metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 15, 2020 9:03:35 GMT -5
Many adults at that time referred to any baby as "it" regardless of its sex. My own mother, in describing the finding of the Lindbergh baby said "It had a hole in its head." Maybe this was dialect, I don't know. I grew up near Detroit where Lindbergh was born and his mother taught chemistry at Cass Tech.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 15, 2020 9:10:42 GMT -5
Lindbergh's penchant for privacy is certainly an important point, but if he determined that CAL Jr. needed to go, the death or disappearance of that child would've had to eventually be explained. This would've been page-one news and would've brought the world to Lindbergh's door under any circumstances. So, the forfeiture of his privacy being a given in this scenario, the disappearance would've had to occur in such a way as to make Lindbergh and his household seem victims rather than suspects--to maintain his image, which would've been the whole point--not as somehow negligent by letting the child die in a household "accident" or something. A fake kidnapping would've covered these bases nicely. Now, I agree that while means and opportunity are easy to establish, the motive here is less clear. But then again, motive is always the hardest to pin down, since, while someone may have a reason to kill, was it reason enough for them to do so? I admit, again, that's always the most difficult to establish of the means-motive-opportunity trio, since the motive part requires at least some conjecture and speculation as to what's going on in the suspect's head. But what we have in Lindbergh's case is a record of odd behavior and general callousness (his "practical jokes", among other things), plus a strong belief in eugenics, and a child with rickety symptoms that, all things being equal, he shouldn't have had (and with a post-mortem skull so soft that it came apart "like an orange peel" under examination). And this is to say nothing of the kidnappers' incredible apparent "luck" in pulling this off.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2020 9:49:44 GMT -5
I've always agreed with your observations on the incongrous situation between Lindbergh's know obsession with privacy (and his apparent almost hatred of the press) and the idea that he would stage a crime that would most certainly destroy his privacy and bring the world's press to his doorstep. This is a very logical observation on your part that begs to be addressed if one is to accept that Lindbergh instigated this crime to eliminate his son from his life. This would be an example of Lindbergh doing something totally out of character with his known traits. A couple of recent posts seemed to disagree with my opinion that Lindbergh (if involved in this crime) would have done what virtually everyone else in that position has done--establish a rock sold alibi for the time of the crime. It was opined that establishing an alibi and staying away from the house that evening is something Lindbergh wouldn't do because it would be out of character due to his ego/control issues/atypical personality, etc. What is more out of character for him than losing his beloved privacy and bring in the press. To me, this is an example of what Michael has so correctly stated on numerous occasions that when viewing this case "you can't have it both ways". There must be some consistency here. Lindbergh either acts out of character or he doesn't. Despite disagreeing with some of your above response to Joe, I absolutely love it because it gave me so much to think about. For me, the door is never shut and I'm open to all kinds of explanations or opinions. Here I don't really want to get into a philosophical debate but its almost impossible not to. I believe you are making some errors in your position. First is that I think you are engaging in Presentism. For example, I still can't get my head around slavery. How could people below the Mason-Dixon in 1867 have ever believed this was acceptable? We could do this throughout history. Look at our Constitution, a perfect document (allowing for amendments) created by imperfect men. Whenever I state " you cannot have it both ways" it applies specifically to the point at hand - not generally about everything. Instead consider that I more often say its not always a " black or white" choice. Can people have more than one principle or belief? Of course. And sometimes they conflict. What happens then? It reminds me of when I first started in the Bureau and our instructor once said " If policy and common sense conflict, then common sense should prevail." I remember the mental dilemma I had with it. Why? Because anyone deviating from policy would never be considered as acting with any degree of common sense. Here's one, how about being an Atheist and Pro-2nd amendment on election day? Some might stay home while others decide to vote for what they consider the more pressing issue. Let's look at Lindbergh's testimony. He must have hated being in that Court and being on that stand. And yet, by most accounts, he was "enjoying" the verbal jousting. I submit that he would have rather been somewhere else but the necessity of the situation is what ensured his presence there. And once there, he made the best of it by allowing his other ideas, traits, and tendencies to take over. In a nutshell: Lindbergh was a Eugenicist. Lindbergh was also a very private person. When these two conflict what might happen? Were his beliefs in Eugenics insanity? Or was it just a way of thinking that today makes little sense to us? Michael, are you referring to Bornmann's March 3rd and 9th reports where he talks about him and DeGaetano following prints made by rubber boots or overshoes along the abandoned road and onwards to the chicken coops and road? I know this from Gardner's footnotes (no pun there) but is there also a reference within either of those reports (or another report) to the trail of footprints alongside of and heading towards the back of the house, which were later attributed to Anne? I don't recall ever having seen such a reference, so can you quote it from the report you have in front of you? I think you know by now that I have sources most people do not. Heck, I have so many that I tend to forget about them over time. Someone asked me about something about a month ago and I was like " where'd you hear that?" and the answer was " your book." So I had to go back and re-read my own book to refresh my memory about it, referred to the footnote, then went to my files to look it up. By the way, if anyone needs V1 they might want to buy it now because it "looks" like they are going to breach so the relationship with the publisher will probably terminate. It will probably be on Ebay used for a while after but who knows? Not me at this point. When asked whether or not Bornmann asked Gow, Lindbergh, or "others" if they could have been the source for the footprints in the nursery this was Bornmann's reponse: " It would have been impossible. Mrs. Lindbergh had been out in the afternoon, I believe, but she had worn rubbers at the time." Many adults at that time referred to any baby as "it" regardless of its sex. My own mother, in describing the finding of the Lindbergh baby said "It had a hole in its head." Maybe this was dialect, I don't know. I grew up near Detroit where Lindbergh was born and his mother taught chemistry at Cass Tech. Everyone referred to the child by his name except Lindbergh. He called him "It." He wasn't referring to his head, or at using this pronoun only on certain specific times. The test to this concerns his next son who he referred to as "Jon" - not "It."
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 15, 2020 10:08:11 GMT -5
has nothing to do with the kidnapping
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 15, 2020 11:46:02 GMT -5
True, the detail is not related to the kidnapping, but several board members have suggested that Lindbergh's reference to Charlie as "it" reflects a certain attitude toward the child. This may not be the case as many individuals referred to babies as "it" at that time, so the manner of address does not necessarily indicate guilt or even indifference to the child. Did Evangeline refer to a baby as "it"? We take our cues from our parents.
During World War II the US government used Lindbergh as a consultant in the factories building fighter planes. One of them was located in Willow Run between Detroit and Ypsilanti, Michigan. The bomber plant, as it was known to the natives, built B-24s and later B-26s on an assembly line. Henry Ford was also a consultant, presumably because of his expertise with assembly line productions. Ford lived in Dearborn, Michigan, while at that time Lindbergh lives with his growing family in Grosse Pointe. I add this detail simply to indicate that the US trusted Lindbergh enough to hire him as consultant, regardless of what is said about Lindbergh's beliefs and loyalty. The backgrounds of the workers at the bomber plant were checked and required to carry identification which had to be shown to the guard before entering the factory.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 15, 2020 18:50:38 GMT -5
Michael, I appreciate your aproach of evaluating everything on the various posts here even when you do not agree with the poster's opinions. To me, that's exactly what a discussion board is all about and it allows everyone to evaluate the various interpretations of others. Your position of "never shutting the door" is a very valuable trait that from my experience makes for a good investigator. I get the impression that while in school you either were or could have been a very successful debater!
I also won't get into a philosophical debate here on presentism, but I would like to make a comment on this whole eugenics theory. (For the record I have always believed that one should NOT attempt to interpret past events, values, concepts, etc. in terms of present day beliefs). However since eugenics appears to be the central theme here in regards to Lindbergh's motive for ending his son's life, I believe that the American eugenics movement has to be closely evaluated. I am most certainly no student of that movement, but I have read articles on it due to my interest in the genetics of birddog breeding. I recently watched a documentary (I believe it was on the NOVA channel) that was titled The American Eugenics Movement. It provided an informative and extremely interesting overview on this subject and I highly recommend it. I stand to be corrected on any of the following, but it seems that this movement in this country started around the turn of the century (1900) and continued until the late 1930's/early 1940's at the start of WWII. The American eugenics movement was aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race by selected breeding (that had been done with livestorck for centuries) and sterilization of those deemed (in the terms of the time) to be feeble minded or predisposed to criminality. It was considered to be a "pseudo-science" that gained support of highly prominent and influential people in the U.S. during the 1920's and 1930's. Most important to this discussion of a Lindbergh motive, I have seen no reliable documentation that the American eugenics movement during the 1930's ever advanced the idea of eliminating living individuals who had physical/mental deficiences. As bad as it seems to us today, it advocated a "better human population" through "superior breeding" and "selective sterilization". This American eugenics movement fell rather quickly out of favor with the disclosures that the madman Hitler and the Nazi party started eliminating living people that they thought were inferior.
Again, I stand to be corrected with documentation, but it appears that the American eugenics movement of 1932 which Lindbergh favored did not in any way advocate for the elimination of living persons. It was about breeding and forced sterilization. If Lindbergh took his eugenics beliefs to the level of arranging to have his son snatched from his house, subsequently killed, and then have the child's body tossed onto the side of a country road for animals to devour, then by most everyone's standards, either in 1932 or today, he would have been absolutely insane. And again, I personally see no instances of this kind of insantity during Lindbergh's 74 years of life.
Unless I see other documentation on the beliefs of the American eugenics movement of 1932, I would suggest that this is a very weak hatrack to hang any "Lindbergh motive" hat on.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 15, 2020 20:22:03 GMT -5
While it's true that American eugenics didn't advocate euthanasia or killing, Lindbergh made his own rules, lived by those rules, and I think could've easily and selectively tailored existing belief systems and philosophies to his own ways of thinking (as we all do, in one form or another). Also, given his behavior and persona, it seems that Lindbergh's moral compass didn't have quite the same "north" as most other people's. Since not all those who kill are clinically insane anyway, I don't know that Lindbergh would've had to be that extreme to have made a clinical, mechanical, rational (in his mind) decision to remove/euthanize what he felt was a hopelessly defective and sickly child who did nothing but reflect poorly on the supposedly superior Lindbergh genes. Now, I acknowledge that this is all highly speculative, but, to me, there are just too many coincidences in this whole thing and the kidnappers were just too "lucky" for any of it to have been luck or coincidence at all. I think there's only one person who could've realistically controlled or have been responsible for that.
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Oct 16, 2020 1:45:28 GMT -5
But let’s just assume for a minute here that Lindbergh had actually conspired to eliminate Charlie from his life. This is essentially murder. Would there not have been far better options than a fake kidnapping which by process would have essentially ensured a maelstrom of publicity and required follow up actions, all guaranteed to further keep Lindbergh subjugated by the press he despised? And Charles Lindbergh may have had a penchant for being overbearing not only within the upbringing of his child and his delight in playing practical jokes on those he knew well, but he was no murderer. He was a Eugenicist. If he believed his son would grow up to be "abnormal" would people with such beliefs back then actually believe its "murder?" I can't remember the book, but he wrote about the animals growing up in Minn. If he considered his son an "it" would be believe any differently? These are questions that shouldn't be immediately dismissed in light of the circumstances and material I've revealed. Judge Pearlman has taken it a step further so there's even more food for thought there even if one doesn't buy her theory. In short, one doesn't have to believe a theory to accept that certain facts exists. It's not "one or the other." I think some try to distance themselves from certain information merely because it harms their personal positions. What's real needs to be accepted. Instead there's this alternative universe where the impossible can exist just to navigate away from "harmful" facts. Exactly. It is also hard to forget just how common kidnapping was and that "disappearances" of this nature, when a child was ill, were not unheard of in Europe. Literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked when consulted for advice was whether anyone had checked with doctors who might have knowledge “of the family to determine whether or not he was normal in every respect to offset the motive of the family of attempting to have the child destroyed due to being abnormal.” ”
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2020 8:15:58 GMT -5
He was a Eugenicist. If he believed his son would grow up to be "abnormal" would people with such beliefs back then actually believe its "murder?" I can't remember the book, but he wrote about the animals growing up in Minn. If he considered his son an "it" would be believe any differently? These are questions that shouldn't be immediately dismissed in light of the circumstances and material I've revealed. Judge Pearlman has taken it a step further so there's even more food for thought there even if one doesn't buy her theory. In short, one doesn't have to believe a theory to accept that certain facts exists. It's not "one or the other." I think some try to distance themselves from certain information merely because it harms their personal positions. What's real needs to be accepted. Instead there's this alternative universe where the impossible can exist just to navigate away from "harmful" facts. Exactly. It is also hard to forget just how common kidnapping was and that "disappearances" of this nature, when a child was ill, were not unheard of in Europe. Literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked when consulted for advice was whether anyone had checked with doctors who might have knowledge “of the family to determine whether or not he was normal in every respect to offset the motive of the family of attempting to have the child destroyed due to being abnormal.” ” Disappearances of this nature were not unheard of in Europe? You mean along the lines of such a massive unprecedented hoax by way of a fake kidnapping, personally staged by arguably the most famous, yet media-disdaining person on the planet, and which would by necessity have the anticipated publicity flood gates open and converge on this person's doorstep? I'm sure Scotland Yard would have considered that factor as well.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2020 8:23:16 GMT -5
While it's true that American eugenics didn't advocate euthanasia or killing, Lindbergh made his own rules, lived by those rules, and I think could've easily and selectively tailored existing belief systems and philosophies to his own ways of thinking (as we all do, in one form or another). Also, given his behavior and persona, it seems that Lindbergh's moral compass didn't have quite the same "north" as most other people's. Since not all those who kill are clinically insane anyway, I don't know that Lindbergh would've had to be that extreme to have made a clinical, mechanical, rational (in his mind) decision to remove/euthanize what he felt was a hopelessly defective and sickly child who did nothing but reflect poorly on the supposedly superior Lindbergh genes. Now, I acknowledge that this is all highly speculative, but, to me, there are just too many coincidences in this whole thing and the kidnappers were just too "lucky" for any of it to have been luck or coincidence at all. I think there's only one person who could've realistically controlled or have been responsible for that. Based on the all of the known evidence, including Van Ingen's last medical report in February 1932 and all of the eyewitness accounts of those who shared last moments with Charlie, where do you come up with the idea that Lindbergh would have felt he was "hopelessly defective and sickly?"
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2020 8:51:13 GMT -5
Michael, I appreciate your aproach of evaluating everything on the various posts here even when you do not agree with the poster's opinions. To me, that's exactly what a discussion board is all about and it allows everyone to evaluate the various interpretations of others. Your position of "never shutting the door" is a very valuable trait that from my experience makes for a good investigator. I get the impression that while in school you either were or could have been a very successful debater! I also won't get into a philosophical debate here on presentism, but I would like to make a comment on this whole eugenics theory. (For the record I have always believed that one should NOT attempt to interpret past events, values, concepts, etc. in terms of present day beliefs). However since eugenics appears to be the central theme here in regards to Lindbergh's motive for ending his son's life, I believe that the American eugenics movement has to be closely evaluated. I am most certainly no student of that movement, but I have read articles on it due to my interest in the genetics of birddog breeding. I recently watched a documentary (I believe it was on the NOVA channel) that was titled The American Eugenics Movement. It provided an informative and extremely interesting overview on this subject and I highly recommend it. I stand to be corrected on any of the following, but it seems that this movement in this country started around the turn of the century (1900) and continued until the late 1930's/early 1940's at the start of WWII. The American eugenics movement was aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race by selected breeding (that had been done with livestorck for centuries) and sterilization of those deemed (in the terms of the time) to be feeble minded or predisposed to criminality. It was considered to be a "pseudo-science" that gained support of highly prominent and influential people in the U.S. during the 1920's and 1930's. Most important to this discussion of a Lindbergh motive, I have seen no reliable documentation that the American eugenics movement during the 1930's ever advanced the idea of eliminating living individuals who had physical/mental deficiences. As bad as it seems to us today, it advocated a "better human population" through "superior breeding" and "selective sterilization". This American eugenics movement fell rather quickly out of favor with the disclosures that the madman Hitler and the Nazi party started eliminating living people that they thought were inferior. Again, I stand to be corrected with documentation, but it appears that the American eugenics movement of 1932 which Lindbergh favored did not in any way advocate for the elimination of living persons. It was about breeding and forced sterilization. If Lindbergh took his eugenics beliefs to the level of arranging to have his son snatched from his house, subsequently killed, and then have the child's body tossed onto the side of a country road for animals to devour, then by most everyone's standards, either in 1932 or today, he would have been absolutely insane. And again, I personally see no instances of this kind of insantity during Lindbergh's 74 years of life. Unless I see other documentation on the beliefs of the American eugenics movement of 1932, I would suggest that this is a very weak hatrack to hang any "Lindbergh motive" hat on. Lurp, an extremely well presented argument on the beliefs and expressed actions of the American Eugenics Movement of the 1920's and 1930's, relating to anyone's concern about Lindbergh's own intentions with his son. Your point too, about the disgusting treatment of Charlie's body after his death also serves to underscore the level of insanity that prevailed and which runs totally against the grain of an organized, clinical elimination of life. I always look forward to and appreciate your logical and systematic approach to this case.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 16, 2020 9:04:53 GMT -5
I don't know that CAL Jr. was actually or objectively hopelessly defective and sickly--but in Lindbergh's hyper-perfectionist, eugenicist mind, however... And the skeleton indicates that, physically, there was something more going on than the little things Van Ingen noted in his report.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2020 9:47:53 GMT -5
I don't know that CAL Jr. was actually or objectively hopelessly defective and sickly--but in Lindbergh's hyper-perfectionist, eugenicist mind, however... And the skeleton indicates that, physically, there was something more going on than the little things Van Ingen noted in his report. But the corpse is not something that Lindbergh would have had access to in order to make any kind of judgment about the health of his living son.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 16, 2020 9:56:47 GMT -5
No, but the corpse is, I think, indicative of health problems CAL Jr. had in life, which Lindbergh could have picked up on.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2020 10:09:42 GMT -5
No, but the corpse is, I think, indicative of health problems CAL Jr. had in life, which Lindbergh could have picked up on. I guess he was probably a bit psychic?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 16, 2020 10:12:28 GMT -5
Not necessarily; just observant, and those observations could've been confirmed and reinforced by someone like Alexis Carrel.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2020 10:18:37 GMT -5
Again, I stand to be corrected with documentation, but it appears that the American eugenics movement of 1932 which Lindbergh favored did not in any way advocate for the elimination of living persons. It was about breeding and forced sterilization. If Lindbergh took his eugenics beliefs to the level of arranging to have his son snatched from his house, subsequently killed, and then have the child's body tossed onto the side of a country road for animals to devour, then by most everyone's standards, either in 1932 or today, he would have been absolutely insane. And again, I personally see no instances of this kind of insantity during Lindbergh's 74 years of life. Unless I see other documentation on the beliefs of the American eugenics movement of 1932, I would suggest that this is a very weak hatrack to hang any "Lindbergh motive" hat on. I'd say I agree with you concerning the outline and overall beliefs put forth on paper about the movement. They weren't saying out loud that people should bring their newborns out into the woods like the Native Americans did, but when one reads what people were saying, like for instance, the quote in my book from Dr. Barbour (V3 page 35), one can't walk away without believing they were thinking it. He described the "undesirables" as "dead wood." What do people do with dead wood? They burn it or get rid of it. Next, we take Lindbergh's views on race and throw that into the mix. He believed European whites were the superior race, and that foreign races of black, brown, and yellow were inferior. So we can see he's already taking what one might consider "undesirable" and attaching that onto an entire race of people. It's a marriage of beliefs that is ripe for a bad outcome. That doesn't make it so, but the ground is fertile. Next, we look at his actions. When people try to walk a mile in another persons shoes that never seems to turn out quite right. And yet, we can see by example what Lindbergh would or wouldn't do in certain situations. Playing cards instead of searching for his son. Throwing buckets of water on people who were trying to help him search for his son. Treating the corpse like an animal or an "It" at the morgue. Forcing his pregnant wife to remain in an unpressurized cockpit 15,000 feet up with exhaust fumes blowing in her face. And why? Because he didn't want to look "weak." And you doubt the man wouldn't get "rid" of his "defective" son? Especially once considering his birth was being heralded as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Imagine the embarrassment? Were not talking about "looking" weak but having a living breathing example proving it. Now, as you've mentioned previously about the Kennedy daughter, I've seen that mentioned as a possibility too. That the plan was to put the child in a home but that the kidnapping was a cover story to explain away his absence. According to this theory, the child was accidentally killed. So sure, there's a bunch of different variations to consider along these lines as well.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 16, 2020 13:47:45 GMT -5
If Lindbergh was so big on eugenics and physical perfection etc. then why would he select two mistresses who were physically handicapped and have children by them? His relationships with these women lasted many years, even until the time of his death. And if he was so devoted to the fascism espoused by the German government at that time, why would the US government hire him as consultant to fighter airplane production that was top secret in WWII? Also, at age 20 months, Charlie was walking and also talking words. He did not appear to be slow in development. Yes, Lindbergh did have a sadistic sense of humor, but that does not make him a murderer. He did make several mistakes in interfering with the investigation, but that happened because he wanted the child back at any cost. Note that he stopped his involvement with the investigation when the child's body was found and he knew that no compromise or sacrifice would bring the child back. It's very difficult to psychoanalyze someone after his death. We need to go with the evidence that was found and make reasonable and realistic inferences.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2020 16:10:32 GMT -5
If Lindbergh was so big on eugenics and physical perfection etc. then why would he select two mistresses who were physically handicapped and have children by them? His relationships with these women lasted many years, even until the time of his death. And if he was so devoted to the fascism espoused by the German government at that time, why would the US government hire him as consultant to fighter airplane production that was top secret in WWII? Also, at age 20 months, Charlie was walking and also talking words. He did not appear to be slow in development. Yes, Lindbergh did have a sadistic sense of humor, but that does not make him a murderer. He did make several mistakes in interfering with the investigation, but that happened because he wanted the child back at any cost. Note that he stopped his involvement with the investigation when the child's body was found and he knew that no compromise or sacrifice would bring thechild back. It's very difficult to psychoanalyze someoneafter his death. We need to go with the evidence that was found and make reasonable and realistic inferences. With all due respect, please don’t tell me what is a reasonable inference and what is not. Especially when peddling that nonsense about “mistake” caused because he “ wanted his child back at any cost.” A father doing “everything” doesn’t abandon his search to play cards. Or choose a boat instead of a plane for that search when it would have covered more ground - by a lot. Simply put, he used that trip with Curtis as a “vacation” away from the kidnapping chaos and for no other reason. How do I know this? 20 years of research. Next, the whole reason he had children with them in the first place was eugenics. Let me guess, you believe he was “in love” with all three? First, Lindbergh had children with three women two of which were sisters. There were probably more we still don’t know about. In short, if he considered them “genetically defective” he would never had children with them. He was simply doing his part in reconstituting the gene pool post WWII since so many men had died. Read what he wrote about the subject of children and genes. Look at what’s mentioned just in this article about the topic. www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2009/07/good-riddance-mr-lindbergh/If you don’t like the theory that’s cool. But until I see something legit to direct me elsewhere I am going to consider it.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 16, 2020 19:29:00 GMT -5
Thanks Joe for the comments. I do not articulate about the LKC as well as you, Michael, Amy and others on this forum, but as I gain more knowledge on this case I can't help but to apply the concepts that I applied on a daily basis for 30 years. I am keeping an open mind on the case however I believe that the challenges and mysteries of the LKC are not about Lindbergh but rather about Hauptmann and his unknown partners in crime.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2020 19:46:03 GMT -5
If Lindbergh was so big on eugenics and physical perfection etc. then why would he select two mistresses who were physically handicapped and have children by them? His relationships with these women lasted many years, even until the time of his death. And if he was so devoted to the fascism espoused by the German government at that time, why would the US government hire him as consultant to fighter airplane production that was top secret in WWII? Also, at age 20 months, Charlie was walking and also talking words. He did not appear to be slow in development. Yes, Lindbergh did have a sadistic sense of humor, but that does not make him a murderer. He did make several mistakes in interfering with the investigation, but that happened because he wanted the child back at any cost. Note that he stopped his involvement with the investigation when the child's body was found and he knew that no compromise or sacrifice would bring the child back. It's very difficult to psychoanalyze someone after his death. We need to go with the evidence that was found and make reasonable and realistic inferences. You'll learn all too quickly Metje, that you rarely get a straight answer here from those wishing to preserve the illusion they've chosen to promote.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2020 19:53:55 GMT -5
Thanks Joe for the comments. I do not articulate about the LKC as well as you, Michael, Amy and others on this forum, but as I gain more knowledge on this case I can't help but to apply the concepts that I applied on a daily basis for 30 years. I am keeping an open mind on the case however I believe that the challenges and mysteries of the LKC are not about Lindbergh but rather about Hauptmann and his unknown partners in crime. I couldn't agree more Lurp, and refreshing that the focus here might someday possibly turn towards the one who was proven to be up to his eyeballs within this thing, yet swore to his God that he was totally innocent of any involvement. That in itself should be allowed to sink in for its own sake, period.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 16, 2020 20:26:13 GMT -5
Michael, you asked me if I doubt that Lindbergh wouldn't get "rid" of his "defective" son. At this point Michael I do doubt that he was predisposed to getting rid of his son in the absolutely discusting manner that it occurred. This is not to even mention what he would have been doing to his wife. Anne has to live not only with losing her beloved first born son, but with the guilt of not protecting her son from such a horrid death. She would have to live her entire life with this tragedy and with the images in her mind of animals feasting on her son's remains. I maintain that if Lindbergh did this to his son and wife then he was an insane monster with few equals. And as you know, I don't believe his life supported such a vision of a monster.
I see so much speculation here on the two critical things that either establish his motive and guilt or they dont: Did Lindbergh elevate his beliefs in the concepts of the 1932 American eugenics movement to the extreme concept of murdering physically/mentally deficient individuals? AND did young Charles at 20 months of age really have such a condition? Speculations can be useful in stimulating discussions on a topic, and subjective interpretations of facts are normal, but one has to be very careful that speculations are not used to substantiate claims. I would like to see more facts as to Lindbergh's alleged beliefs in eugenics that elevated them far beyond the beliefs of the AEM of 1932 (contempory writings/speeches that espouse his beliefs that permit killings in regards to eugenics, documented conversations with associates on this belief, etc.). One can speculate from his personality that "he could easily hold these beliefs" but that's not enough for me in regards to these serious allegations.
Also in regards to the child's health, where are the facts (physcian reports, testing result reports, documented Lindbergh conversations with family/associates where he expressed concerns that his 20 month old son's health was so compromized that the child would not live a normal life, statements by family/friends that the child was in such bad health, etc.). The allegations in this theory are not referring to a cold or rickets, they allege that Lindbergh knew the child was seriously defective.
For me, this is such a serious allegation against Lindbergh that I need facts not speculations on these two crital points. If the facts aren't there, then the case against Lindbergh fails.
Michael, you state that the callous acts on Lindbergh's part during the period of March 1st through May 12th are not the normal acts of a concerned and loving father hence these acts are additional evidence that he would get rid of his son. I think this is speculation as one could also speculate that these acts were the result of the unfathomable stress Lindbergh would have been under if this was a true kidnapping. It could be speculated that his admittedly strange personality was coming out under heavy stress during the snatch of his son, ransom negotiations that failed to return his son, the awful manner in which the child's remains were discovered, and his failed attempts to locate his son. I would venture to say that if one were to run all of this by present day psychiatrists/psychologists they would all diagnose Lindbergh with severe PTSD. I just bring this up to point out that speculations can run the entire gamut of ideas on any given situation. I just can't see the evidentiary value of Lindbergh's callous acts.
I am still keeping what you so aptly called "an open mind" on everything, but I have to confess that this "Lindbergh involvement theory" sometimes appears to me to have alot of speculative bias against Lindbergh the man as opposed to factual evidence against Lindbergh the criminal.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2020 8:20:34 GMT -5
Michael, you asked me if I doubt that Lindbergh wouldn't get "rid" of his "defective" son. At this point Michael I do doubt that he was predisposed to getting rid of his son in the absolutely discusting manner that it occurred. This is not to even mention what he would have been doing to his wife. Anne has to live not only with losing her beloved first born son, but with the guilt of not protecting her son from such a horrid death. She would have to live her entire life with this tragedy and with the images in her mind of animals feasting on her son's remains. I maintain that if Lindbergh did this to his son and wife then he was an insane monster with few equals. And as you know, I don't believe his life supported such a vision of a monster. I see so much speculation here on the two critical things that either establish his motive and guilt or they dont: Did Lindbergh elevate his beliefs in the concepts of the 1932 American eugenics movement to the extreme concept of murdering physically/mentally deficient individuals? AND did young Charles at 20 months of age really have such a condition? Speculations can be useful in stimulating discussions on a topic, and subjective interpretations of facts are normal, but one has to be very careful that speculations are not used to substantiate claims. I would like to see more facts as to Lindbergh's alleged beliefs in eugenics that elevated them far beyond the beliefs of the AEM of 1932 (contempory writings/speeches that espouse his beliefs that permit killings in regards to eugenics, documented conversations with associates on this belief, etc.). One can speculate from his personality that "he could easily hold these beliefs" but that's not enough for me in regards to these serious allegations. Also in regards to the child's health, where are the facts (physcian reports, testing result reports, documented Lindbergh conversations with family/associates where he expressed concerns that his 20 month old son's health was so compromized that the child would not live a normal life, statements by family/friends that the child was in such bad health, etc.). The allegations in this theory are not referring to a cold or rickets, they allege that Lindbergh knew the child was seriously defective. For me, this is such a serious allegation against Lindbergh that I need facts not speculations on these two crital points. If the facts aren't there, then the case against Lindbergh fails. Michael, you state that the callous acts on Lindbergh's part during the period of March 1st through May 12th are not the normal acts of a concerned and loving father hence these acts are additional evidence that he would get rid of his son. I think this is speculation as one could also speculate that these acts were the result of the unfathomable stress Lindbergh would have been under if this was a true kidnapping. It could be speculated that his admittedly strange personality was coming out under heavy stress during the snatch of his son, ransom negotiations that failed to return his son, the awful manner in which the child's remains were discovered, and his failed attempts to locate his son. I would venture to say that if one were to run all of this by present day psychiatrists/psychologists they would all diagnose Lindbergh with severe PTSD. I just bring this up to point out that speculations can run the entire gamut of ideas on any given situation. I just can't see the evidentiary value of Lindbergh's callous acts. I am still keeping what you so aptly called "an open mind" on everything, but I have to confess that this "Lindbergh involvement theory" sometimes appears to me to have alot of speculative bias against Lindbergh the man as opposed to factual evidence against Lindbergh the criminal. Your observations and your articulation are right on the money, Lurp. For as long as I've been studying this case, there has been no shortage of these speculative little cottage industries, which seem to spring up wherever the ground seems fertile enough to support some kind of perceived moral standard objection towards Lindbergh's actions or statements and by necessity, how it then points to something far more sinister going on with him. It should also be remembered by those who routinely extrapolate Lindbergh's penchant for practical jokes and unusual social behaviour into a motive for the killing of his son through this kind of bias, that his genuine interest in helping the treatment of his sister-in-law's congenital heart disease, led to his collaboration with Carrel and development of the perfusion pump, a device that foreshadowed the heart-lung machine. Practical jokes and unusual social behaviour do not necessarily translate into a desire to kill, but the desire to apply scientifically-minded abilities towards the preservation of life, albeit this was a very personal cause, clearly demonstrates a desire to heal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2020 8:33:24 GMT -5
Michael, you asked me if I doubt that Lindbergh wouldn't get "rid" of his "defective" son. At this point Michael I do doubt that he was predisposed to getting rid of his son in the absolutely discusting manner that it occurred. This is not to even mention what he would have been doing to his wife. Anne has to live not only with losing her beloved first born son, but with the guilt of not protecting her son from such a horrid death. She would have to live her entire life with this tragedy and with the images in her mind of animals feasting on her son's remains. I maintain that if Lindbergh did this to his son and wife then he was an insane monster with few equals. And as you know, I don't believe his life supported such a vision of a monster. Another great post and I believe there's much to learn from the differences and debates that arise from our different perspectives. My first point is that due to all of the circumstances revealed in all three of my books, its not a stretch to say Lindbergh should be "suspected" in some way. For example, Governor Hoffman didn't not believe Lindbergh killed his own son. But he did believe Lindbergh knew more about what really happened. So again, its not a "black and white" situation when invoking his name. Problem is that there can be an immediate gag reflex to the suggestion so certain facts, points, and circumstances get shrugged off. So for those who do not believe Lindbergh was involved they take up a position to neutralize anything that even remotely could point in that direction because they do not like the implications. This is done instead of doing an unbiased good faith analysis of everything. I'm certainly not accusing you of this, but its a point I have to make. Next, I've found over my lifetime that anyone can use the word "speculation" just about anywhere in order to throw a wet blanket over any point. I could easily do it myself. For example, in your point above (and in a previous post) you mention the disgusting nature concerning how the body was killed and discarded. But you seem to ignore Lindbergh's treatment of the corpse in the morgue. For me his actions give us an example to draw from to apply elsewhere. Like I wrote earlier, we do have examples of conduct that need to be considered. Furthermore, this is the second time you've mentioned what Lindbergh would have been doing to his wife IF he was behind what happened to his son. That's speculative isn't it? A good husband, and moral person thinks this way so its natural to apply this norm to Lindbergh as well. And YET, look at what he did to Anne during their flight in 1930. I've mentioned it before, but you don't seem to factor this into your position. One could argue here that I am "speculating" however, Anne is the source. So one could argue Anne herself is speculating or mistaken as to what her husband was thinking or said. It's a slippery slope isn't it? And yet, the irresistible conclusion that Lindbergh would indeed subject his wife to whatever he believed was the right thing to do is quite obvious. Why? Because most good husbands and moral people would have immediately landed that plane upon seeing their pregnant wife in distress. Heck, they would have listened to their father-in-law or here's a thought ... would have protected her by not putting her in that situation in the first place. And this is just one example. You think Lindbergh lived with the stress of what he put her through? So its here that I believe your position is flawed. I see so much speculation here on the two critical things that either establish his motive and guilt or they dont: Did Lindbergh elevate his beliefs in the concepts of the 1932 American eugenics movement to the extreme concept of murdering physically/mentally deficient individuals? AND did young Charles at 20 months of age really have such a condition? Speculations can be useful in stimulating discussions on a topic, and subjective interpretations of facts are normal, but one has to be very careful that speculations are not used to substantiate claims. I would like to see more facts as to Lindbergh's alleged beliefs in eugenics that elevated them far beyond the beliefs of the AEM of 1932 (contempory writings/speeches that espouse his beliefs that permit killings in regards to eugenics, documented conversations with associates on this belief, etc.). One can speculate from his personality that "he could easily hold these beliefs" but that's not enough for me in regards to these serious allegations. For me, after reading so much about Eugenics and reading the words that people wrote or said that believed it, I've come to my own conclusion about the possibility once reviewing the mountains of information that I've accumulated over the years which concerns Lindbergh and the Kidnapping. So it's not based on blind speculation. One could certainly argue to the contrary, but looking for a smoking gun doesn't make sense if there's so much that indicates the possibility exists. That's the key word here. If its possible then of course it doesn't stand on its own but here it doesn't have to because there is so much more than that. Also in regards to the child's health, where are the facts (physcian reports, testing result reports, documented Lindbergh conversations with family/associates where he expressed concerns that his 20 month old son's health was so compromized that the child would not live a normal life, statements by family/friends that the child was in such bad health, etc.). The allegations in this theory are not referring to a cold or rickets, they allege that Lindbergh knew the child was seriously defective. From my point of view, if Lindbergh suspected or saw something he believed would harm his perceived position of strength he would not have been happy. We don't know exactly what was wrong with this child but its undeniable something was. So the word "serious" to us need not apply in my opinion, after all, "we" would have landed that plane in 1930 wouldn't we have? Anyway, I do happen to believe it was much more than a mild case of rickets. This is yet another point, it could be some of what occurred that was suspicious revolved around something else. Perhaps unrelated. Or perhaps related but not what we think. Just as the suggestion I made about Lindbergh's testimony that was at variance with the facts as it concerned Wahgoosh. Again, I'm not trying to limit the possibilities because other explanations could exist. It's when I look at everything as a whole it begins to become "too much" to explain away or shrug off. Michael, you state that the callous acts on Lindbergh's part during the period of March 1st through May 12th are not the normal acts of a concerned and loving father hence these acts are additional evidence that he would get rid of his son. I think this is speculation as one could also speculate that these acts were the result of the unfathomable stress Lindbergh would have been under if this was a true kidnapping. It could be speculated that his admittedly strange personality was coming out under heavy stress during the snatch of his son, ransom negotiations that failed to return his son, the awful manner in which the child's remains were discovered, and his failed attempts to locate his son. I would venture to say that if one were to run all of this by present day psychiatrists/psychologists they would all diagnose Lindbergh with severe PTSD. I just bring this up to point out that speculations can run the entire gamut of ideas on any given situation. I just can't see the evidentiary value of Lindbergh's callous acts. Here's the problem, the "callous" acts were the norm for Lindbergh. This was him and he never changed his behavior due to the crime. So yes, we would expect him to be under "unfathomable stress" but where are the indicators? You are pointing to strange behavior and attempting to explain it away. Think about the time Lindbergh had hidden the child in a closet, on two occasions prior, and pretended he had been kidnapped, what's the explanation for that behavior? How about, for example, when Gow proclaimed " Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched!" was this promise made because Lindbergh was suffering from PTSD? That's important because he told Cowe that every staff member should be considered a suspect to include himself. And yet, he prevented the lie detector from being used and made that promise to Gow. We literally have tons of facts and circumstances to consider. This includes Keaten, and Walsh telling others later in life they believed Lindbergh was involved. We have accounts of Troopers blaming Lindbergh for the lack of success in the case. We have Whateley and Elizabeth Morrow both saying it was an inside job. And this is just the beginning. And so, for me, I just can't ignore it all. I am still keeping what you so aptly called "an open mind" on everything, but I have to confess that this "Lindbergh involvement theory" sometimes appears to me to have alot of speculative bias against Lindbergh the man as opposed to factual evidence against Lindbergh the criminal. I'm keeping one too for sure. I look at Rail 16 as an example. It never made any sense until it did. But if I never pursued it and accepted what people wanted to believe the truth situation would have never been revealed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2020 8:35:45 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more Lurp, and refreshing that the focus here might someday possibly turn towards the one who was proven to be up to his eyeballs within this thing, yet swore to his God that he was totally innocent of any involvement. That in itself should be allowed to sink in for its own sake, period. We can walk and chew gum at the same time Joe. Start a thread about possible accomplices and I will certainly join in. No doubt Condon assisted in obtaining the ransom, and I think we both suspect Mueller as helping with the laundering.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2020 10:05:26 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more Lurp, and refreshing that the focus here might someday possibly turn towards the one who was proven to be up to his eyeballs within this thing, yet swore to his God that he was totally innocent of any involvement. That in itself should be allowed to sink in for its own sake, period. We can walk and chew gum at the same time Joe. Start a thread about possible accomplices and I will certainly join in. No doubt Condon assisted in obtaining the ransom, and I think we both suspect Mueller as helping with the laundering. Yes, I feel pretty good about Mueller having had knowledge of and participating in the the laundering, and I'm sure there was much more relevant information that could have been shared by those in Hauptmann's direct circle of friends and acquaintances. Depends what you mean by Condon assisting in obtaining the ransom. Yes, he was helping Lindbergh to ensure the money got to the extortionists, but it was he who spoke out against paying the money without some assurance the baby was safe and would be returned in exchange. Lindbergh and Breckinridge were more responsible for the failure in securing the child than Condon was. I don't believe Condon ever waivered in his desire to have the child returned or could possibly have been considered an accomplice of the kidnappers/extortionists. The key is finding a criminally-associated connection between Lindbergh and Hauptmann, which I also believe does not exist.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2020 10:37:24 GMT -5
Michael, are you referring to Bornmann's March 3rd and 9th reports where he talks about him and DeGaetano following prints made by rubber boots or overshoes along the abandoned road and onwards to the chicken coops and road? I know this from Gardner's footnotes (no pun there) but is there also a reference within either of those reports (or another report) to the trail of footprints alongside of and heading towards the back of the house, which were later attributed to Anne? I don't recall ever having seen such a reference, so can you quote it from the report you have in front of you? I think you know by now that I have sources most people do not. Heck, I have so many that I tend to forget about them over time. Someone asked me about something about a month ago and I was like " where'd you hear that?" and the answer was " your book." So I had to go back and re-read my own book to refresh my memory about it, referred to the footnote, then went to my files to look it up. By the way, if anyone needs V1 they might want to buy it now because it "looks" like they are going to breach so the relationship with the publisher will probably terminate. It will probably be on Ebay used for a while after but who knows? Not me at this point. When asked whether or not Bornmann asked Gow, Lindbergh, or "others" if they could have been the source for the footprints in the nursery this was Bornmann's reponse: " It would have been impossible. Mrs. Lindbergh had been out in the afternoon, I believe, but she had worn rubbers at the time." Womens' rubbers of the 1930's don't necessarily mean they would have had relatively flat indistinct soles, as seen in the one eBay photo you posted. Most rubbers and galoshes from that time period, had some level of a cuban or military style heel, and there is a host of those also shown in Google images. In any case, there are few hard and fast conclusions that can be made about how the kidnappers were able to accomplish what they had to have done, while leaving such little evidence behind in the ground alongside the house, other than to point out the abysmally-limited degree and quality of reporting of the actual and specific ground conditions alongside the house on the evening of the kidnapping.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 17, 2020 12:36:13 GMT -5
Quotation from John Douglas, the expert on criminal profiling, from his work on the Lindbergh kidnapping: ". . .Lindbergh raised some eyebrows by his seemingly overly stoic reaction to Charlie's abduction. He was so unemotional, it was said, that either (a) he did not really love his son in the normal human ways, or (b) that he had to have had something to do with the crime. The rumors began to resurface about the little boy being somehow defective, either mentally or physically, and that the perfectionist colonel couldn't deal with this. . . .there was absolutely no remotely creditable evidence to suggest that anything was abnormal about the child. But more to the point, I have seen enough parents in times of terrible distress to know that emotional reaction to such horror is very individual. Some people let the floodgates open up; others maintain a quiet and icy control. Most are somewhere in the middle. But no reaction is "right" or "wrong." Everyone who faces what must be the worst thing that can happen to a person copes as he or she must."
Douglas goes on to quote John Walsh on this subject: "Walsh, whose career as a pursuer of predators had its origins with the horrible murder of his young son Adam, put it succinctly--'Who are any of us to say how a person is supposed to react to something like this?'
Not everyone then reacts to the sudden death of a child in the same way as another. The way you think you would react is not necessarily the way someone else would react. There are no social rules or definitions of what is "normal" in these circumstances, and neither do you really know how you would react unless it was something that actually happened to you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2020 14:44:37 GMT -5
Womens' rubbers of the 1930's don't necessarily mean they would have had relatively flat indistinct soles, as seen in the one eBay photo you posted. Most rubbers and galoshes from that time period, had some level of a cuban or military style heel, and there is a host of those also shown in Google images. In any case, there are few hard and fast conclusions that can be made about how the kidnappers were able to accomplish what they had to have done, while leaving such little evidence behind in the ground alongside the house, other than to point out the abysmally-limited degree and quality of reporting of the actual and specific ground conditions alongside the house on the evening of the kidnapping. Just as I had predicted... And so, despite no one seeing a heel print, you now have her wearing military style rubbers with heels. The ground was muddy. The ground bore footprints of anyone who walked there. How do we know? Because there are prints in those places you say would not yield them. These were later accepted to have been made by Anne earlier in the day. How much did Anne weigh? How much did the kidnappers carrying a ladder, among other things, weigh? So inventing "heels" as an explanation does not fly. That ground was muddy and would leave evidence if someone walked there - period.
|
|