Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 12:56:12 GMT -5
1. Was the child's body buried at this predetermined site on Mt Rose Hill on March 1st with the intentions that it would stay there for "eternity" and hopefully never be found, a la John Gotti? No, I don't think so. It was always part of the agreed upon plan that the child's body would be placed to be discovered. I do believe the location where the body was held was meant to be temporary and not permanent. Just for the record, I hesitate to call the perpetrators Lindbergh's accomplices. I do not believe CAL had any personal connection with the kidnappers. The hiring of the kidnappers was contracted by someone else for Lindbergh. The person I would consider to hold accomplice status with Lindbergh is Betty Gow whose inside assistance was needed in prepping Charlie for removal and then wiping down that nursery and the windows and shutters, especially the southeast window. I do not believe that Lindbergh demanded the return of the body by the kidnappers. It was part of the contracted plan to do so. What I think happened was the kidnappers, knowing they would hold excellent bargaining chips - the body of Charlie and the knowledge of who hired them and why they were hired - diverted from the original plan and decided they would collect the $50,000 dollars. This monetary figure was in the note to portray Charlie's disappearance as a kidnapping done by outsiders only. Charlie's body would ultimately be returned but not until Lindbergh paid the additional money. Had Lindbergh thought to open the note in the nursery first before contacting the police, like any parent would have absolutely done in a real kidnapping situation when they find their young child missing from its crib and a note in the room, CAL would have immediately realized by that symbol, the plan had been changed. The hired perpetrators now intended to collect that $50,000 from him. I do consider a possible deliberate placement of the body in that location for several reasons. 1. It was an area that people did apparently visit at times to dump trash and other items they wanted to discard. This raises the odds that someone would eventually come upon those remains in that place. 2. The body being in a face down position in an attempt to try to preserve what was left of the facial features long enough for the corpse to be identified as Charlie. This is what happened as the body was flipped over and compared to a picture of Charlie as a temporary identification of the corpse. Betty Gow would go on to confirm the clothing found on the corpse as being on Charlie the night he was taken. I see no reason why animal activity would not have taken place once the body was on the surface of the ground. Animals would have been attracted to it. I think this explains why a part of the left leg was missing and also the right forearm. There was also animal hairs recovered at the gravesite that confirm this activity. This is also a possibility to consider did occur. I do think the kidnappers wanted the child discovered. This would appear to be the quickest way to accomplish that. As a possibility to support this did happen, I offer an odd condition that existed on the burlap bag. There was a hole near the bottom of the bag. A number of years ago I asked about this hole because it is not mentioned in the Squibb report. In the response to my question, I was told this hole was noted by Forensic Chemist Alan Lane when he did his review of the case evidence in 1977. Lane noted that this hole was made by a sharp instrument. Not knowing the who or why of it, I have wondered if this bag could have been cut before it was dumped along the roadside in order reveal to whoever stopped to check out this bag that there was a body in that bag. With the existence of such a hole, animals would have quickly been drawn to the bag dragging it into the Mount Rose Hill woods where William Allen did end up finding it. I have tried to answer your questions the best I am capable of. Much of my responses to you are based on theory positions I consider in this case. This is not an attempt to change anyone's minds about any aspect of this case. This is just my "two cents worth" for whatever it may be worth. I agree - sometimes it is necessary to "put on the brakes" when examining a case. Very sound advice!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2020 10:36:35 GMT -5
1. Was the child's body buried at this predetermined site on Mt Rose Hill on March 1st with the intentions that it would stay there for "eternity" and hopefully never be found, a la John Gotti? No, I don't think so. It was always part of the agreed upon plan that the child's body would be placed to be discovered. I do believe the location where the body was held was meant to be temporary and not permanent. You're suggesting Lindbergh specifically didn't ask for a return of the body, but that it was part of the between the contractor and kidnappers/extortionists? Do you have anyone even close to a contractor suspect here, and where do you feel Henry Breckinridge fits in here, if at all? (Joe)
Just for the record, I hesitate to call the perpetrators Lindbergh's accomplices. I do not believe CAL had any personal connection with the kidnappers. The hiring of the kidnappers was contracted by someone else for Lindbergh. The person I would consider to hold accomplice status with Lindbergh is Betty Gow whose inside assistance was needed in prepping Charlie for removal and then wiping down that nursery and the windows and shutters, especially the southeast window. Neither Betty or anyone else in that household, would have agreed to be part of such a plan, nor would they have been able to hold up emotionally and physically during the investigation, the trial and aftermath. (Joe) I do not believe that Lindbergh demanded the return of the body by the kidnappers. It was part of the contracted plan to do so. What I think happened was the kidnappers, knowing they would hold excellent bargaining chips - the body of Charlie and the knowledge of who hired them and why they were hired - diverted from the original plan and decided they would collect the $50,000 dollars. This monetary figure was in the note to portray Charlie's disappearance as a kidnapping done by outsiders only. Charlie's body would ultimately be returned but not until Lindbergh paid the additional money. Are you implying Lindbergh was powerful enough to be able to solicit someone he knew, explain the situation with CALjr, and then sit back and wait for the the plan to be hatched and carried out? If so, then it's not unreasonable to believe he was also powerful and influential enough to have acted very swiftly after being "unfairly" stiffed for 50K by rogue operators and that there probably would have been a few other bodies showing up along a roadside, or just disappearing period. Instead, one of the guys you have essentially painted as a prime operative, Richard Hauptmann, who accounts for the vast majority of the 50K, was basically living his dream for over two-and-a-half years in the Bronx, seemingly without a care in the world about his own safety. How does a ruthless rogue operative like him, get off so easily? (Joe)
Had Lindbergh thought to open the note in the nursery first before contacting the police, like any parent would have absolutely done in a real kidnapping situation when they find their young child missing from its crib and a note in the room, CAL would have immediately realized by that symbol, the plan had been changed. The hired perpetrators now intended to collect that $50,000 from him. You're painting every parent as someone whom you think would have done exactly as you would have. True crime doesn't always work that way. Of course Lindbergh rationalized it was a ransom note, but I believe he chose to act in a way that didn't compromise this physical evidence. His first reaction was to grab a gun and try to intervene if the perpetrators were still on site. Failing to find them, what value would there be in opening the ransom note before the police, whom he had already notified, arrived? And the very fact he did notify the police right away, tells me he had not been expecting any of this. (Joe)I do consider a possible deliberate placement of the body in that location for several reasons. 1. It was an area that people did apparently visit at times to dump trash and other items they wanted to discard. This raises the odds that someone would eventually come upon those remains in that place. 2. The body being in a face down position in an attempt to try to preserve what was left of the facial features long enough for the corpse to be identified as Charlie. This is what happened as the body was flipped over and compared to a picture of Charlie as a temporary identification of the corpse. Betty Gow would go on to confirm the clothing found on the corpse as being on Charlie the night he was taken. I see no reason why animal activity would not have taken place once the body was on the surface of the ground. Animals would have been attracted to it. I think this explains why a part of the left leg was missing and also the right forearm. There was also animal hairs recovered at the gravesite that confirm this activity. I'd venture the body was originally buried relatively close to Mount Rose Hill and then "returned to the Lindberghs," by a very sick individual. (Joe)
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2020 12:44:06 GMT -5
Thanks Amy for responding to my questions regarding the LKC theory that you are examining. These were just a few questions that immediately came to mind in my attempt to understand this theory that implicates Lindbergh in the disappearance of Charlie. Your answers (as always) were direct and definitely thought out. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, (as with Joe) this theory for me always creates more questions than answers, but I won't bother you with more questions at this time. I will continue to monitor the forum in an effort to get "more enlighted" on this.
When I utilized the words "Lindbergh's accomplices" in my question to you, I was thinking in terms of co-conspirators. If I am correctly understanding this theory that implicates Lindbergh in the disappearance of his son, then, of course, legally Lindbergh and ALL others who became involved in the disapperance are are accomplices and guilty of the conspiracy statutes. Legally all that is required under federal law and most State laws to sustain a conviction on conspiracy is to show an agreement among two or more individuals to commit a felony, and that at least one overt act in furthance of that agreement occurs. The "agreed upon plan" and "contracted plan" that you refer to in your post would be more than enough to suffice for the agreement element of the crime of conspiracy. Again, this theory seems to be suggesting that Lindbergh initiated the idea of removing his child from his life and then turned it over to an individual for execution. This individual then hired the "workers' to carry it out. Under the conspiracy statutes it is not necessary to prove that all the accomplices ever actually met or knew each others' identities. The agreement and overt acts are the keys. Lindbergh would have been up to his neck with all the others in being charged with conspiracy to commit a kidnapping and even felony murder.
I do have a copy of the photo you posted of the burlap bag. I was examining it when I was attempting to make some sense out of the Squibb Report. I did notice the rip/tear on the bag and wondered what the other side looked like. I was wondering if this tear was additional evidence of animal contact with the bag (not just animal contact with the child's remains). It was interesting what Forensic Chemist Lane said about this in his1977 comments. The burlap bag in the photo was certainly not in pristine condition. It had definitely seen better days!
Thanks again Amy for your post and for outlining some of your thoughts on this theory. I will continue to look at these theories that place Lindbergh as the instigator of this crime. For the moment I remain with the idea that this was a real kidnapping and the kidnapper(s) had no intentions of ever returning the child's remains once it was deceased (intentionally or accidently). It would take one crazed minded individual to possess and transport the child's remains in the Hopewell area in April when law enforcement agencies were still searching for it. Even in the theory that you are examing I don't know why anyone would be motivated to take the chance of being discovered in possession of the chid's remains and thereby face a certain date with the electic chair.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 21, 2020 18:58:19 GMT -5
Just wanted to add that on one of the documentaries a few years ago they interviewed Dr. Lauren Schwartz, a pediatric surgeon who looked at the autopsy report and photos. Her opinion was clear that the removal of organs was done by humans and not animals. She found the particular organs that were removed were done so in a manner that is consistent with surgical removal. An animal, even if it didn't want to eat that a particular organ, would likely remove the more superficial organs to get to the deeper ones they wanted to eat. Instead the heart appeared to be left fully in tact.
Her opinion appeared to be the organs that were removed were the ones most likely to be abnormal, in conjunction with the macrocephaly (or large head).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2020 9:54:23 GMT -5
Hi I love DFW If your criticism about the photo is that the kid is too big to be Charlie, Charlie was 33 inches tall at the time he disappeared. He *was* a big boy. That's why we did the research on the tricycle so people could get a good picture of how tall Charlie actually was. Whether people believe the boy is Charlie or not, is up for debate. We can't prove for sure, all we can do is share the resources we have and the information we have from people who should know if it was Charlie or not, ie the archivist of the Hoage collection and Hoage's wife who sent a letter with the photo when it was donated to the collection. But if the tricycle is the kind it appears to be, which is why we include the link to the catalog of that trike, the kid in the photo not only looked like Charlie, but was almost exactly the same height as Charlie was around the time he disappeared. Hi Jamie, my book is still enroute, but I'd like to comment on the child on the tricycle that's been posted. From Ronelle's Zoom interview I believe you mentioned the tricycle itself looks like a Colson Fairy, circa 1930's and from what I've seen, I would agree. In general, the children appear to be dressed in the style of the 1930's or perhaps even a bit later. I wanted to point out that if the front wheel is actually 16", which seems likely, there is a major issue in identifying that child as Charles Lindbergh Jr. If as you suggest, the photo was taken in January or February 1932, when Charlie would have been 18 or 19 months old and perhaps about 31-32 inches in height, then I believe it's highly unlikely for this child to have been him. Based on relative scale between child and tricycle as well as the other children in the photo, this child appears to be in the neighbourhood of 40 inches or more and also appears to be much older than Charlie. He is definitely well beyond the toddler stage in development. There is no question that the facial features resemble those of Charlie, but I'm wondering if this might have been another one of the younger Lindbergh boys, perhaps Land or Scott. I believe Jon's hair would have been darker at this particular stage in development. I'll do some further checking, and perhaps some additional family photos should be reviewed to determine just who this child was.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2020 10:47:17 GMT -5
There is no question that the facial features resemble those of Charlie, but I'm wondering if this might have been another one of the younger Lindbergh boys, perhaps Land or Scott. I believe Jon's hair would have been darker at this particular stage in development. I'll do some further checking, and perhaps some additional family photos should be reviewed to determine just who this child was. I really don't want to beat a dead horse but for me not to say something again here would be wrong. Judge Pearlman has a legitimate source for this: The Archivist at UCLA. So regardless I believe one can see why she wrote about it in this context. Furthermore, she plainly writes that it is in dispute. This, as I've written earlier, is important because I do not believe most authors being "one-sided" would have ever done such a thing. Now as Ronelle said in her Zoom interview, whether it is or it isn't there's something to be learned from its inclusion in the book. Now, having said that, this is a picture of a child that was living somewhere on Long Island. The picture was sent in claiming it might be CJr. There's a letter about it along with a picture (or copy of one) at the NJSP Archives. I know I've copied a lot but when it came to these types of letters there were just too many. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think one of these children would actually be accepted as the actual child by an Archivist so I focused on documenting the "famous" among those claims. This would include HRO, Kerwin, Campos, Neilson, Staser, Rittenhouse, Husted, Dolphin, Altis, etc. So to copy everything involving others no one knew about and were immediately ruled out didn't make any sense to me. I do have something to prove what I am saying but I find it to be more of a distraction away from the book than anything else. They think its "him" because of their source. And their source is worthy and some might even say better than I am. So that's where we are on this.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 22, 2020 10:57:25 GMT -5
There is no question that the facial features resemble those of Charlie, but I'm wondering if this might have been another one of the younger Lindbergh boys, perhaps Land or Scott. I believe Jon's hair would have been darker at this particular stage in development. I'll do some further checking, and perhaps some additional family photos should be reviewed to determine just who this child was. I really don't want to beat a dead horse but for me not to say something again here would be wrong. Judge Pearlman has a legitimate source for this: The Archivist at UCLA. So regardless I believe one can see why she wrote about it in this context. Furthermore, she plainly writes that it is in dispute. This, as I've written earlier, is important because I do not believe most authors being "one-sided" would have ever done such a thing. Now as Ronelle said in her Zoom interview, whether it is or it isn't there's something to be learned from its inclusion in the book. Now, having said that, this is a picture of a child that was living somewhere on Long Island. The picture was sent in claiming it might be CJr. There's a letter about it along with a picture (or copy of one) at the NJSP Archives. I know I've copied a lot but when it came to these types of letters there were just too many. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think one of these children would actually be accepted as the actual child by an Archivist so I focused on documenting the "famous" among those claims. This would include HRO, Kerwin, Campos, Neilson, Staser, Rittenhouse, Husted, Dolphin, Altis, etc. So to copy everything involving others no one knew about and were immediately ruled out didn't make any sense to me. I do have something to prove what I am saying but I find it to be more of a distraction away from the book than anything else. They think its "him" because of their source. And their source is worthy and some might even say better than I am. So that's where we are on this. If this picture was sent to the police from Long Island after the kidnapping to help find Charlie, as many pictures were, it couldn't be Charlie because Charlie was kidnapped and dead by then. And the boy's leg from the knee down is longer than those of the girl standing next to him, and she's no toddler. It can't possibly be Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2020 11:04:06 GMT -5
If this picture was sent to the police from Long Island after the kidnapping to help find Charlie, as many pictures were, it couldn't be Charlie because Charlie was kidnapped and dead by then. And the boy's leg from the knee down is longer than those of the girl standing next to him, and she's no toddler. It can't possibly be Charlie. It's not him. It's a random child who someone thought looked like him. There's quite a few of these scattered throughout the NJSP Archives. As I recall its in Hoffman's correspondence files but it could be in any of the other correspondence, as well as attached to a report. If that's the case it could be just about anywhere. Ho-age wound up with a lot of material given to him by the Governor. Frankly, I've always believed this stuff (i.e. pictures, ladder nails, etc.) belongs to NJ, but I'm sure he kept what he did with permission of the Governor. I just don't know if the Governor had that authority to allow him to keep it. The same happened with many of the investigators walking away with souvenirs of the case as well. Some were returned in the 80s but there's no doubt some were not. This is just an example of the information I learned from the Archives over the years. If one doesn't plan on visiting its useless trivia. I'm one of those guys with "too much time on their hands" that Doherty refers to in his new book (page 241). Unfortunately, when someone says something like that it usually means "they" themselves do not have enough time on theirs.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 22, 2020 12:26:42 GMT -5
Hi I love DFW If your criticism about the photo is that the kid is too big to be Charlie, Charlie was 33 inches tall at the time he disappeared. He *was* a big boy. That's why we did the research on the tricycle so people could get a good picture of how tall Charlie actually was. Whether people believe the boy is Charlie or not, is up for debate. We can't prove for sure, all we can do is share the resources we have and the information we have from people who should know if it was Charlie or not, ie the archivist of the Hoage collection and Hoage's wife who sent a letter with the photo when it was donated to the collection. But if the tricycle is the kind it appears to be, which is why we include the link to the catalog of that trike, the kid in the photo not only looked like Charlie, but was almost exactly the same height as Charlie was around the time he disappeared. Hi Jamie, my book is still enroute, but I'd like to comment on the child on the tricycle that's been posted. From Ronelle's Zoom interview I believe you mentioned the tricycle itself looks like a Colson Fairy, circa 1930's and from what I've seen, I would agree. In general, the children appear to be dressed in the style of the 1930's or perhaps even a bit later. I wanted to point out that if the front wheel is actually 16", which seems likely, there is a major issue in identifying that child as Charles Lindbergh Jr. If as you suggest, the photo was taken in January or February 1932, when Charlie would have been 18 or 19 months old and perhaps about 31-32 inches in height, then I believe it's highly unlikely for this child to have been him. Based on relative scale between child and tricycle as well as the other children in the photo, this child appears to be in the neighbourhood of 40 inches or more and also appears to be much older than Charlie. He is definitely well beyond the toddler stage in development. There is no question that the facial features resemble those of Charlie, but I'm wondering if this might have been another one of the younger Lindbergh boys, perhaps Land or Scott. I believe Jon's hair would have been darker at this particular stage in development. I'll do some further checking, and perhaps some additional family photos should be reviewed to determine just who this child was. Hi Joe When my mom first showed me the photo, I thought it was way too big to be Charlie. But then when I found the catalog of the Colson Fairy and it stated that the front wheel was 16 inches and the back wheel was 10 inches I decide to see what I could do to rule out the possibility that it *could* have been Charlie. So I copied the photo onto a word document, added different colored lines to get the comparative measures of the diameter and radius of both wheels in the photo, and then I found that Charlie's bottom foot was approximately the radius of the smaller wheel (5 inches raised off the ground) and that the top of the boy's head was approx 2x the diameter of the bigger wheel (16 inches) + the radius of smaller wheel (5 inches). So here's the equation I came up with: Boy's approximate height = 2x(16) + 5 - 5 = approximately 32 inches. I also tried to account for the fact that the boy's hair in the photo is taller than his head and that his lower leg isn't fully extended, so I added an extra inch or so to account for that. If you want to try it out yourself by using different colored lines for the radius and diameter of the wheels I would love to see what you come up with for approximate height. Just an update for everyone, thank you for your concern. I have pushed back my temporary relocation to next month. Too many balls in the air with my college classes, and home-schooling, parenting and work to rush it. I will post more responses to all of your questions that I haven't had time to respond to in the coming weeks, hopefully. Oh one more thing. My mom took a digital photo of both sides of this photo when she went to the UCLA archive. On the back there appears to be faded pencil writing that says "January 32" and "Love E." We're waiting for an expert to confirm if possible since we don't have UV technology or super microscope, which is why we didn't reference this part in the book. "E." was an informal nickname that Anne's sister Elizabeth used in corresponding with family. Elizabeth was also a co-director of the Little School in the Fall of 1931 - Early 1932 when Charlie attended off and on so she may have been the one who took the photo, if it is Charlie. We're waiting for an expert to confirm, if possible, since we don't have UV technology or highpowered microscope, which is why we didn't reference this part in the book. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 22, 2020 12:55:18 GMT -5
As usual Michael's extensive (and years) of research on this case has answered this question. As an aside, I asked my wife (who has no knowledge or interest in the LKC) to look at this photo and tell me the age of the child on the tricycle. She said probably 5, maybe a bit older. I asked her if the child could be 20 months old and she just laughed. She taught first graders for a number of years, Always trust a woman on these things.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 22, 2020 12:55:49 GMT -5
If you took that boy off his bike and stood him next to the girl standing next to him, who's clearly not a toddler, he'd be towering over her. It's not Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2020 13:37:20 GMT -5
Just wanted to add that on one of the documentaries a few years ago they interviewed Dr. Lauren Schwartz, a pediatric surgeon who looked at the autopsy report and photos. Her opinion was clear that the removal of organs was done by humans and not animals. She found the particular organs that were removed were done so in a manner that is consistent with surgical removal. An animal, even if it didn't want to eat that a particular organ, would likely remove the more superficial organs to get to the deeper ones they wanted to eat. Instead the heart appeared to be left fully in tact. Her opinion appeared to be the organs that were removed were the ones most likely to be abnormal, in conjunction with the macrocephaly (or large head). Do you recall the documentary? I don't think I've seen it and would be interested to.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 22, 2020 13:44:07 GMT -5
As usual Michael's extensive (and years) of research on this case has answered this question. As an aside, I asked my wife (who has no knowledge or interest in the LKC) to look at this photo and tell me the age of the child on the tricycle. She said probably 5, maybe a bit older. I asked her if the child could be 20 months old and she just laughed. She taught first graders for a number of years, Always trust a woman on these things. Lurp, Thank you for your input and your wife's input. I agree with you that at first glance the boy looks way beyond toddler stage. This is why I find it so hard to believe that the Governor's personal investigator Hoag would believe it was Charlie if he didn't have verification from someone who knew (ie Charlie's grandmother, Dr. Vaningen, Charlie's pre-school teacher Connie Chilton, etc.) what Charlie looked like at the time, considering the poster had way outdated photographs and measurements. My question is did you or Michael ever see the back of the photo where there appears to be faded writing that says "January 32" "Love E."? Did you or Michael ever see the letter that Hoag's wife sent when she donated the photo to the collection that said it was the "Lindbergh boy" and should be added to her husband's collection on the case? There are so many things people have had to assume about this case based on what makes sense to them from the information they have access to, much of it conflicting. But when you add the evidence that exists, including the fact that Aida Breckinridge, a family friend who saw Charlie just a few days before he disappeared, commented in a personal statement to the family that Charlie looked "older than two and a half"; that Dr. VanIngen commented he was very large and physically developed for his age; that Charlie's pre-school teacher commented he had very good muscular coordination; that Charlie was familiar with tricycles because one is shown in his room in the crime scene photos; that the approximate height of the boy in the photo compared to the known height of the wheels fits with what we know about Charlie's actual height at the time; and that the unique hair is very similar to the unique hair of the photo that was printed in multiple papers identifying a child who looks way older than 20 months as what Charlie looked like the day he disappeared; it seems much more likely to me that the photo is Charlie than it isn't, as hard as that is to believe. My mom doesn't claim that it is definitively Charlie, she just includes the supporting evidence that suggests that it could be, and was identified as Charlie by people who should know. One more thing. The photos in multiple papers of that much older looking child (the head shots with long curly hair and short hair, not the tricycle photo) were never publicly refuted by the family, which gives more supporting evidence that Charlie really did look much more mature than a typical 20 month old.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2020 14:06:07 GMT -5
As usual Michael's extensive (and years) of research on this case has answered this question. As an aside, I asked my wife (who has no knowledge or interest in the LKC) to look at this photo and tell me the age of the child on the tricycle. She said probably 5, maybe a bit older. I asked her if the child could be 20 months old and she just laughed. She taught first graders for a number of years, Always trust a woman on these things. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Some may not have the same level in me as you do and that's definitely okay - I'm not perfect and Chapter 1 in both V2 & V3 wouldn't have been necessary if I was. Anyway, like I wrote, one can clearly see why Jamie or anyone else would expect the Archivist to have the correct information. Did you or Michael ever see the letter that Hoag's wife sent when she donated the photo to the collection that said it was the "Lindbergh boy" and should be added to her husband's collection on the case? There are so many things people have had to assume about this case based on what makes sense to them from the information they have access to, much of it conflicting. Although I have most everything at UCLA, I do not have that letter. I also understand why his wife would believe what she did when turning it over.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 22, 2020 14:30:11 GMT -5
As usual Michael's extensive (and years) of research on this case has answered this question. As an aside, I asked my wife (who has no knowledge or interest in the LKC) to look at this photo and tell me the age of the child on the tricycle. She said probably 5, maybe a bit older. I asked her if the child could be 20 months old and she just laughed. She taught first graders for a number of years, Always trust a woman on these things. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Some may not have the same level in me as you do and that's definitely okay - I'm not perfect and Chapter 1 in both V2 & V3 wouldn't have been necessary if I was. Anyway, like I wrote, one can clearly see why Jamie or anyone else would expect the Archivist to have the correct information. Did you or Michael ever see the letter that Hoag's wife sent when she donated the photo to the collection that said it was the "Lindbergh boy" and should be added to her husband's collection on the case? There are so many things people have had to assume about this case based on what makes sense to them from the information they have access to, much of it conflicting. Although I have most everything at UCLA, I do not have that letter. I also understand why his wife would believe what she did when turning it over. How on earth did this overly tall for his age child fit into a No. 2 Dr. Denton's? The Lindberghs and Mrs. Morrow had enough money to buy him clothes that would have fit him comfortably night and day. The boy in the photo is not Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 22, 2020 17:37:57 GMT -5
Jamie. I respect your research, and not to belabor this point, but do you really think that the one year old Charlie (in the attached photo) became the child on the tricycle in less than 8 months? Our eyes don't always reveal the truth, but they usually do a pretty good job. Hopefully the photo I am attempting to attach comes through.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 22, 2020 18:19:07 GMT -5
Jamie. I respect your research, and not to belabor this point, but do you really think that the one year old Charlie (in the attached photo) became the child on the tricycle in less than 8 months? Our eyes don't always reveal the truth, but they usually do a pretty good job. Hopefully the photo I am attempting to attach comes through. View AttachmentI do. Not because of first glance but because the kid on the trike looks a lot like the kid who was identified in multiple mainstream papers as being Charlie at the time he disappeared. And because the approximate height compared to the height of the wheels fits in general range for Charlie's height at time he disappeared. If you have a subscription to newspapers.com, the article is "Eaglet May Be Disguised". These photos show a much older looking child and appeared in multiple papers 2nd week of March 1932. These much more mature looking photos were never publicly refuted by the Lindberghs, and were analyzed by a forensic expert who said this is what she would expect Charlie to look like as a 20 month old based on the unusual hair pattern and specific shape of his eyes among other things.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 22, 2020 18:26:43 GMT -5
Jamie. I respect your research, and not to belabor this point, but do you really think that the one year old Charlie (in the attached photo) became the child on the tricycle in less than 8 months? Our eyes don't always reveal the truth, but they usually do a pretty good job. Hopefully the photo I am attempting to attach comes through. View AttachmentI do. Not because of first glance but because the kid on the trike looks a lot like the kid who was identified in multiple mainstream papers as being Charlie at the time he disappeared. And because the approximate height compared to the height of the wheels fits in general range for Charlie's height at time he disappeared. If you have a subscription to newspapers.com, the article is "Eaglet May Be Disguised". These photos show a much older looking child and appeared in multiple papers 2nd week of March 1932. These much more mature looking photos were never publicly refuted by the Lindberghs, and were analyzed by a forensic expert who said this is what she would expect Charlie to look like as a 20 month old based on the unusual hair pattern and specific shape of his eyes among other things. I want to clarify that there's no way for me to know definitively at this point that this is Charlie, but speaking for myself and not my mom or the book, I believe the evidence strongly supports the possibility that it is Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 22, 2020 18:34:34 GMT -5
So the back of the picture indicates the date "January 1932." This scene does not depict winter in New York State. The child is not dressed for cold weather and would hardly be on a tricycle at that time. Charlie would have been one and one-half years of age in Jan. 1932. The child on the trike is obviously much older than that.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 22, 2020 19:05:18 GMT -5
So the back of the picture indicates the date "January 1932." This scene does not depict winter in New York State. The child is not dressed for cold weather and would hardly be on a tricycle at that time. Charlie would have been one and one-half years of age in Jan. 1932. The child on the trike is obviously much older than that. Right. It's not Charlie. Those shoes on that child are a preschooler's.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 22, 2020 19:09:37 GMT -5
I do. Not because of first glance but because the kid on the trike looks a lot like the kid who was identified in multiple mainstream papers as being Charlie at the time he disappeared. And because the approximate height compared to the height of the wheels fits in general range for Charlie's height at time he disappeared. If you have a subscription to newspapers.com, the article is "Eaglet May Be Disguised". These photos show a much older looking child and appeared in multiple papers 2nd week of March 1932. These much more mature looking photos were never publicly refuted by the Lindberghs, and were analyzed by a forensic expert who said this is what she would expect Charlie to look like as a 20 month old based on the unusual hair pattern and specific shape of his eyes among other things. I want to clarify that there's no way for me to know definitively at this point that this is Charlie, but speaking for myself and not my mom or the book, I believe the evidence strongly supports the possibility that it is Charlie. The evidence strongly contradicts the possibility that this child is Charlie. Plain and simple. And the facial features of the child on the bike do not point to Marfan syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 22, 2020 21:03:53 GMT -5
As usual Michael's extensive (and years) of research on this case has answered this question. As an aside, I asked my wife (who has no knowledge or interest in the LKC) to look at this photo and tell me the age of the child on the tricycle. She said probably 5, maybe a bit older. I asked her if the child could be 20 months old and she just laughed. She taught first graders for a number of years, Always trust a woman on these things. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Some may not have the same level in me as you do and that's definitely okay - I'm not perfect and Chapter 1 in both V2 & V3 wouldn't have been necessary if I was. Anyway, like I wrote, one can clearly see why Jamie or anyone else would expect the Archivist to have the correct information. Did you or Michael ever see the letter that Hoag's wife sent when she donated the photo to the collection that said it was the "Lindbergh boy" and should be added to her husband's collection on the case? There are so many things people have had to assume about this case based on what makes sense to them from the information they have access to, much of it conflicting. Although I have most everything at UCLA, I do not have that letter. I also understand why his wife would believe what she did when turning it over. Thanks Michael. I understand where you're coming from, too. Personally, again speaking for myself and not my mother or the book, I wouldn't have believed it could be Charlie if I hadn't seen the photos in the newspaper the second week of March showing a much older looking kid that was identified as Charlie at the time he disappeared and never refuted by the parents. Having a forensic artist say that the older boy looks like Charlie would look at 20 months based on the unique hair pattern and shape of the eye area also helped convince me that it could be Charlie. To me, the kid on the tricycle looks a lot like the kid with long curly hair in the article "Eaglet May Be Disguised" which appeared in multiple papers from March 9 - March 11. (www.newspapers.com) And if it is a Colson Fairy tricycle, the comparative measurements I made don't rule out the possibility it could be Charlie. If you or anyone else on this board want to test it out for yourself, please go ahead. I would like to know what estimated measurements you all get for the boy in the photo if you draw a straight line from the top of his forehead (not hair) to the bottom of his foot (which is raised off the ground) and compare that to the height of the front wheel. According to the Colson Fairy Catalogue, their most popular model had a 16 inch front wheel and 10 inch back wheel.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 22, 2020 23:03:48 GMT -5
Just wanted to add that on one of the documentaries a few years ago they interviewed Dr. Lauren Schwartz, a pediatric surgeon who looked at the autopsy report and photos. Her opinion was clear that the removal of organs was done by humans and not animals. She found the particular organs that were removed were done so in a manner that is consistent with surgical removal. An animal, even if it didn't want to eat that a particular organ, would likely remove the more superficial organs to get to the deeper ones they wanted to eat. Instead the heart appeared to be left fully in tact. Her opinion appeared to be the organs that were removed were the ones most likely to be abnormal, in conjunction with the macrocephaly (or large head). Do you recall the documentary? I don't think I've seen it and would be interested to. Chasing Conspiracies from 2016. Episode titled "The Vanished."
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 23, 2020 7:08:44 GMT -5
So the back of the picture indicates the date "January 1932." This scene does not depict winter in New York State. The child is not dressed for cold weather and would hardly be on a tricycle at that time. Charlie would have been one and one-half years of age in Jan. 1932. The child on the trike is obviously much older than that. Hi Aaron If you look at the older girl on the left, she is wearing an overcoat as one would expect in cold weather. Charlie was also made to sleep in a barn as a baby because his father wanted him to develop stamina, just like Charles did when he himself slept on the porch in sub zero weather growing up in MN. I don’t think it would be out of character for Lindbergh to send his son to school in NJ without a coat in January. Lindbergh also made his son stay all day in a pen outside that same winter to teach him a lesson for being a cry baby since he was the youngest kid at the preschool by far, and the older kids kept picking on him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2020 8:48:54 GMT -5
Chasing Conspiracies from 2016. Episode titled "The Vanished." Thank you. As it turns out I did see this, but I just watched in again on AHC and glad that I did. It's also on Prime Video if anyone else is interested. While I'm not a Zoologist or anything, I tend think an animal might avoid an organ or other areas of the body with chemicals on it (or inside of it) while choosing those that were not affected. I've seen where animals (raccoons?) tore into a garbage bag after ammonia (long time ago so it might have been bleach) was poured into it. Obviously they didn't eat what was contaminated but there was a reason they tore into it nevertheless. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I believe there's experts out there that could give us different scenarios to explain all possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 23, 2020 11:32:41 GMT -5
The boy in the photo lacks the chubby appearance of the Lindbergh baby. He also does not possess his father's chin with the dimple. His left leg on the left pedal reaches almost to the ground, so he is taller than a diaper-wearing one and one-half year old infant. The right leg is doubled up on the right pedal, so that is not a good yardstick. The building in the background does not resemble Next Day Hill, nor does it resemble the Elisabeth Morrow School building. This chid is a boy, but he is older than Charlie was in Jan. 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Sept 23, 2020 16:04:16 GMT -5
The boy in the photo lacks the chubby appearance of the Lindbergh baby. He also does not possess his father's chin with the dimple. His left leg on the left pedal reaches almost to the ground, so he is taller than a diaper-wearing one and one-half year old infant. The right leg is doubled up on the right pedal, so that is not a good yardstick. The building in the background does not resemble Next Day Hill, nor does it resemble the Elisabeth Morrow School building. This chid is a boy, but he is older than Charlie was in Jan. 1932. Hi Aaron I agree with you that the boy on the trike looks a lot older than 20 months. But according to family friend Aida Breckinridge who saw him the last weekend before he disappeared, Charlie looked a lot older than 20 months, too. The photos that were identified as being Charlie at the time he disappeared, that were published in multiple papers the second week of March 1932 show a boy who looks much older than 20 months. To me, those photos identified as Charlie and never publicly refuted by the Lindberghs, show a boy who looks closer to 4 years old than 20 months old. The boy on the trike, if it is or isn't Charlie, is at least 7-8 months older than the photos used in the poster and submitted at trial. If it is Charlie, which I can't say for sure, but at this point cannot rule out, it would make sense to me if the baby fat/chubbiness had greatly diminished by then. I used the wheels for approximate measurements of the height of the boy to see if I could obviously rule him out as being Charlie. I understand they're approximate measurements using lines, but I can't rule out that he could be Charlie, because to me, the boy looks about twice the height of the front wheel, factoring in his lower foot is at least a little off the ground and his hair is taller than his head. Regarding the building in the background, it could be neighboring buildings of the original Little School. The Little School didn't move to its present location (now called the Elisabeth Morrow School) until the Mid 1930s. At the time Charlie was attending (Fall of 1931 thru Feb 1932) which was not long after it first opened, the Little School was at a different location, near Next Day Hill, but at a different property that Elisabeth rented for the school.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 23, 2020 16:11:06 GMT -5
Hello, Jamie: Thank you for the interesting information. The board does give us a rare opportunity to share what we know and give us more to consider.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 23, 2020 16:52:38 GMT -5
The person on the left in the photo may well be an adult as she appears to be wearing heels. The boy on the tricycle looks to be 4 or 5 years old. The little girl holding the dog is about 3. One way you can tell this boy is not a toddler is toddlers have big heads relative to the rest of their bodies which they grow into as they grow older. Common sense tells us this boy is not Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 23, 2020 17:55:59 GMT -5
|
|