?
Was this type of shunt technology and procedure even available in 1932?
Just looked it up on the Net. First shunt for hydrocephalus was NOT invented until 1949.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 20, 2018 13:24:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 21, 2018 13:48:44 GMT -5
I don't see any mention of nor diagram of any catheter on the page, certainly no catheter that would drain excess fluid from the brain into the peritoneum (abdominal cavity), which the function of most of today's shunts for the palliative treatment of hydrocephalus. Remember that this is an article from 1938, when the shunt was over a decade away. The instruments shown in the diagram and the techniques are primitive by today's standards. Again, no shunt or catheter is pictured nor mentioned in the entire article.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 21, 2018 21:48:14 GMT -5
I remember reading this in V1, and thank you for remembering exactly where. I think Mrs. Morrow was very involved with Charlie and kept a close eye on what was happening with him. Trojanusc brought up Lloyd's theory that he might have been hydrocephalic. I don't agree. Without a shunt, his symptoms and the progression of the condition would have been far more pronounced at the age of 20 months. I do think that he could not metabolize Vitamin D, and that it was more than likely genetic, and inherited. I know that all we can do these many years later is to speculate, but he was certainly not a healthy baby. Rebekah, I've talked with a pediatric neurosurgeon who specializes in hydrocephalus (who has in turn checked with many of her colleagues) and they all agree that the small hole found in Charlie's skull underneath his right earlobe could be consistent with a shunt. Dr. Gardner also consulted a few pediatric specialists and he also believed that the shape of the head, along with the other known conditions, was likely some form of hydrocephalic condition.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2018 7:27:05 GMT -5
Dr. Gardner also consulted a few pediatric specialists and he also believed that the shape of the head, along with the other known conditions, was likely some form of hydrocephalic condition. I am not sure we'll ever know exactly what was wrong with him. For me its clear at least one person was on the inside of this thing, and that in total there was more than one person involved in this process. Next, was Lindbergh the type of guy who would want to get "rid" of his child if he believed he was defective in some way? And did he show any signs of suspicious behavior during this investigation which should have been considered or more closely examined? Just looking at V2 concerning his conduct I wrote about during his searches... Playing jokes during the Nelly search with the airplane wires, and refusing to use a plane for the Curtis search - during which he either slept, played cards, or pulled pranks on everyone. That "search" was more of a getaway vacation for him - and yet - history records he was a Father madly searching and would do anything to find his son. And so we'll hear the chorus of "that doesn't mean he killed his son!" No it doesn't. But it does mean his real actions should be looked at. But no, that is somehow "taboo" and we're not "allowed" to do that. It's the damnedest thing I have ever seen. I understand why it happened "back then" but now in this day in age it makes no sense. Its the same type of reaction to any accusation leveled toward Condon. He is always rigorously defended. And yet, look at V2. Why am I the guy to bring this all out after all of these years? It was there the entire time but for some reason each author nibbled around the edges but never truly investigated it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2018 9:43:43 GMT -5
Dr. Gardner also consulted a few pediatric specialists and he also believed that the shape of the head, along with the other known conditions, was likely some form of hydrocephalic condition. I am not sure we'll ever know exactly what was wrong with him. For me its clear at least one person was on the inside of this thing, and that in total there was more than one person involved in this process. Next, was Lindbergh the type of guy who would want to get "rid" of his child if he believed he was defective in some way? And did he show any signs of suspicious behavior during this investigation which should have been considered or more closely examined? Just looking at V2 concerning his conduct I wrote about during his searches... Playing jokes during the Nelly search with the airplane wires, and refusing to use a plane for the Curtis search - during which he either slept, played cards, or pulled pranks on everyone. That "search" was more of a getaway vacation for him - and yet - history records he was a Father madly searching and would do anything to find his son. And so we'll hear the chorus of "that doesn't mean he killed his son!" No it doesn't. But it does mean his real actions should be looked at. But no, that is somehow "taboo" and we're not "allowed" to do that. It's the damnedest thing I have ever seen. I understand why it happened "back then" but now in this day in age it makes no sense. Its the same type of reaction to any accusation leveled toward Condon. He is always rigorously defended. And yet, look at V2. Why am I the guy to bring this all out after all of these years? It was there the entire time but for some reason each author nibbled around the edges but never truly investigated it. One person on the inside of this thing? Is it always the same person, or does it change according to the context of each event, as you seem to indicate? And what relation did he, she or they have to Hauptmann, who we do know was very much in on this thing? You've also demonstrated quite clearly that Lindbergh behaved very poorly at times after the kidnapping, in spite of what history has portrayed. I'm pretty sure history was just protecting the hero, which happens often. It's understanding that you want to point out Lindbergh's poor behaviour, but I believe this has as much to do, if not more with the simple fact his behaviour upsets you personally and assails your senses negatively, and you routinely this as some kind of emotional ammo against him to help prop up the theory he planned to eliminate his son. From this discussion board's reaction, it's virtually a systemic reaction, when it comes to his unusual social behaviour.. Lindbergh is yucky. Got it. To be honest, I find it unsettling as well, but you're not Lindbergh and neither am I. He may have been a boor at times, but he was being "himself," based on everything we know about his pre-kidnapping life, wasn't he? And if he genuinely felt he needed to unwind from what was no doubt a highly stressful situation, and no matter how unpalatable those methods might seem to your, or my personal standards, you seem to be simply wall that possibility out of sight and mind.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2018 11:51:32 GMT -5
One person on the inside of this thing? Is it always the same person, or does it change according to the context of each event, as you seem to indicate? And what relation did he, she or they have to Hauptmann, who we do know was very much in on this thing? Yes at least. I suppose we'd also have to consider other things as well... For example, if we conclude Whateley was not "involved" but knew what happened and kept his mouth shut until he was about to die - what category would that place him in? His wife seemed to jump in and save him from himself from time to time as well. What would that make her if she knew what he was about to say was incriminating? Anyway, this idea that people who commit crimes must all be intimate with one another comes from TV. Back in the 80s and 90s the mob would sometimes use outsiders to conduct certain crimes for them so it wouldn't be traced back to the Family. You've also demonstrated quite clearly that Lindbergh behaved very poorly at times after the kidnapping, in spite of what history has portrayed. I'm pretty sure history was just protecting the hero, which happens often. It's understanding that you want to point out Lindbergh's poor behaviour, but I believe this has as much to do, if not more with the simple fact his behaviour upsets you personally and assails your senses negatively, and you routinely this as some kind of emotional ammo against him to help prop up the theory he planned to eliminate his son. From this discussion board's reaction, it's virtually a systemic reaction, when it comes to his unusual social behaviour.. Lindbergh is yucky. Got it. To be honest, I find it unsettling as well, but you're not Lindbergh and neither am I. He may have been a boor at times, but he was being "himself," based on everything we know about his pre-kidnapping life, wasn't he? And if he genuinely felt he needed to unwind from what was no doubt a highly stressful situation, and no matter how unpalatable those methods might seem to your, or my personal standards, you seem to be simply wall that possibility out of sight and mind. With all due respect this is the worst case of transference that I have ever read. His behavior neither upsets me nor makes me happy. Emotion has nothing to do with it. I am looking at everything then coming to a personal conclusion. That this all indicates he did not care. This idea that everyone handles tragedy differently I get. Like the woman who's husband was found dead then raced out to sleep with everyone she met. Police thought it indicated guilt because she had never acted like that before and they surmised she wanted her freedom to indulge. But the truth was it was how she handled the tragedy by abusing herself. But this is an altogether different situation. Let's put things into perspective.... Lindbergh was always a prankster. After the crime nothing changed and he continued to act as he always did. Now, I do not have any children, but if I did and they were kidnapped do you think I'd continue to research this case? Do you think I'd worry about getting my run in? So here is Lindbergh taking a boat instead of a plane where much less ground could be covered. For what reason? None given. He's pulling pranks, sleeping, and playing cards? If I was him and even one person walked into someones room with a bucket of water I'd throw them overboard - but here HE is the one doing it. Lindbergh said " to hell with same [looking for my son] lets play cards! There is no justification for this. There is no way to spin it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2018 12:42:34 GMT -5
First of all, I don't conclude anything from what you alone have described as "Whateley's confession," so you're speaking for yourself here. Next, you seem to be inferring that Elsie is jumping into save Olly from incriminating himself, as opposed to just talking too much when he got wound up, something he seems to have been noted for and which she was no doubt prepared for in the role of peacemaker, something she seems to have been noted for. No, I'm sure fellow conspirators are not all intimate with each other, and some of the Bletchley Park principle is desired in such a venture, but in order to conclude they actually are conspirators, clear evidence of that is required, and not just speculation.
First of all, I guess I should congratulate myself for topping your list. So your conclusion is that he didn’t care about finding his son, and yet you’re sitting there telling all of us what you would have done if Michael was Lindbergh? With all due respect, that is the worst case of transference that I have ever read. In all of your research and multiple rounds through the archives, have you ever discovered any examples of Lindbergh's words and actions which might demonstrate a sincere desire to have his son returned safely?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2018 13:43:50 GMT -5
First of all, I don't conclude anything from what you alone have described as "Whateley's confession," so you're speaking for yourself here. Next, you seem to be inferring that Elsie is jumping into save Olly from incriminating himself, as opposed to just talking too much when he got wound up, something he seems to have been noted for and which she was no doubt prepared for in the role of peacemaker, something she seems to have been noted for. No, I'm sure fellow conspirators are not all intimate with each other, and some of the Bletchley Park principle is desired in such a venture, but in order to conclude they actually are conspirators, clear evidence of that is required, and not just speculation. I clearly used Whateley to exemplify a point. That being there are/could be different "levels" of what we'd call "involvement." I don't see where I claimed you did or did not conclude anything about him. And yes, since I have no doubt about what Whateley said on his deathbed occurred, with that in mind (and even if not) it makes sense why Elsie would run interference or try to talk him down. Even Whateley's own reaction to certain things he said is somewhat telling in my opinion. First of all, I guess I should congratulate myself for topping your list. So your conclusion is that he didn’t care about finding his son, and yet you’re sitting there telling all of us what you would have done if Michael was Lindbergh? With all due respect, that is the worst case of transference that I have ever read. In all of your research and multiple rounds through the archives, have you ever discovered any examples of Lindbergh's words and actions which might demonstrate a sincere desire to have his son returned safely? I think you missed my point. Transferring "emotion" onto me for why I believe what I do when many of your positions are clearly based upon emotion. Look at how you describe Elsie... "Peacemaker." Did she bake cookies too? Maybe the kind you like? And no, not if I was actually Lindbergh but rather in his shoes. Most people would be concerned for their son IF that was the reason they were there. We're supposed to believe that was his reason but his very actions prove otherwise. What I see is that you do not even consider these actions. I can see weighing the possibilities however people who become emotionally tied to certain characters will deal with these dilemmas by automatically resisting the facts, and making up excuses. There are things I could point to in order to say he cared. Like threatening people who didn't do as he told them to. Or replacing Reich because he did not trust Condon. But these things become neutralized by his other behaviors and statements.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 3, 2018 12:55:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 4, 2018 6:46:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the "heads-up" Wayne. I was able to watch that last night and of course I was glad that I did. I am certain that anyone who missed it will be able to see it on-demand. Just one thing I wanted to add that I believe is a mistake... Last I knew Kaczynski was in ADX Florence. While he may have been incarcerated before his DNA was taken at R&D, there is absolutely no way I can see that it hasn't been retrieved since then. There is no doubt in my mind his DNA is in CODIS. The collection had always been voluntary up until something happened with the law sometime around 2014. After that it was mandatory and any Inmate who had a "DNA NEED" assignment had it collected at that time. If someone believes I am in error on this point I'd like to hear about it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 4, 2018 7:58:45 GMT -5
Michael,
I totally agree with you and thought the same thing when I heard that they don't have Kaczynski's DNA. I thought it was mandatory for all felonies. But trying to Google whether or not they have his DNA, now I'm not sure. Weird.
|
|