Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 19:22:17 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. I don't at all think that Dr. Van Ingen lied about anything. I did the same as you. I did some googling also but concerning the overlapping toes and it seems the consensus is that the cause of overlapping toes in babies has either a genetic cause or can be the result of the position the child had while in utero. Charlie's height and weight in February, 1932 are in the normal range for a 20 month old. This would not be unusual, however, for a young child with rickets. What is troubling with Charlie is that with all the help he was receiving to treat rickets, he wasn't making the gains he should have. I really think there was an underlying condition that was preventing his body from absorbing the vitamin D. This is just my opinion, of course. I have read that when babies/toddlers are started on vitamin D treatments, and they are able to metabolize vitamin D normally, you will begin to see improvements in 6 to 8 weeks. I wonder why Charlie would have even developed rickets since he had the advantages of healthy food, lots of sunlight and vitamin supplements. This is why I think there was another condition going on that was the cause of the rickets.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 11, 2018 19:36:24 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. I don't at all think that Dr. Van Ingen lied about anything. I did the same as you. I did some googling also but concerning the overlapping toes and it seems the consensus is that the cause of overlapping toes in babies has either a genetic cause or can be the result of the position the child had while in utero. Charlie's height and weight in February, 1932 are in the normal range for a 20 month old. This would not be unusual, however, for a young child with rickets. What is troubling with Charlie is that with all the help he was receiving to treat rickets, he wasn't making the gains he should have. I really think there was an underlying condition that was preventing his body from absorbing the vitamin D. This is just my opinion, of course. I have read that when babies/toddlers are started on vitamin D treatments, and they are able to metabolize vitamin D normally, you will begin to see improvements in 6 to 8 weeks. I wonder why Charlie would have even developed rickets since he had the advantages of healthy food, lots of sunlight and vitamin supplements. This is why I think there was another condition going on that was the cause of the rickets. You also have to factor in the bizarre skull shape (toaster head), the teeth issues and the fact it "came apart like an orange" upon being touched. That is not normal, even for a child with "moderate" rickets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 19:47:01 GMT -5
You also have to factor in the bizarre skull shape (toaster head), the teeth issues and the fact it "came apart like an orange" upon being touched. That is not normal, even for a child with "moderate" rickets. I definitely do. I just didn't mention all that when I responded to stella7's post. It is why I believe that something more serious was going on with Charlie than just rickets. However, if Dr. Van Ingen thought it was more than rickets, unfortunately, I am not aware of him ever saying so.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 11, 2018 20:26:55 GMT -5
Wayne, do you know how old Charlie was in the photo of him standing with the dogs on the bench?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 11, 2018 20:51:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 11, 2018 22:22:33 GMT -5
Wayne, do you know how old Charlie was in the photo of him standing with the dogs on the bench? Hi Stella, The back of that photo simply says: "CAL, Jr. 1931 Summer" It looks like that's the house in North Haven, so Charlie was probably 13 or 14 months old in the photo, if my math is correct.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 11, 2018 22:36:13 GMT -5
On its own perhaps not that big of a deal, taken into account with the host of other problems and the overall brittleness of the skull upon discovery, it's a problem. I always remember this line from Dr. Gardner: “You could practically open it like an orange.” Attempting to cast doubt on the identity of the body, Reilly had stumbled upon something, but he didn’t know what. Was the skull so pliable “because of its youth and exposure to the elements” or because of a medical condition? If this condition was not rickets, no amount of Vitamin D would have cured Charlie. From Dr. van Ingen, from newspaper reports about the finding of the child, from the cursory autopsy that Dr. Mitchell supervised, we know that Charlie had an enlarged skull and posture problems. Then there was the abnormal appearance of the teeth. Did that account for the careful measures taken to prevent Charlie from sucking his thumbs?
When all these characteristics are considered together, they indicate a malformation of the skull, either “luckenschadel” or, more associated with hydrocephalus, a condition known as “copper beaten” skull. Reilly’s “diagnosis” had perfectly described Charlie’s condition, but his apparent assumption that the skull had deteriorated in this fashion because of exposure to the elements was wrong. A normal skull—even that of a two-year-old—would not have so deteriorated in that short a time. Down in the vaults of cathedrals are ossuaries from before the Middle Ages testifying silently to the strength of the bones of saints—but also of commoners. Intact skulls from the time of the Neanderthals tell us much of what we know about that prehistoric era.”
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 11, 2018 22:41:41 GMT -5
Just found this photo. On the back, Mrs. Morrow says it was taken on June 30, 1931 at Princeton. She also says that CAL took the photo. The little toes on both feet (and the ones next to them) look curled to me. How did Van Ingen miss this?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 12, 2018 2:35:05 GMT -5
I agree with you Wayne. The little toes curl in on both feet and the left foot appears to only have only four toes or one that completely overlaps the other. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here to figure out what we should consider within normal range or not.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 14, 2018 20:50:58 GMT -5
I know I've discussed Charlie's toe deformities numerous times on these boards, so please allow me one more chance to reach the same conclusion. The newly posted photo of Charlie taken in June 1931 (posted by amy35 and Wayne) with the soles of both feet and the plantar aspect of the toes quite visible, strengthen even more my take that the right leg found in the woods was NOT that of Charlie. It's quite straightforward. The deformity seen in the posted photo of Charlie involves the inward deviation of the FIFTH toe (on both feet, actually, although the left foot is not important for a the comparison here). This little toe abnormality bilaterally corroborates with Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. By sharp contrast, Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report on the body found in the woods discusses the right BIG TOE overlapping the two adjacent toes and mentions NOTHING about the right little toe. In the posted photo, there is no hint of the right big toe overlapping anything. What Dr. Mitchell described is definitely NOT Charlie's right foot. Given these facts, the only logical conclusion - assuming a reasonable degree of accuracy in the autopsy report and assuming that the right leg found in the woods once belonged to the dead child found adjacent to that leg - is that the body found in the woods was that of a child other than Charles A. Lindbergh Jr.!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 23:05:55 GMT -5
Given these facts, the only logical conclusion - assuming a reasonable degree of accuracy in the autopsy report and assuming that the right leg found in the woods once belonged to the dead child found adjacent to that leg - is that the body found in the woods was that of a child other than Charles A. Lindbergh Jr.! Hurt, If you think the corpse was not Charlie, do you have a theory about what happened to the real Charlie? How does this corpse end up wearing Charlie's store bought undershirt and the special shirt Betty Gow made on March 1, 1932?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 19:38:01 GMT -5
Great observation, ilovedfw!!! It is placed as a left leg in that picture. So how much accuracy can we really credit to Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report if he can't get the identity of this one leg correct??
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 16, 2018 9:05:05 GMT -5
One possibility that many have speculated about is that Charlie could have been given to an institution that cared for developmentally abnormal children. At the same time or thereafter, one of these institutions could have given the perps a body of a recently deceased anonymous child of about the same age with some similar characteristics (but not a complete match) to serve as "stand-in" for Charlie.
At the same time, Betty Gow could have been asked to make a duplicate shirt for the "stand-in", since she already had the same flannel material available and had the sewing skills necessary to make one. (Similarly, Gow could also have provided a duplicate sleeping suit to have been mailed to Condon during the ransom negotiations.)
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Nov 16, 2018 16:54:43 GMT -5
Great observation, ilovdfw!!! It is placed as a left leg in that picture. So how much accuracy can we really credit to Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report if he can't get the identity of this one leg correct?? Mitchell left it up to Swayze to put the leg where it belonged
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 22:51:04 GMT -5
One possibility that many have speculated about is that Charlie could have been given to an institution that cared for developmentally abnormal children. At the same time or thereafter, one of these institutions could have given the perps a body of a recently deceased anonymous child of about the same age with some similar characteristics (but not a complete match) to serve as "stand-in" for Charlie. At the same time, Betty Gow could have been asked to make a duplicate shirt for the "stand-in", since she already had the same flannel material available and had the sewing skills necessary to make one. (Similarly, Gow could also have provided a duplicate sleeping suit to have been mailed to Condon during the ransom negotiations.) I appreciate you sharing your ideas. I know that Dr. Gardner's theory reflects a portion of what you mention - Lindbergh was secretly going to have Charlie institutionalized. This would be what a well to do family in the 1930's would have done if they had a child with such issues. However, the celebrity status of this child and also having a father who had eugenic beliefs complicates this situation dramatically. If Charlie actually made it to an institution, couldn't the sleeping garment have been removed, and the undershirt and handmade shirt that Charlie had on that night been transferred to the "stand-in" deceased child? Schwarzkopf had hair that was recovered at the grave-site compared to Charlie's hair sample that Mrs. Morrow had in her possession and the lab report found the hair to be a match. How would this be possible if the corpse was not Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 18, 2018 9:11:00 GMT -5
What kind of match could have possibly been done with the hair samples? Certainly, DNA matching would have been more than a half century into the future. My intuitive guess is that about the only matching of the hair that could have been done would be on color and texture. Any blond curly hair could have been called a match to Charlie's, especially with law enforcement's pressure on the lab to make such a determination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 12:34:22 GMT -5
What kind of match could have possibly been done with the hair samples? Certainly, DNA matching would have been more than a half century into the future. My intuitive guess is that about the only matching of the hair that could have been done would be on color and texture. Any blond curly hair could have been called a match to Charlie's, especially with law enforcement's pressure on the lab to make such a determination. Hair matching did have its limitations in 1932. So the finding of a color match and texture match would have been considered valid proof between the samples used at this time. It wouldn't be until the 1970's when the NJSP did a lab review of the hair sample evidence that the hair nodes would be found, providing solid proof that the hair was Charlie's. ilovedfw mentions this in her post above. Going back to 1932 when the hair nodes could not be seen and used to identify the corpse, I still believe that the hair match made then was evidence you could take to the bank as far as the corpse is concerned. Had the identity of the corpse been challenged in court by Hauptmann's defense, it was the matching hair evidence that would have been the prosecution's ace-in-the-hole because Elizabeth Morrow would have been called to the stand to offer testimony concerning that hair evidence as proving her grandson was, indeed, dead. Who would have gone on the stand and testified against her?? I, personally, am not aware that there was any pressure on the lab in 1932 to make a positive ID of the hair. Are you aware of such pressure? Why would it have even been necessary?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 18, 2018 19:24:46 GMT -5
I do not remember having seen the hair comparison lab report in the LKC, but I do know the following:
By 1910, Victor Balthazard and Marcelle Lambert had done extensive work on microscopic hair studies. They published their studies, and legal court cases soon followed. By the mid 1920's, Philip Gravelle, a chemist, and Calvin Goddard, a forensic firearms ballistics pioneer, developed a comparison microscope that greatly advanced forensic science (especially things like ballistics and hair comparison). Then, by 1931, John Glaister, Jr., a professor of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University, published his extensive studies on forensic microscopic hair comparisons that could match individual human hair.
So by May of 1932, forensic microscopic hair comparisons was being used in court cases to match individual hairs. Far beyond hair color and texture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 19:52:39 GMT -5
Hi Lurp,
I don't have the hair report downloaded to my computer but I can quote from the report that was given to Col. Schwarzkopf on May 16, 1932 concerning the hair samples submitted by (Sg) Thomas B. Chrisitan, Pathologist.
"No. 1. Microscopical and chemical examination of hair from envelope - labeled- "Charlie's hair- Cut, February 23, 1932.
No. 2. Microscopical and chemical examination of hair from envelope labeled- "Wisp of hair". Co. Col. Schwarzkopf.
Examination of samples No. 1 and No. 2 are identical in all respects
Examination made for size- texture- color and chemistry."
I believe Col. Schwarzkopf selected the laboratories used for this case. For 1932 forensics, this would have been strong evidence that the corpse must have been Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 19, 2018 8:42:51 GMT -5
Amy,
I had not seen that lab report. Very interesting. Thanks greatly for taking the time to post the lab report results.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Nov 19, 2018 11:39:04 GMT -5
Mitchell left it up to Swayze to put the leg where it belonged Scathma, do you think it is the right leg or the left leg? Also look at the photo from the woods. The curvature of the foot appears to be that of a right foot and therefore, the right leg. But in the picture where the corpse is on its back, the leg is positioned where the left should be. I wonder if, when the investigators rotated the body from its original face down position, the leg being no longer attached remained in its original location and orientation? Attachments:
|
|
|
Questions
Apr 15, 2019 16:49:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 16:49:30 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 tend to think this too. But I do not think Anne was in on this. I think Anne most likely thought he was going to be sent to an institution. As was the norm in those days. I later think she suspected though. I can’t remember which one of Anne’s daughters wrote the book now. Possibly Reeve. (Reeve has passed away of cancer) But the daughter mentioned the things that Anne said as her (I think if I remember correctly Anne had dementia ) grew worse. And i need to find this passage again. Because it seemed to shake the daughter to her core. I remember being surprised this was even included in the biography of her mother.
|
|
|
Questions
Apr 15, 2019 17:01:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 17:01:19 GMT -5
Michael is of the belief, and I agree, that the baby was meant to be killed. I tend to think this too. But I do not think Anne was in on this. I think Anne most likely thought he was going to be sent to an institution. As was the norm in those days. I later think she suspected though. I can’t remember which one of Anne’s daughters wrote the book now. Possibly Reeve. (Reeve has passed away of cancer) But the daughter mentioned the things that Anne said as her (I think if I remember correctly Anne had dementia ) grew worse. And i need to find this passage again. Because it seemed to shake the daughter to her core. I remember being surprised this was even included in the biography of her mother. Excuse me I misspoke. The name of the book by Anne’s daughter of “No More Words”. And it was not her daughter Reeve that passed away as Reeve was alive last year as she read excerpts from the biography she wrote about her mother Anne Morrow Lindbergh. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.burlingtonfreepress.com/amp/555372002
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 17:11:44 GMT -5
But the daughter mentioned the things that Anne said as her (I think if I remember correctly Anne had dementia ) grew worse. And i need to find this passage again. Because it seemed to shake the daughter to her core. I remember being surprised this was even included in the biography of her mother. I have the book, No More Words. It was Reeve's book on her mother's final years. I don't know what passage you are eluding to that shook Reeve to her core. Please do find this and provide the page number if you can. Thanks!
|
|
|
Questions
Apr 15, 2019 17:19:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 17:19:04 GMT -5
But the daughter mentioned the things that Anne said as her (I think if I remember correctly Anne had dementia ) grew worse. And i need to find this passage again. Because it seemed to shake the daughter to her core. I remember being surprised this was even included in the biography of her mother. I have the book, No More Words. It was Reeve's book on her mother's final years. I don't know what passage you are eluding to that shook Reeve to her core. Please do find this and provide the page number if you can. Thanks! This was gnawing at me so I went to look for the book and I can’t find it now. Ugghhh I will have to order it off of Amazon. Meanwhile im looking for references to this passage Im thinking of online and I can’t find them. Reeve had lost her own first born son as well and I remember Anne discussed this with her as well in one excerpt of the book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 17:41:50 GMT -5
Reeve had lost her own first born son as well and I remember Anne discussed this with her as well in one excerpt of the book. This event you are talking about is actually in Reeve Lindbergh's book, "Under A Wing" and appears in Chapter 9, The Lost Baby. Anne actually insisted that she and Reeve sit next to the crib that contained Reeve's dead son Jonathan, not quite two years old, while they waited for help to arrive. Anne related to Reeve how she never saw her child's body after he had died. She never had the chance to sit with her son in this way. Reeve really did not want to do so but did as her mother asked. Later, in retrospect, Reeve understood the importance of doing that gesture. All those years later, Anne was still mourning the loss of Charlie. I really don't think she ever made peace with her loss. It was always there, under the surface, ready to rise up when something would stir a memory of Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 16, 2019 9:51:52 GMT -5
i met reeve years ago a nice lady we discussed a few things
|
|
|
Questions
Apr 18, 2019 0:31:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 18, 2019 0:31:33 GMT -5
i met reeve years ago a nice lady we discussed a few things I’ve always liked her in interviews. I know her book about her mother helped a lot of people who were also struggling with their aging parents. I was just reading a few days about how her book about her own experiences with AML helped so many people to not feel so alone. Reeve seems like a very nice lady. Very kind.
|
|
|
Post by juan on Feb 9, 2022 6:58:24 GMT -5
questions:Lindbergh family got rid of any dna (samples) that may of been Charlie Jr Lindbergh ?Furthermore RLT said astonish -not expected it felt false claim about german's that claim to be Chas Lindbergh Children by few german women?Furthermore RLT said PPL claim to Charlie tells them actually Charlie D.O.D had been found identified by father,doctor,Forensics?Red Johnson& john Condon& Al Reich& Henry Ellerson all had green vehicles? Ellerson statement saw green vehicle near Lindberghs & Ellerson vehicle burn up shortly thereafter? Williams statement burlap bag found along Rd stop car directly opposite to unidentifed body found mt rose hill rd (next Hopewell princeton rd)?He round up Wm Allen,Orville Wileon,Livingston Titus& John Craft(report find body)?Betty Gow wrote mother say quit job nanny?Gow & Red Johnson caught by PD being park 3am(why go hotel)?Anne had dreams Charlie which she trouble comb his hair?A.she think of him at MtRoseRd where he may of been dirty ratted/tangled up hair?B.She felt guilty not spend time /or not doing motherly things to Charlie? Chas Lindbergh cremated body Mt Rose Rd but Chas buried Hawaii, Chas children been cremated/Anne Too?Chas Lindbergh mother buried W bloomfield Mich next bro not next to husband ?Chas Lindbergh pilot as child heard if drop cat land on it's feet so he drop cat from 2nd floor window also Chas bike,motorcyle,vehicle he liked to drive very fast&did stunts in plane adreline rush?Mitchell:left leg to knee missing,1st toe right foot overlap big toe?Wasn't Charlie both feet overlap the toes&couldn't balance/stand?So how could Charlie be on tricycle picture?1-2 haircut pix by betty Morrow? Lindbergh forbid pix taken of charlie?
|
|