|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 23, 2018 17:09:19 GMT -5
At any rate, this all fits into the idea that a lot of the traditional narrative of went on in that house that day was part of fabricated story, which, subsequently, they had a hard time keeping straight.
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Oct 24, 2018 13:15:15 GMT -5
All excellent points. Your fifth point is the one that bothers me. Either Anne was involved in the whole episode or she was informed of it afterwards and didn't become hysterical. That is if CAL orchestrated a kidnapping. My brain can't wrap itself around a mother allowing anyone to take her child because the kid had some sort of defect. I'd choose hiding the baby away before I'd allow my rock star husband to arrange a kidnapping because a sick child would ruin his master race attitude. And your points show that they clearly fabricated a story.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 24, 2018 17:04:01 GMT -5
My guess is it was something like, "Look, we can't take care of him, not like he needs to be taken care of, so we're going to have to send him away; someplace where he can get proper treatment. But we can't do this ourselves; the press will be all over it in any case, but if we're upfront about the reasons why, his issues will come out and that's no good for anybody. So men have to come to the house, 'kidnap' him, leave evidence behind of this, and take him where he needs to go. I trust these men completely, don't worry. He'll never be found, but we can visit him whenever you want, and maybe one day, if he's cured, he can be 'found' and return home..." Once CAL Jr. turned up dead, at that point the plan was probably to just say, "Something must have gone wrong. He died and they panicked, I don't know, but we all knew how sick he was so we just need to move on..."
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 25, 2018 23:42:12 GMT -5
My guess it was something like, "Look, we can't take of him, not like he needs to be taken care of, so we're going to have to send him away; someplace where he can get proper treatment. But we can't do this ourselves; the press will be all over it in any case, but if we're upfront about the reasons why, his issues will come out and that's no good for anybody. So men have to come to the house, 'kidnap' him, leave evidence behind of this, and take him where he needs to go. I trust these men completely, don't worry. He'll never be found, but we can visit him whenever you want, and maybe one day, if he's cured, he can be 'found' and return home..." Once CAL Jr. turned up dead, at that point the plan was probably to just say, "Something must have gone wrong. He died and they panicked, I don't know, but we all knew how sick he was so we just need to move on..." Michael is of the belief, and I agree, that the baby was meant to be killed. I think the baby was meant to be killed and examined, hence the very strange fact it was embalmed and certain organs were missing, while other more superficial ones, were left in tact.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2018 6:37:41 GMT -5
Michael is of the belief, and I agree, that the baby was meant to be killed. That's where I'm at but I am open to any ideas outside of this position. For anyone who believes this was a "Lone-Wolf" crime I'd love to know what they think Hauptmann was going to do with the child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 8:53:52 GMT -5
I think the baby was meant to be killed and examined, hence the very strange fact it was embalmed and certain organs were missing, while other more superficial ones, were left in tact. So, with what you say above in mind, do you think this would correlate with what Anne said in her diary entry of May 14, 1932, where she writes that the sacrifice of Charlie will perhaps benefit the world in some way? I can hardly imagine Anne placing a murder/extortion of her child as a benefit for the world. She is placing the loss of Charlie at a much higher and meaningful way. Those who have read anything on the work that was being done by Carrel and, yes, Lindbergh, the animals were bled out in order to experiment on their parts. Perhaps the corpse found on May 12th suggests embalming because it was bled out, like those experimental animals were and had nothing to do with a mortuary prep of the body.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 10:00:17 GMT -5
Someone please post proof of any embalming fluid. I have always thought that it was proposed that the child had been embalmed because the heart and liver were not eaten by animals and that, perhaps it was because of the embalming process. It is not a position I currently agree with, but like everything else surrounding this case, it deserves consideration as such a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 26, 2018 22:57:19 GMT -5
Amy, the absence of the heart and liver in the corpse found in the woods, and supposedly the inclusion of other internal organs, most likely signifies that the body was subject to HUMAN INTERVENTION after death. Not very likely that carnivorous animals are going to select out certain organs and eat them completely and then leave the rest alone.
Also, as I've posted several times in the past on these threads, please do not presume that the body was that of CAL Jr. That is reasonably doubtful. The foremost evidence for this doubt is the clear discrepancy in the respective descriptions of the abnormalities of the right toes in the autopsy report as compared to Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow describing the living Charlie. And there are other more subtle clues pointing in this direction, e.g., the cursory examination of the corpse by Lindbergh at the mortuary described in V.1, the immediate removal of the corpse by CAL Sr. from the mortuary for a quickie cremation and scattering of the ashes into the ocean, the refusal of Dr. Van Ingen to make a positive ID on the body despite pressure of LE to do so.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 27, 2018 1:01:13 GMT -5
Amy, the absence of the heart and liver in the corpse found in the woods, and supposedly the inclusion of other internal organs, most likely signifies that the body was subject to HUMAN INTERVENTION after death. Not very likely that carnivorous animals are going to select out certain organs and eat them completely and then leave the rest alone. Also, as I've posted several times in the past on these threads, please do not presume that the body was that of CAL Jr. That is reasonably doubtful. The foremost evidence for this doubt is the clear discrepancy in the respective descriptions of the abnormalities of the right toes in the autopsy report as compared to Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow describing the living Charlie. And there are other more subtle clues pointing in this direction, e.g., the cursory examination of the corpse by Lindbergh at the mortuary described in V.1, the immediate removal of the corpse by CAL Sr. from the mortuary for a quickie cremation and scattering of the ashes into the ocean, the refusal of Dr. Van Ingen to make a positive ID on the body despite pressure of LE to do so. Assuming the toe discrepancy is a mistake (how many kids are there with overlapping toes on either foot that are likely to be found dead in those woods?) - the rest can easily be explained by CAL's desire to get rid of the body quickly to prevent further examination revealing the human intervention after death, the child's abnormalities, etc. CAL's cold demeanor could also be explained by the fact he'd been with the body during its intervening examination, perhaps with Dr. Carrel.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2018 8:57:45 GMT -5
Someone please post proof of any embalming fluid. I'm glad you are interested in this because I was always curious about it myself. There really is no "smoking gun" about it. Over the years I've read about this assertion in several places. Many people corresponding with Hoffman wrote about this possibility or as if it was absolutely a fact. I believe some of it was based upon those organs left in tact. Lt. Hick's wrote about it in 1936 in a report to Hoffman: If the body had been embalmed careful examination of the heart by a competent pathologist would no doubt have revealed evidences of embalming fluid. The importance of this is because whatever one has to say about Hicks ... he was in the middle of this thing from almost beginning to end. Working for Hunterdon Country Prosecutor's office, working for the FBI via McLean, working for Investigative Reporters, and working for Hoffman. Anywhere important - he was there. In the Nursery dusting for fingerprints, at the trial, in the Attic, and even at the execution. So again, if he's bringing this up it was something being discussed at the time. The other thing I saw was the assertion that the body should have been in a much more advanced state of decay. Personally I have no idea if that's true but there's a lot of that as well. Next, I tried to address it in V1 on page 310). Here I brought out Chief Kirkham's eyewitness account of VanIngen's view of the corpse. These types of accounts are important because they were "missed" by previous researchers. Then came George Foster, PI for the Fawcett Defense, who announced to the Press that VanIngen would be called to testify that the corpse had been embalmed. (As a side note, what Wendel told Bleefeld et. al. probably came from Trenton PD because, unless you believe he was involved, that was most likely his source for information about the crime. So while what he said might be viewed as "coerced or fictional" I believe he was simply utilizing what he was told to make himself look as though he had first hand knowledge.) So in the end its worthy of consideration but something I don't believe we will ever know for certain.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 27, 2018 13:56:40 GMT -5
Didn't Dr. VanIngen eventually say something to the effect of, "yes, he believed that the body was the Lindbergh child?" I've always wondered what all the body hoopla was about when it's a pretty solid feeling that the body was Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2018 7:46:13 GMT -5
Didn't Dr. VanIngen eventually say something to the effect of, "yes, he believed that the body was the Lindbergh child?" I've always wondered what all the body hoopla was about when it's a pretty solid feeling that the body was Charlie. Here is what Van Ingen told Frank Swayze: Frank Swayze asked Van Ingen point-blank, while he was in the office, whether he thought it was the Lindbergh child or not. Van Ingen responded by saying: “Well, Swayze, if you put ten million dollars in front of me on this table, I could not swear to it.” (TDC V1 - Page 303) Here is what he told Peacock: Q: ...Could you say that the body that you saw in the morgue was the Lindbergh child?
A: I told them I could not say that. I told them - I made a statement which I wrote out in Dr. Mitchell's house or somebody's house I sat down and wrote out a statement that the measurements as given to me, the general appearance of the head, the number of teeth, the character of the toes, all corresponded to that of the Lindbergh boy. He's not saying it was not. He's saying he could not swear to it. What we have to remember is that the Authorities "wanted" him to confirm it. So he was under pressure to say it was. He's going as far as he can but won't commit to the identity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 11:34:28 GMT -5
Also, as I've posted several times in the past on these threads, please do not presume that the body was that of CAL Jr. That is reasonably doubtful. The foremost evidence for this doubt is the clear discrepancy in the respective descriptions of the abnormalities of the right toes in the autopsy report as compared to Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow describing the living Charlie. And there are other more subtle clues pointing in this direction, e.g., the cursory examination of the corpse by Lindbergh at the mortuary described in V.1, the immediate removal of the corpse by CAL Sr. from the mortuary for a quickie cremation and scattering of the ashes into the ocean, the refusal of Dr. Van Ingen to make a positive ID on the body despite pressure of LE to do so. I can certainly understand your position doubting the identity of the corpse. Believe me, I have trouble with that whole toe issue myself. Plus, as Michael has already stated above, Van Ingen was under pressure and he did as much as he was able to because of that pressure. Lets face it, once Lindbergh said that was his son, that corpse became Charlie whether it was him or not!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 5, 2018 10:30:51 GMT -5
The Van Ingen description in his letter to Mrs. Morrow and the Mitchell autopsy description were both done by professionals whose backgrounds and experience emphasized the need for accurate anatomical descriptions. Surely, they are human and anyone can make a mistake, but not likely.
Also, children with overlapping toes were not all that rare in that era, considering that rickets, which is one cause of overlapping toes, was common. Consider also that Dr. Carrel, or perhaps other scientists whom CAL Sr. may have known through his eugenicist connections, could have had connections with orphanages from which deceased children's bodies were available.
Still wondering why there was no private memorial service. Or was there one?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 5, 2018 13:39:23 GMT -5
Most people believe because of the thread match and unusual coincidences surrounding the location of the body that it's close enough many people are worrying about nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 6, 2018 13:46:39 GMT -5
The discrepancy between the Van Ingen letter and the Mitchell autopsy report, IIRC, was with regard to the toes on the right foot which overlapped, and NOT right foot vs. left foot. Mitchell had the right beg toe overlapping the adjacent two toes, while Van Ingen had the small right toes overlapping. Again, both doctors were highly trained and experienced in using accurate anatomical descriptors, so it would be unlikely, though possible, that one of them was in error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 17:15:26 GMT -5
The discrepancy between the Van Ingen letter and the Mitchell autopsy report, IIRC, was with regard to the toes on the right foot which overlapped, and NOT right foot vs. left foot. Mitchell had the right beg toe overlapping the adjacent two toes, while Van Ingen had the small right toes overlapping. Again, both doctors were highly trained and experienced in using accurate anatomical descriptors, so it would be unlikely, though possible, that one of them was in error. Look at the pics of the body face up in the woods. The toes (small) on the left foot overlap. There are three (3) statements to consider about the condition of Charlie's feet: 1) Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow of May 4, 1932. Dr. Van Ingen says in this letter, "the fact that both little toes were slightly turned in and overlapped the next toe. This is unusual in a child of his age." Note that he is speaking only of little toes. Is it safe to assume from this comment that he means the smallest toe on each foot? Or he is talking about just one foot with overlapping toes? 2) Dr. Charles Mitchell's autopsy report of May 12, 1932 says the following, "Left leg from knee down is missing". I assume this means there was no left foot available to examine. Dr. Mitchell then says later in this report the following, "The first toe of the right foot completely overlaps the large toe and the second toe of the right foot partially overlaps the large toe," This is the first mention of this particular toe deformity and it places it on the right foot of the corpse. 3) Dr. Van Ingen's brief examination note done at the Swayze mortuary dated May 13, 1932 states, "The toes of the right foot overlap which was noted at that time -." I believe that Dr. Van Ingen was comparing the measurements of the corpse with his last examination of Charlie which occurred on February 18, 1932. So are we to assume that Dr. Van Ingen did see the unusual overlapping of the toes of the right foot on February 18, 1932, since he seems to be implying that when he says above that the overlap was noted at that time? I have always wondered when this extreme overlapping of the large (big) toe of the right foot developed. It isn't present in a 1931 picture showing both of Charlie's feet. I am posting a section of picture below that comes from a collage picture that was put together by Harold Olson, a man who believed he was the Lindbergh baby. This cropped section is from a picture of Charlie that appeared in Anne's book, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. Both feet are in view. When examining this picture the little toe of each foot appears turned in. The right foot (appears on left when looking at the picture) shows all five toes present with none overlapping the large toe. The left foot (appears on the right when looking at the picture) is more troubling as the toe count looks like only 4 toes. Could this be because the first toe on the left foot was overlapping the big toe of the left foot? More questions then answers are offered in this post, I know. Is there a way to reconcile all these statements?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 7, 2018 18:06:48 GMT -5
Amy, the photo of the child you posted -presumably Charlie - shows an abnormality with respect to the little toe on the right foot which is NOT present in either the photo of the corpse found in the woods NOR described in the Mitchell autopsy. Conclusion: Barring the remote possibility that the part of the right leg found with the body in the woods belonged to a child other than the one whose head and torso were found next to that leg, probability is extremely high that the body was NOT that of Charlie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 19:10:47 GMT -5
Amy, the photo of the child you posted -presumably Charlie - shows an abnormality with respect to the little toe on the right foot which is NOT present in either the photo of the corpse found in the woods NOR described in the Mitchell autopsy. Conclusion: Barring the remote possibility that the part of the right leg found with the body in the woods belonged to a child other than the one whose head and torso were found next to that leg, probability is extremely high that the body was NOT that of Charlie. Hurt, The child in the picture IS Charlie. Could it be that the foot was mistaken for the right foot when it was actually the left foot as ilovedfw suggested in a previous post?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 7, 2018 22:24:07 GMT -5
Hi Guys, If this helps, a pathologist at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia took a look at the toes on the corpse and sent this photo comparison back -- If you look closely, I think you will see the toes overlap even more than you thought, but not the toes you were expecting. The little toe (5) and the toe next to it (4) are actually curled while (surprisingly to me) toes 3 and 2 completely overlap the big toe (1). I've shown the two above photos to 3 podiatrists here in NYC and 2 of them said that the baby would have had serious problems walking. The other podiatrist thought that the baby would be okay to walk with the right orthopedic shoe. I encourage anyone here who knows a podiatrist to show them the two photos and to get there opinion. Oh, and then share the info!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 8:08:12 GMT -5
Thanks so much for sharing this, Wayne! The images are excellent and really show in more detail the condition that foot was in. This certainly appears to be the right foot of the child. I guess the next questions are whether this is something that would be present at birth or if a foot can develop this type of curling/overlapping due to a health issue such as rickets. Charlie's right foot does not appear in this condition in 1931.
Great post, Wayne!!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 8, 2018 10:22:31 GMT -5
Thanks so much for sharing this, Wayne! The images are excellent and really show in more detail the condition that foot was in. This certainly appears to be the right foot of the child. I guess the next questions are whether this is something that would be present at birth or if a foot can develop this type of curling/overlapping due to a health issue such as rickets. Charlie's right foot does not appear in this condition in 1931. Great post, Wayne!! Good question Amy! In answer to whether Charlie's right foot problem developed over time or was there at birth, here is the earliest photo of Charlie which I think answers your question and raises even more -- Ilovedfw -- Charlie was missing both hands (and most of the arms) and his left foot (and most of that leg). For whatever reason, when the NJSP moved Charlie face up, they placed the right leg on the left side of the body in the photo you posted. I'm still serious about people here asking their podiatrist whether or not Charlie would have had trouble walking based on the two pathologist's photos in the previous post.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 8, 2018 10:47:54 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne - I wondered it it was actually his right leg. What other questions do you think are raised by the new photo you posted? I just highly doubt he was running through the kitchen that night. Bet he was still crawling. Ilovedfw, Great question and something that bugs me as well (his running around the kitchen). And if you go back to Will Rogers' account of seeing Charlie 2 weeks before the kidnapping, Rogers never says he saw Charlie standing. All he says is that everytime Charlie tried to stand, CAL would throw a pillow and knock the little guy over until finally the little guy quit trying to stand. But on the other hand, there are a few photos of Charlie standing up normally. I really think asking podiatrists to look at the pathologist's photos are key to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 17:19:42 GMT -5
In answer to whether Charlie's right foot problem developed over time or was there at birth, here is the earliest photo of Charlie which I think answers your question and raises even more -- Wonderful picture of Charlie. I have never seen this one before. So the right foot doesn't have the overlapping toes from infancy. I think, again, that the left foot in your cropped section shows what could be the first toe being slightly elevated like you see in the 1931 photo of Charlie's feet that I posted. That right foot of that corpse is troubling. I agree, that a professional evaluation of these photos by a podiatrist might help us understand this "toe" issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 17:27:14 GMT -5
Morning Amy - so the bent leg in the photo of the body in the woods is not the left leg and foot? Sometimes I wonder if it was the right leg/foot pushed up and over the hips. If it is the left leg, those toes were messed up also. Let me know what you think. Also, if a doctor says this child would have trouble walking, then there is no way he was running around the kitchen table that night. AND. . . he also was not shouting "Hi Elsie" during his alleged running because just two weeks earlier, the woman who cut his hair said he could only grunt at pictures in a book. So contrary to what the Lindberghs, Morrows, Will Rogers said, HE WAS NOT HEALTHY. Could not talk, could not walk at almost two years of age. Charlie could stand, at least during 1931 when Aunt Alice made those home movies of Charlie. He stands quite well in his carriage. It could be he was already wearing special shoes to assist him. However, if some progressive condition was going on with Charlie's health, then by February of 1932 things could have been much worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2018 14:50:53 GMT -5
Amy, notice that all of the videos were taken in a carriage, a crib, or an outside playpen, and the child used the railings of each to stand and "walk". No videos of him actually walking on a floor of any kind. I am not surprised by Charlie's use of railings and things to keep himself steady. At 12,13, and even 14 months of age I would expect this, especially on surfaces that did not offer firm support of the feet and legs. Wayne also posted a picture of Charlie standing free (on firm surface) in a previous post. I do think Charlie had challenges with his walking though, especially with his left leg. In one of the videos, you see him outside on the lawn and he is trying to stand up. The right leg is willing but that left leg isn't able to give him the help he needs to stand up. He ends up crawling instead. I think this is important to note when considering the toe issues we have been discussing. Wayne, did the possibility of Charlie having clubfoot ever come up during the contacts you had about the overlapping toes?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 9, 2018 15:23:30 GMT -5
Wayne, did the possibility of Charlie having clubfoot ever come up during the contacts you had about the overlapping toes? Excellent question Amy! And, no, clubfoot has (surprisingly) never come up. Could it be that simple??? Do you happen to know a podiatrist who would be willing to look at a few photographs? If so, I have a couple more of infant Charlie's toes that I could send you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Nov 10, 2018 9:26:46 GMT -5
It seems reasonable Charlie could have had some "awkwardness" within his mobility, for a variety of reasons at that specific age, the overlapping toes notwithstanding. According to Dr. Van Ingen, who examined him less than a month before the kidnapping, physically he was unusually well developed, so perhaps with this, came some unsteadiness on his feet as he learned to exercise control his motor movements within the specific pattern of his growth, aka an awkward toddler. I think we can all picture a few of those in our lives. In any case, wasn't he supposed to have been chasing Wahgoosh around the kitchen table in the early evening hours of March 1, 1932?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 16:22:16 GMT -5
And, no, clubfoot has (surprisingly) never come up. Could it be that simple??? Do you happen to know a podiatrist who would be willing to look at a few photographs? If so, I have a couple more of infant Charlie's toes that I could send you. I think Charlie had several issues going on and the toes are just a part of it. I am sorry, Wayne, but I don't know any podiatrists. Thankfully, I have never needed the services of one!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 10, 2018 21:17:57 GMT -5
If you Google newborn feet you get all kinds of funny looking feet with curled toes. Dr. Van Ingen never mentioned a club foot, only a mild case of rickets, and he also described Charlie as unusually well developed for his age. Do you think he was lying? I see no reason that he would.
|
|