|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 19, 2019 15:50:36 GMT -5
Just as one piece of the puzzle seems to fit check on the research and discover nope nope. That doesn’t fit either. And this is the Lindbergh case. Just as you think you may arrive at an explanation it slips away into insubstantiality. But as I was just looking for evidence to support and bolster my (previously held up until about an hour ago) belief that the baby did indeed suffer from Hydrocephalus and this was the ONLY possible medical condition that would account for most of his symptoms, something else hit me like a bolt of lightning.
Could Betty Gow, as the Lindbergh Baby’s nurse have suffered with the severe mental disorder Facticous Disorder by Proxy? Previously known as Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy. Was Betty actually a real nurse who had attended a nursing school? Or was baby nurse in 1932 more of a term used for a nanny/glorified baby sitter? At this time I cannot remember what Gow’s qualifications as a baby nurse were so I will be looking this up. Especially inasmuch as according to what I am reading people with this severe mental disorder often either enter or place themselves in situations in which they will be coming into contact in some capacity with those who are in the medical field. And with Factitous/Muchausens gravitate to situations where they will have power over vulnerable persons who cannot defend they themselves.
The medical Annals throughout history are full of cases of Factitous/Muchausens by proxy. I did a quick search but didn’t find it mentioned in this forum but I’m sure someone else has considered this before. The primary caregiver of a child, that is -who spends the most time and access to a child, is usually the culprit. Furthermore, many times a caregiver will act as if they are going along with a prescribed treatment. But they are not really administering the medications or treatments etc. As a result, the prescribed treatment does not work and the physicians don’t understand why. When in reality, the victim was not having the caregiver administer the treatment. Not with any regularity anyway. (Think visteriol sic We know Charlie’s hair had nodes and this was most likely due to the sunlight treatment. But was he actually being administered the Vistreol? ) In addition the victims symptoms often defy explanations as well as diagnosis. The family themselves may never have actually been given a clear or formal diagnosis as the symptoms may have been so varied. And defied explanations. The victims usually are of course not able to speak up for themselves. When the victim is a child it goes without saying that Factious Disorder by proxy falls into the category of severe child abuse. Classicaly recognizable signs of child abuse such as hitting, kicking, hair pulling etc,’ may or may not be present. And can be easily explained away by the perpetrators taking care of the victims as having occurred due to the child clumsiness owing to the medical disorders the victim may or may not actually suffer from.
More recognized in this contemporary era but still slips through the cracks usually. In fact I’ve read that it’s believed the majority of child abuse cases due to Factitous Disorder are never even suspected. Much less caught and prosecuted. . The person with Factitous Disorder usually enjoys getting one over on the medical doctors. In other words, they get off on fooling others.
People with Factitous Disorder by proxy also often enjoy the attention and perks they receive from being such a “selfless” caregiver. They enjoy being front and center. (And now I’m thinking of Bettys showing off Charlie in the carriage at the Morrow home in North Haven) And I think it goes without saying, people with Factitous/Muchausens by proxy are extremely adept and skillful manipulators.
Now-for anyone who jumps on this with “Where’s your PROOF?” Let me address you now. There is not always “PROOF” of Factitous/Munchausens By Proxy. Instead it rests more on examining long patterns of behavior. Including lots of alleged incidents that nobody but the caregiver/nurse would have been able to observe. Also Betty was alone and ISOLATED with the baby for long stretches at a time. Could SOME of the lumps and inability to crawl or act as other babies did Simply be owing to plain and simple physical abuse of this child ? Left alone with the baby, the family would ONLY have bettys word To take for any “accident “. Did any of Charlie’s behaviors or videos show movement or behaviors that would be indicative of what is called today Shaken Baby Syndrome?? I don’t know yet. I will be researching this more though. So how many times did Betty’s behaviors or stories CHANGE or simply not make sense ? And then I began to think of how Betty APPEARED to be so devoted to Charlie that they kept her for their 2nd baby Jon as well. At least for awhile.
So I thought that I would just throw this out there. But I think I read in the forum that Michael said basically Betty had been receiving a pass for a long time on her actions. So I have faith that Michael will be shedding more light on the Dark Corners of Betty at some point.
And of course, CAL was extremely solicitous & thoughtful & so accommodating to Miss Betty. It’s too bad that Lindbergh was never so thoughtful of his own talented and lovely wife Anne. Especially when she was 7 months pregnant with their first baby.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 19, 2019 17:34:03 GMT -5
I misspoke in my previous post. The proper term for what was previously known as Munchausens by Proxy has now been renamed “Factitous Disorder Imposed on Another.”’ I just think this is possibly a theory that even if not someone is not actively researching, it is worth being aware of in terms of being on the lookout for anamalous patterns in Bettys behavior before, during and after the baby disappeared that would fit the criteria for FDIA/ (Munchausens). As it is not one incident but LOTS of incidents over the course of time could end up revealing a pattern of systematic child abuse. But i know I tend to overlook Betty myself and I think this is a huge stumbling block for my own research. Not saying anyone else falls into this trap. But I know I have. Child abuse was also a very hidden crime in those days. It was often ignored even when others knew it was occurring. People turned their heads. Maybe the other servants knew or suspected though. Possibly. Because I just remembered Oliver Whatleys death bed confession. my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9834-factitious-disorder-imposed-on-another-fdia
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 8:25:12 GMT -5
This theory is certainly original!!
So that I am clear in my understanding, you no longer think Charlie had hydrocephalus; that Betty Gow is the cause of all Charlie's symptoms of illness because they are actually from abusive behavior on Betty's part? No one even noticed that Betty was abusing Charlie??
If we could just focus for a moment on a couple of known facts concerning Charlie' health such as: 1) the viosterol supplement with a dosage that is in the range for treating rickets; 2) The fact that viosterol had to be prescribed by a physician in order to obtain it. 3) Dr. Van Ingen, a highly qualified pediatrician, when questioned pretrial by the prosecution classified Charlie as having a "moderate rickety condition". 4) Charlie's diet of mostly soft foods which correlates with tooth abnormalities that are a symptom of rickets. 5) The slow closing anterior fontanel in Charie's skull. 5) A head that is larger than normal with a forehead that shows enlargement above the brow line.
I am wondering if you have done any research into rickets or other health conditions that present as rickets that could account for these facts about Charlie. Do you see the alleged abusive behavior you are ascribing to Betty Gow as responsible for the physical condition that Charlie was in??
We don't have the medical records for Charlie so we have limited resources to draw from when evaluating what we do have.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 20, 2019 10:23:49 GMT -5
This theory is certainly original!! So that I am clear in my understanding, you no longer think Charlie had hydrocephalus; that Betty Gow is the cause of all Charlie's symptoms of illness because they are actually from abusive behavior on Betty's part? No one even noticed that Betty was abusing Charlie?? If we could just focus for a moment on a couple of known facts concerning Charlie' health such as: 1) the viosterol supplement with a dosage that is in the range for treating rickets; 2) The fact that viosterol had to be prescribed by a physician in order to obtain it. 3) Dr. Van Ingen, a highly qualified pediatrician, when questioned pretrial by the prosecution classified Charlie as having a "moderate rickety condition". 4) Charlie's diet of mostly soft foods which correlates with tooth abnormalities that are a symptom of rickets. 5) The slow closing anterior fontanel in Charie's skull. 5) A head that is larger than normal with a forehead that shows enlargement above the brow line. I am wondering if you have done any research into rickets or other health conditions that present as rickets that could account for these facts about Charlie. Do you see the alleged abusive behavior you are ascribing to Betty Gow as responsible for the physical condition that Charlie was in?? We don't have the medical records for Charlie so we have limited resources to draw from when evaluating what we do have. Oh no no. I am not saying the baby did not have some serious medical conditions. But a caregiver with Factitous Disorder wouild see as their “opportunity”. As a person with Factitous/Muchausens will also withhold treatment from their victim too. I can’t let go of the baby having had something seriously wrong with his head. Something that prevented him from being photographed for a long period of time. Especially considering how babies change so rapidly. (Especially since he was the first child too I always think). But any health issues or medical conditions an infant has would naturally be exacerbated by having their primary caregiver who also suffered from a Factitous Disorder to Another (what a mouthful to rename 🙄). But from from what I’m reading about Munchausens by Proxy, this is not that unfamiliar to the history of the medical profession. As far as the rickets and as I understand from what I read, isn’t it a medical condition that usually appears as a secondary condition from a primary more serious underlying condition? But no I still think the baby had some serious medical issues. I am just wondering if Betty could have been contributing to his issues because she possibly had Factitous Disorder. And wasn’t the selfless and loving and attentive baby nurse she appeared to be. I was just reading Betty’s statement to the police regarding when she was at North Haven with the Baby and if I am understanding correctly, the Morrow family and their staff were away for a period of about 3 weeks. During which time she attended “dances and public functions on NUMEROUS times with Henry Johnson”. What was she doing with the baby when she was out dancing I’m wondering. And wasn’t this the same time frame she allowed the baby to be filmed as she paraded him in his buggy in front of the Morrow Summer home? For an employee she sure seemed to not have very much fear of losing her job too. She almost at times was just flaunting the Lindberghs expectation to not put their child front and center. And then when she did there also seemed to be no real consequences. She seems...defiant at times. I think there’s a lot more to Betty to that still needs to come out. I wonder how thoroughly in Scotland her life was really checked out by law enforcement. And I also spent hours trying to track down the name of the people she said she “could not recall” when she lived in Detroit and worked at the Whittier Hotel. 8737 St Paul Street. Bett could remember the names of people she had only been employed by them for a couple of days but could not remember the names of people she lived with for three months? (Structure appears to have been demolished from satellite photos of I’m not off by a Block or two) I also noted she stated she “voluntarily” left one position. Of course none of this is indicative of Munchausens by Proxy. That would only likely be detectable now by going through her own words to and statements regarding the babys condition to other staff and family mainly when the baby was alive. And I hope I explained this right. Because I can’t alwayd get my thoughts to coalesce with the words I’m trying to say. 🙄Aphasia is loss of words. And the words are up there. They just don’t always come out right. Or in the right order sometimes. lol
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Apr 20, 2019 10:29:57 GMT -5
This theory is cer tainly original!! So that I am clear in my understanding, you no longer think Charlie had hydrocephalus; that Betty Gow is the cause of all Charlie's symptoms of illness because they are actually from abusive behavior on Betty's part? No one even noticed that Betty was abusing Charlie?? If we could just focus for a moment on a couple of known facts concerning Charlie' health such as: 1) the viosterol supplement with a dosage that is in the range for treating rickets; 2) The fact that viosterol had to be prescribed by a physician in order to obtain it. 3) Dr. Van Ingen, a highly qualified pediatrician, when questioned pretrial by the prosecution classified Charlie as having a "moderate rickety condition". 4) Charlie's diet of mostly soft foods which correlates with tooth abnormalities that are a symptom of rickets. 5) The slow closing anterior fontanel in Charie's skull. 5) A head that is larger than normal with a forehead that shows enlargement above the brow line. I am wondering if you have done any research into rickets or other health conditions that present as rickets that could account for these facts about Charlie. Do you see the alleged abusive behavior you are ascribing to Betty Gow as responsible for the physical condition that Charlie was in?? We don't have the medical records for Charlie so we have limited resources to draw from when evaluating what we do have. Rickets is fairly cut and dry though. Either it was inherited and needed to be treated or it was a lack of Vitamin D. When Charlie's diet was published it calls for a liter of milk which should help rickets. Now if Betty was withholding milk and they were unaware that's a whole different story. Rickets was fairly common back in the 1930's and it would have been an easy enough opportunity for Betty to save the day with her nursing prowess. Just my opinion for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 20, 2019 11:28:49 GMT -5
This theory is certainly original!! So that I am clear in my understanding, you no longer think Charlie had hydrocephalus; that Betty Gow is the cause of all Charlie's symptoms of illness because they are actually from abusive behavior on Betty's part? No one even noticed that Betty was abusing Charlie?? If we could just focus for a moment on a couple of known facts concerning Charlie' health such as: 1) the viosterol supplement with a dosage that is in the range for treating rickets; 2) The fact that viosterol had to be prescribed by a physician in order to obtain it. 3) Dr. Van Ingen, a highly qualified pediatrician, when questioned pretrial by the prosecution classified Charlie as having a "moderate rickety condition". 4) Charlie's diet of mostly soft foods which correlates with tooth abnormalities that are a symptom of rickets. 5) The slow closing anterior fontanel in Charie's skull. 5) A head that is larger than normal with a forehead that shows enlargement above the brow line. I am wondering if you have done any research into rickets or other health conditions that present as rickets that could account for these facts about Charlie. Do you see the alleged abusive behavior you are ascribing to Betty Gow as responsible for the physical condition that Charlie was in?? We don't have the medical records for Charlie so we have limited resources to draw from when evaluating what we do have. This is exactly what I mean when I say I leave things out. Thacker you for being so patient with me. I wanted to give you an example of what a caregiver with Factitous/Munchausens might do. I’ve been reading up on this for a couple days now. So I’m a big old expert on it. Lol (Just kidding but it’s pretty easy to see how this disorder would manifest too). For conjectures sake , let’s say a baby ls diagnosed with Rickets. Which usually is secondary to another underlying medical condition. Sometimes it can be a result of starvation too. (I’m not saying this is the case. But people who have been discovered to have Munchausens also DO sometimes starve children as well) caregiver is instructed to give the baby sunlamp treatment. Caregiver complies with the sun lamp. Especially inasmuch as this would probably be noticeable if she did not as the child would remain pale. So the caregiver uses sunlamp on baby but FORGOES the second and probably even more important component of the treatment. Giving the baby the prescribed and needed supplement. The Visteriol. The babies Rickets are NOT improving and no one including the parents but especially the medical staff for the baby, cannot figure out WHY the babies rickets are not improving. The caregiver is obtaining some kind of emotional satisfaction from pulling the wool over the eyes of the others. They derive a sense of power from fooling the others. Who cannot figure it out and are left scratching their heads heads and perplexed. It’s an exceptionally dangerous situation for the victims. Another example if a patient of a charge has a wound. Maybe Just an old fashioned toddler boo boo even. But a caregiver with Munchausens By Proxy can deliberately prevent the wound from healing by rubbing in it i read. Or worse. Again the point is that the caregiver gains some sort of emotional satisfaction from keeping their victim ill. The caregiver with Factitous/Muchausens is also often the only one that observed the event. Such as a possible seizure. In one case the medical staff became suspicious when the mother was the ONLY person to observe the horrifying seizures she claimed her child was experiencing. Never happened in front of anyone else. The staff out a camera in the child’s hospital room. Also when it comes to the Lindbergh baby , Betty often was the only one around him for significant periods of time. And also just because a caregiver can be abusive does not necessarily mean they would meet the criteria for Munchausens By Proxy. It’s a terrible thing and inexcusable in my book, but some people who become frustrated are known to take it out on a child too. But what differentiates it from Munchausens is the caregiver explaining the injury away as an accident. Then it is simply an abuser engaging in self preservation. The Factitous/Munchausens people are usually much more histrionic about it too. They ENJOY the attention. They bask it it. They enjoy attention and sympathy. It’s very twisted and deviant patterns of behavior that obviously, emotionally healthy people cannot wrap their minds around. And would not want to. So IF, Betty WAS possibly (I just threw it out there to consider) I’m now sort of speculative about if this would also account for people who wanted to speak up. Witnesses who thought they had observed something possibly. But who were scared to speak up as they feared being disbelieved. Because this phenomena still is a stumbling block today I also read. Who could even THINK this was about such a loving and selfless caregiver?? It’s like there is an entire big series of dynamics at play in Factitous Disorder & or Muchausens by Proxy. This disorder has been in the news the past several years because of a famous case that’s on Netflix I think. The mother was the sole caregiver of her child. Her name was Gypsy Lee. And it’s not always parents. But the medical literature has been noting this mental disorder for awhile now. And yes, Amy. You are so right. We would be able to tell so much more if we knew what was in the medical records.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 20, 2019 11:50:15 GMT -5
This theory is cer tainly original!! So that I am clear in my understanding, you no longer think Charlie had hydrocephalus; that Betty Gow is the cause of all Charlie's symptoms of illness because they are actually from abusive behavior on Betty's part? No one even noticed that Betty was abusing Charlie?? If we could just focus for a moment on a couple of known facts concerning Charlie' health such as: 1) the viosterol supplement with a dosage that is in the range for treating rickets; 2) The fact that viosterol had to be prescribed by a physician in order to obtain it. 3) Dr. Van Ingen, a highly qualified pediatrician, when questioned pretrial by the prosecution classified Charlie as having a "moderate rickety condition". 4) Charlie's diet of mostly soft foods which correlates with tooth abnormalities that are a symptom of rickets. 5) The slow closing anterior fontanel in Charie's skull. 5) A head that is larger than normal with a forehead that shows enlargement above the brow line. I am wondering if you have done any research into rickets or other health conditions that present as rickets that could account for these facts about Charlie. Do you see the alleged abusive behavior you are ascribing to Betty Gow as responsible for the physical condition that Charlie was in?? We don't have the medical records for Charlie so we have limited resources to draw from when evaluating what we do have. Rickets is fairly cut and dry though. Either it was inherited and needed to be treated or it was a lack of Vitamin D. When Charlie's diet was published it calls for a liter of milk which should help rickets. Now if Betty was withholding milk and they were unaware that's a whole different story. Rickets was fairly common back in the 1930's and it would have been an easy enough opportunity for Betty to save the day with her nursing prowess. Just my opinion for what it's worth. Right. I agree the rickets should have been getting better. But from what I am understanding about people with Factitous/Munchausens , they don’t necessarily always want their victims to recover too. Some do. So as you said, they can play the hero. But many continue also seem to continue until a victim (their victims are usually children I also read) until the child has been permanently injured. Because their deceitful actions against a child can also result in a child being subjected to unnecessary invasive or risky treatments. So the variation of what people with this mental disorder can run the gamut in terms of what they expect the outcome to be. But as I am understanding it, being lauded for being a hero is not always what all of them are seeking. These are people who have exceptionally flawed and skewed thinking to begin with too. I’m not saying as fact that Betty Gow has this. But I know I have always tended to put her low on the totem pole as a suspect. In good part I think maybe because even the Lindberghs seemed to come to her defense so much. I still don’t understand how they did not want to fire her when she defied their orders to keep the baby away from the press at North Haven. Because CAL does not ever strike me as being the kind of man who would be so accommodating to anyone who outright defied him. Yet he sure was to Betty. Or that’s how it seems to me anyway
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 12:22:56 GMT -5
I am not saying the baby did not have some serious medical conditions. But a caregiver with Factitous Disorder wouild see as their “opportunity”. As a person with Factitous/Muchausens will also withhold treatment from their victim too. A person with FDIA (according to the link you provided)actually mentally projects an illness onto an otherwise healthy person and then treats that individual like they are sick and will seek out unwarranted treatments on their victim, not withhold treatment. I am certainly no fan of Betty Gow. I just don't see this condition fitting the circumstances. If someone withholds necessary treatments from an ill individual, that is deliberate negligence and abusive behavior. Probably even criminal since the life of the victim is at risk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 12:38:48 GMT -5
Rickets is fairly cut and dry though. Either it was inherited and needed to be treated or it was a lack of Vitamin D. When Charlie's diet was published it calls for a liter of milk which should help rickets. Now if Betty was withholding milk and they were unaware that's a whole different story. Rickets was fairly common back in the 1930's and it would have been an easy enough opportunity for Betty to save the day with her nursing prowess. Just my opinion for what it's worth. Rickets, when it is caused by poor diet and lack of sunlight will usually respond positively to improved diet, vitamin supplements and more sunlight because the body is able to metabolize the vitamin D it is absorbing into the body and then calcifying the bones. This is the thing about Charlie. He had all the advantages. He had a good diet. He was often put outside in the sun. He was given a vitamin supplement and they even used a sunlamp with him. So why does Charlie even have rickets and why isn't Charlie benefiting from all the treatments being applied to him?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 20, 2019 12:40:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 12:42:57 GMT -5
Thank you, LJ!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Apr 20, 2019 13:03:32 GMT -5
Rickets is fairly cut and dry though. Either it was inherited and needed to be treated or it was a lack of Vitamin D. When Charlie's diet was published it calls for a liter of milk which should help rickets. Now if Betty was withholding milk and they were unaware that's a whole different story. Rickets was fairly common back in the 1930's and it would have been an easy enough opportunity for Betty to save the day with her nursing prowess. Just my opinion for what it's worth. Rickets, when it is caused by poor diet and lack of sunlight will usually respond positively to improved diet, vitamin supplements and more sunlight because the body is able to metabolize the vitamin D it is absorbing into the body and then calcifying the bones. This is the thing about Charlie. He had all the advantages. He had a good diet. He was often put outside in the sun. He was given a vitamin supplement and they even used a sunlamp with him. So why does Charlie even have rickets and why isn't Charlie benefiting from all the treatments being applied to him? Because it was inherited and no one knew it??? The whole thing's weird. Wish we had his medical records. Unless the rickets thing wasn't as big a deal as we see it and the doctor felt it was being managed to his satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 20, 2019 13:08:13 GMT -5
I am not saying the baby did not have some serious medical conditions. But a caregiver with Factitous Disorder wouild see as their “opportunity”. As a person with Factitous/Muchausens will also withhold treatment from their victim too. A person with FDIA (according to the link you provided)actually mentally projects an illness onto an otherwise healthy person and then treats that individual like they are sick and will seek out unwarranted treatments on their victim, not withhold treatment. I am certainly no fan of Betty Gow. I just don't see this condition fitting the circumstances. If someone withholds necessary treatments from an ill individual, that is deliberate negligence and abusive behavior. Probably even criminal since the life of the victim is at risk. There are more extensive amounts of info on how Factitous Disorder can manifest. I just picked which seemed to be the most simple explanations n. But that is one way it can also manifest as well. By withholding the treatment too. In order to fool the doctor etc. But I will find find the links to the sources I was reading though that are more in-depth and post them too. They probably explain it far better than I ever could anyway so in hindsight I should have just shared them to begin with. lol
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 20, 2019 13:15:45 GMT -5
This was extremely interesting! Bone pain too is a symptom. And the rickets too. Very interesting. Thank you for this link.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 20, 2019 13:29:19 GMT -5
I am not saying the baby did not have some serious medical conditions. But a caregiver with Factitous Disorder wouild see as their “opportunity”. As a person with Factitous/Muchausens will also withhold treatment from their victim too. A person with FDIA (according to the link you provided)actually mentally projects an illness onto an otherwise healthy person and then treats that individual like they are sick and will seek out unwarranted treatments on their victim, not withhold treatment. I am certainly no fan of Betty Gow. I just don't see this condition fitting the circumstances. If someone withholds necessary treatments from an ill individual, that is deliberate negligence and abusive behavior. Probably even criminal since the life of the victim is at risk. Amy35 here is the link to more info that I read yesterday from Pubmed that goes more in depth. There’s one I’m still looking for that delves more into the many ways that it can present. I think it’s by a law enforcement agency though but this one is medically based. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5915702/
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 20, 2019 13:39:28 GMT -5
I am not saying the baby did not have some serious medical conditions. But a caregiver with Factitous Disorder wouild see as their “opportunity”. As a person with Factitous/Muchausens will also withhold treatment from their victim too. A person with FDIA (according to the link you provided)actually mentally projects an illness onto an otherwise healthy person and then treats that individual like they are sick and will seek out unwarranted treatments on their victim, not withhold treatment. I am certainly no fan of Betty Gow. I just don't see this condition fitting the circumstances. If someone withholds necessary treatments from an ill individual, that is deliberate negligence and abusive behavior. Probably even criminal since the life of the victim is at risk. Ok this still isn’t the same one I’m thinking of that was written by a law enforcement agency but this one is actually better as it is more in depth and discussed at length how withholding medications is one way that Factitous/Munchausens can present. By withholding antibiotics or nutrition or prescribed treatments etc. apsac.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/advisor/APSAC%20Advisor%2030%20(1).pdf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 17:46:47 GMT -5
Amy35 here is the link to more info that I read yesterday from Pubmed that goes more in depth. There’s one I’m still looking for that delves more into the many ways that it can present. I think it’s by a law enforcement agency though but this one is medically based. Thank you for the additional links. They were both very informative. I am really happy to see that more attention is being focused on this mental disorder. I am not a medical professional so all I offer is my personal evaluation of FDIA and whether I see it as applicable to Betty Gow. Having read those articles, I do not see a link between Betty and that mental condition. Here is why. Although Betty was a caregiver for Charlie, her role does not allow for the fulfillment of the psychological need that drives a person with FDIA to victimize a child. I say this because for the FDIA person it is all about seeking for themselves personal attention from the professional medical community at the expense of their victim. They will seek medical attention for healthy children to extreme levels. They withhold needed care to make sure a child stays sick so they can keep going back to a doctor or hospital to report that the child is still sick and something else must be wrong which needs to be found and treated. It is all about the FDIA person pursuing ongoing contact with medical professionals. For the FDIA afflicted person, it is relationship building in its most negative form. They crave the attention and interaction it brings them. Betty Gow is not the person who takes Charlie to the doctor or hospital for medical care. She is not the one who explains symptoms Charlie is experiencing. She is not the one who is seeking treatment for him. Betty's caregiver role does not include any of these functions. FDIA people absolutely need to be in that primary position of control of their victim. This is just my take on this. I think it is great that you are considering such options and it is not my intention to dissuade anyone from considering or embracing your theory. I have floated quite a few of my own in the past!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 7:21:51 GMT -5
I just finished looking through old advertisements and found one for a sunlamp from the 1930s. Those lamps gave out mega doses of UV rays. Poor Charlie was being exposed to cancerous UV rays. There were also for lead paint, drinking beer while nursing your baby, and smoking to improve your nerves!!! Yes! Sun lamps were available for purchase. Here is one of those : Attachment DeletedCharlie's hair did have nodes. There are numerous causes for hair nodes. One of them is aggressive hair brushing. Hmmmmm?! Maybe Betty Gow was taking her job frustrations out on Charlie's hair!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2019 7:44:17 GMT -5
Amy, weren't there rumors that Betty had/was abusing Charlie and LE even looked into it? Wonder who started that? This is in V1 (p.107). The source is an indirect one which leads eventually through the Humes back to the Whateleys. The problem is the expression itself: " ill-treated." What exactly does that mean to whoever said it? Also, this story was obviously told and re-told so we really do not know exactly what was said by the time it reached the ears of the police. But it is another piece of information that reflects negatively on Gow as tracing back to Whateley. (P.S. I am falling behind as I continue to work on what might be the final chapter of V3.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2019 12:44:36 GMT -5
[Thank you, Michael. After posting, I remembered you had written about it. Do you know if they - the Humes - were told this before or after the kidnapping? Unfortunately the report does not say. I assume so because its doubtful the Humes were able to speak with the Whateleys between March 1st and March 9th. Also, its important for me to say the report does not name the Humes. It's because of other similar reports that I was able to figure out that it came from them. Obviously if its coming from the Humes then its coming from one of the Whateleys. Another reason "why" its important to get to the Archives.... If I just had this report I wouldn't have any idea about the value of it.
Anything we can do to help? Maybe not post and ask for your help for a little while? No, no ... Anyone can ask me anything. If I am online and have time I will definitely jump into the conversations. I just posted that because I am beginning to fall behind. All posts and discussions DO help me more than I think most know! If not for them its hard to gauge how much less I'd know. And much less it would be for sure. Like everything else this chapter is starting to snowball a bit. Plus just about every source is saying something different! Very time consuming and if I take a break in certain places or at certain times I can lose track of the thoughts in my head.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 22, 2019 16:42:48 GMT -5
You have to evaluate these things in the context of the times. Medical knowledge then in general was no where near as advanced as it is today. The availability in the 1930s of products now known to have harmful effects on the human body should NOT be construed to mean that something sinister was going on back then to deliberately peddle harmful products to consumers in order to enrich those doing the peddling. Material of this sort does NOT support an argument that Betty Gow was an abusive caretaker of Charlie.
|
|
trojanusc
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 499
Member is Online
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 23, 2019 0:54:22 GMT -5
You have to evaluate these things in the context of the times. Medical knowledge then in general was no where near as advanced as it is today. The availability in the 1930s of products now known to have harmful effects on the human body should NOT be construed to mean that something sinister was going on back then to deliberately peddle harmful products to consumers in order to enrich those doing the peddling. Material of this sort does NOT support an argument that Betty Gow was an abusive caretaker of Charlie. Hi Hurtelable. I did not mean to imply that at all. I wondered if Charlie's rickets did not improve because of any UV rays. UV rays was the treatment for rickets. Lots of kids with treatable rickets had their conditions improve thanks to such lamps and the correct treatment. Something more severe was afoot here and the lamp isn't to blame.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2019 7:31:48 GMT -5
Was wondering how Ollie (or Elsie) would know about any "ill treatment" since according to Betty's statement to the police she only worked at White Cloud Farm (where the Whatelys were) for 8-10 weeks before going to Maine and Englewood. I guess that is long enough to notice something, but why not tell CAL or Anne if that was happening? One of the things I've searched for is the "weak link" to the information coming out of either the Morrow or Lindbergh households. There is absolutely no doubt that was Olly Whateley. So whatever he knew (or believed) looks important once everything attributable to him is stacked up because it all seems to point in one specific direction. Exactly "when" or "how" he came into the knowledge can only be guessed at but being in the same place at times working with the same people - or being in a position to hear Anne or Lindbergh - I personally don't think its hard to understand how he'd know about it. Of course not knowing specifics leads to speculation and conjecture - but without an understanding that it was what he believed we could never go down that road in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 23, 2019 8:21:07 GMT -5
I agree that the use of UV radiation in Charlie's case was not child abuse, but merely an appropriate treatment for what was presumed to be "ordinary" childhood rickets. On other threads here, however, we have discussed the possibility that Charlie may have been suffering from Vitamin D-resistant rickets, which was unknown to medical science at the time, and, in retrospect, would NOT have responded to the oral Vitamin D and UV radiation regimen that Charlie was receiving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 16:11:27 GMT -5
One of the things I've searched for is the "weak link" to the information coming out of either the Morrow or Lindbergh households. There is absolutely no doubt that was Olly Whateley. I think you are right about Olly Whateley. There are phone log files at the archives. These are calls that were coming in after the kidnapping to the police. In the file dated March 1 through 4, 1932 there was information that came in concerning the Whateleys. This relator seemed to know a lot about the Whateleys. This person told the trooper about the Whateleys history in England including Olly's employment in a jewelry shop in Birmingham, and the arrival date of the Whateleys in America. This person related about their employment in America, including the first place the Whateleys worked in America which was the estate of John Howard Nott Potter in Mendham N.J., stating that the Whateleys were fired from this job. Also noted down by the Trooper was the following: "He (Olly) is a very stupid sort and anyone could get a lot of information from him easy-" Who this person was that shared this info on the Whateleys is not identified. It does reveal that Olly Whateley was a talker. Should we really be surprised that he was so right up to the time he died, offering that death bed confession Michael shared in TDC Volume 1, Chapter 9.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2019 7:23:54 GMT -5
I think you are right about Olly Whateley. There are phone log files at the archives. These are calls that were coming in after the kidnapping to the police. In the file dated March 1 through 4, 1932 there was information that came in concerning the Whateleys. This relator seemed to know a lot about the Whateleys. This person told the trooper about the Whateleys history in England including Olly's employment in a jewelry shop in Birmingham, and the arrival date of the Whateleys in America. This person related about their employment in America, including the first place the Whateleys worked in America which was the estate of John Howard Nott Potter in Mendham N.J., stating that the Whateleys were fired from this job. Also noted down by the Trooper was the following: "He (Olly) is a very stupid sort and anyone could get a lot of information from him easy-" Who this person was that shared this info on the Whateleys is not identified. It does reveal that Olly Whateley was a talker. Should we really be surprised that he was so right up to the time he died, offering that death bed confession Michael shared in TDC Volume 1, Chapter 9. Just a quick post to THANK you for posting this. I've read this before but could not remember "where" it was and have been searching for it ever since! Must be a year now. Its no wonder why I couldn't find it because it never occurred to me to look there. Another perfect example which demonstrates the pitfalls of research. I don't know what the answer is. If one keeps notes or a "key" to where certain information is then THAT method not only becomes time consuming it will lead to volumes of it which creates the exact same problem eventually. Anyway - thanks again Amy. I was beginning to think I had dreamt it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 24, 2019 8:46:03 GMT -5
amy I think theres pictures of the babys room after the crime Im pretty sure I saw a sunlamp in one of them
|
|