|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2022 8:07:33 GMT -5
Hi Michael, I wrote “We know that CAL didn’t want the body so that a funeral could take place.” In other words CAL had no intention of arranging a funeral. So to answer your question “Who said Lindbergh wanted a funeral?” : it wasn’t me. My mistake. I read it and thought it was a reference to something I may have missed. I think we can agree that the central objective was the dispatch of the child following CAL’s instructions. He knows the child is dead but has to act the part (very unsuccessfully as it turned out) of the grieving father desperate for his son’s return alive and well. So he played along with the ransom demands knowing full well that they were bogus but pretending they’re real, eventually paying $50,000 to CJ. His other option was to demand cast iron proof that his son was still alive: e.g. a photo of the child with the current New York Times. The sleeping suit proves nothing. When this proof doesn’t arrive he can say “Its extortion. Spitz, Vitale took a copy and circulated the first note/ symbol and the extortionists have used it for verisimilitude. I’m not paying. They can’t prove my son is alive” He’s saved $50,000. The second option is how I would have done it. But as you say Michael, based on your professional experience, this doesn’t mean someone else would take the same path. It may seem obvious and logical to us examining the case in the cold light of day but it would bear a different aspect if we were on the spot and (unlike ourselves) in possession of all the facts and circumstances. As you say, and we’re all guilty of it: "everyone believes they can do something better…, " All we can conclude is that there must have been a strong justification for paying the “ransom” for a child known to be dead. Maybe, as others have indicated, extortion changed into blackmail - they had some thing on him (the child’s condition? his role in the scheme?). He was paying for their silence as well as for the body. That’s what happens when you hire a “gang. There were all kinds of suggestions concerning proof of life. Some were unique and others were the usual (e.g. picture next to a newspaper). Spitale and Madden both told Lindbergh not to pay the ransom. The police were against paying it. How it all went down was all Lindbergh's idea. What's worse, based on most books and what was testified to in Flemington, we were/are all led to believe Lindbergh identified the sleeping suit as his son's. This gives us at least some breathing room, however slight, to accept what he did. But his testimony at the Means trial demolishes this notion ( V2 Page 129). His justification relies solely on the notes. Not to beat a dead horse, but this doesn't make sense once considering his acceptance of the Curtis angle. People like to ignore this stuff but I find it impossible to. Next, I don't believe Lindbergh was ever worried about blackmail. I believe that was covered by hiring a middle man and the fact that no one would ever pursue that line. Heck, take a look at it nowadays.... Mention that Lindbergh was involved and Joe's knees buckle .... he needs smelling salts just to regain his composure. Imagine what it was like back then. Anyway, that's just me. Lindbergh also never appeared worried. He's actually happy and joking around even after he was supposed to have been fleeced out of 50K. He's sure of himself. So again, operating from the perspective of wanting a live child returned, I think Option #2 sounds good. However, proceeding under the knowledge that he's dead, and you want the body returned, its a little different. Taking the "fauxnapping" scenario as a given and to answer your question, Lindbergh, wishing to avoid payment and knowing the child was dead, could insist on cast iron proof that his son was alive, knowing that this would be an impossible condition for them to meet. I can't agree that "like a dummy" CAL called in the police; he had no alternative if the illusion of a real kidnap was to be launched at that point. I don't see that Lindbergh reading the first ransom note commits him in any way to meeting their demands; they have stated their terms, its up to CAL whether he agrees with them. It would be an impossible condition to meet thereby creating constant never ending extortion attempts. More notes with the symbol would have to be completely ignored. Again, there was constant talk of the gang breaking up or selling the child to another group. This was even mentioned in the Onion skin notes ( V4 Pages 103-113) (I know why but I won't go off on a tangent). Up to this point the public perception is that, while a pillar of strength, Lindbergh wanted his child back. He wouldn't be saving money by prolonging or failing to negotiate. He would be living this situation for the rest of his life. I'm with you all the way there trojanusc; the payment was to regain control of the body and avoid questions arising from a competent pathologist. But, and there's always a "but", if we accept that Carrel and his team were the first group to have the child after its removal from the crib and their role was its humane dispatch (available anaesthetics, sympathy with Lindbergh's eugenics views) how did the body end up with a "gang" of unscrupulous criminals bent on extortion etc? I can't see anyone in Carrel's team, presumably "respectable" people with 9-5 jobs, going rogue. So that's my problem: the interface between the Carrel phase and the gang. I don't accept Carrel (or whoever it was) ever had control of the body. This sounds a little like Pearlman's position which is something I totally reject. I know I've mentioned this before, but refer to Nosovitsky's experiences as examples concerning what could happen. Since these things actually occurred, its difficult for anyone to say it could not happen here as well. Take his involvement in the La Follette "matter" ( V4 Pages 259-63). Noso was hired by Russell. Russell was hired by Harwood. Harwood was hired by very wealthy " Wall Street People." We only know anything about any of this because Noso spilled his guts. And yet, before my book had anyone ever heard of it? On top of that, Russell attempted to keep Noso completely in the dark, and if he hadn't followed him wouldn't even have known about Harwood. We still don't know "who" the Wall Street men were. So here's a guy willing to talk who still doesn't know who he was actually working for. Everything I write about in my books is relevant to this case. Some of it I point out and some of it I do not. I have a feeling some people have jumped around or think particular sections are unrelated, but as one can see above - they are. It's all right there.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Aug 25, 2022 8:32:42 GMT -5
Charles Lindbergh had a complex and unusual personality. He was very sure of himself and found it hard to believe that he could make mistakes. He defended his staff against all suspicion; he had hired them himself. he also believed that the mob was somehow responsible for the kidnapping, or so he said, and he stuck to this belief. The mob's business was not in kidnapping: they were interested in rum-running, drugs, and prostitution and despised kidnappers. Lindbergh did not understand this and was unable to change his mind about anything even though the mob's leader disclaimed any knowledge of the kidnapping and suggested that someone in the area had a grudge against Lindbergh and committed the kidnapping to rid the neighborhood of him. Lindbergh may have been narcissistic. He could not admit that he was wrong or mistaken about anything. As long as he was involved in the investigation there was only bungling and wrong turns. He should never have been involved even at the outset. Too many mistakes were made and opportunities lost. Unfortunately famous men do make mistakes but often cannot admit their fallibility. A mama's boy needs to grow up. His ignorance does not make him necessarily guilty of the crime, however. His interference in the process kept the truth from being discovered.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 25, 2022 13:10:22 GMT -5
Charles Lindbergh had a complex and unusual personality. He was very sure of himself and found it hard to believe that he could make mistakes. He defended his staff against all suspicion; he had hired them himself. he also believed that the mob was somehow responsible for the kidnapping, or so he said, and he stuck to this belief. The mob's business was not in kidnapping: they were interested in rum-running, drugs, and prostitution and despised kidnappers. Lindbergh did not understand this and was unable to change his mind about anything even though the mob's leader disclaimed any knowledge of the kidnapping and suggested that someone in the area had a grudge against Lindbergh and committed the kidnapping to rid the neighborhood of him. Lindbergh may have been narcissistic. He could not admit that he was wrong or mistaken about anything. As long as he was involved in the investigation there was only bungling and wrong turns. He should never have been involved even at the outset. Too many mistakes were made and opportunities lost. Unfortunately famous men do make mistakes but often cannot admit their fallibility. A mama's boy needs to grow up. His ignorance does not make him necessarily guilty of the crime, however. His interference in the process kept the truth from being discovered. His interference was a lot more strategic than that. His behavior was not that of a grieving father. You don't run out the door with a shotgun one minute but then hold off opening a ransom note for hours waiting for the "fingerprint men." You don't coldly walk in an examining room with the dead corpse of your son and ask for a "meat slicer," before examining him like it was a piece of meat. You don't tell the cops they can't record the ransom serial numbers (he ultimately relented when this could have been considered obstruction). If you want your child back, you don't prevent the staff from being questioned, only before admitting someone could be involved at the Curtis trial. You don't don on a trip searching for your son to never actually search for your son, instead playing cards and practical jokes the whole time. At every turn he tried to sabotage the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 25, 2022 13:33:45 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your comprehensive response.
Carrel, as a committed eugenicist and a close colleague of Lindbergh is very attractive as a co-conspirator. But I cannot see an easy way or indeed a reason for the body to pass from Carrel and his team to the gang. So maybe he wasn’t in the loop and the snatch was done, as you say, by a gang through an intermediary to insulate Lindbergh. The gang would have to believe that this was a straightforward kidnap for ransom with no inside help in order to avoid possible future threats to reveal all. Certainly Lindbergh’s carefree behaviour would indicate he had no worries on that score.
If the absence of recent photos of Charlie indicates that signs of his condition were evident even to the untrained eye its not much of a leap to suggest that the gang would pick this up. They would have to take the living child in order for them to believe it was a straight kidnap. Surely Lindbergh would insist on a humane painless end to his son’s life so, for me its unclear at what stage and by whom the killing was carried out. Just an idea: the intermediary says “Charlie takes regular ; he has to be in good shape for the handover. Here are the milk-soluble for him..…”
I agree that payment of the ransom was Lindbergh’s only option to get the body returned and avoid future problems from the kidnappers. The rapid cremation ensured this.
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 25, 2022 13:37:04 GMT -5
The words "" and "" got lost in the shuffle
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 25, 2022 13:38:00 GMT -5
and !
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2022 14:54:20 GMT -5
Carrel, as a committed eugenicist and a close colleague of Lindbergh is very attractive as a co-conspirator. But I cannot see an easy way or indeed a reason for the body to pass from Carrel and his team to the gang. So maybe he wasn’t in the loop and the snatch was done, as you say, by a gang through an intermediary to insulate Lindbergh. The gang would have to believe that this was a straightforward kidnap for ransom with no inside help in order to avoid possible future threats to reveal all. Certainly Lindbergh’s carefree behaviour would indicate he had no worries on that score. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but what I believe and what you seem to think is the theory reveals a bit of a disconnect. Let's go back to the Nosovitsky example. The "Wall Street" people are those who set up the attack on La Follette. They hired Harwood. Harwood hired Russell. Russell hired Nosovitsky and Molner (this is all we know about so there could be even more involved). What you are suggesting is the equivalent of the Wall Street people being directly involved with Nosovitsky. Next, as we can see, Russell wound up ripping off Nosovitsky's share of the huge payment. Not only this but in the end, no one except Nosovitsky saw any accountability for this whole thing. And why did he? Because Russell set him up as a means to screw him over for the money that was due to him. So Russell got greedy and took the whole amount. Anyway, this is just one example concerning one man who was involved in MANY similar type situations. There's plenty mentioned in my book, and I only addressed the tip of the iceberg. Are we to assume Nosovitsky was the only person involved with these sort of things? The answer is "no." We know this because each of his stories involve others. Now, imagine if these same Wall Street people were involved in this case. Would they have control over a Russell if he went rogue? Did they in the La Follette matter? No. They were scammed. He still got paid. He screwed over a co-conspirator. And once that happened, he apparently did whatever he wanted without interference.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 26, 2022 1:47:32 GMT -5
Yes, I agree that it could have been done through a chain of intermediaries or cut outs including Dr Carrel as in the Nosovitsky example. It leaves Lindbergh insulated from the events by several protective layers instead of just one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2022 10:04:24 GMT -5
Yes, I agree that it could have been done through a chain of intermediaries or cut outs including Dr Carrel as in the Nosovitsky example. It leaves Lindbergh insulated from the events by several protective layers instead of just one. Definitely stay skeptical if you have reservations. As I've said before, if it wasn't for mine concerning Rail 16, I would have never gotten to the bottom of it. My only goal is to impress upon anyone the possibilities. Like most, it was back in HS when I read Fisher, Scaduto, and Kennedy. But it wasn't until 2000 that I started to seriously research this. And in doing so, I discovered many mistakes in those books. Over the years I've seen so many people use rebuttals such as " That would never happen," " Impossible," and/or " Conspiracy Theory!" However, when my sleeves were rolled up while digging through the Archives I found information that tells a very different tale. Not only could these things happen, they actually and provably did concerning other crimes/situations. The problem is that many Authors have spent little time doing what I have. Now, I don't expect someone to duplicate the amount of time I've spent at the NJSP Archives because that would be damn near impossible not to mention crazy. Especially now that Mark retired and the files/materials at the Archives have been shuffled around. Knowing where everything is, or could be, is a huge part of the puzzle. So consider that many Authors rely on Fisher, or Waller as their main source(s). Or that many haven't actually even visited the Archives in West Trenton. Or if they have, they only spent a very small fraction of what's necessary before they should even begin to think they know enough to write a book. So they cut corners. I get a little pissed about that sometimes because one cannot go to the Archives without seeing the enormity of it all. For me, I couldn't in good faith stop looking when I saw there was so much to find. What you can see that I've done is not only focused on the main players but everything that ever had anything to do with this case. That includes any other case mentioned or looked at. The "splinters" such as Wendel, Schenck, and Means. Looking at these angles reveals so much about THIS case. Look at what was revealed concerning the Wyckoff Murders, Lillian Murder, Hall-Mills Murders, the Mattson Kidnapping (V2 Pages 502-6). Heck, check out Mark's book on the Battle at Jutland! Examples that occurred in those cases are things some counter any theory by saying it would " never happen." When it comes to the example I've given concerning Nosovitsky, we don't even know if the "Wall Street" people were actually Wall Street people, or if they were utilized by someone else to start the ball rolling. Right? But what we do know is it was a pretty big conspiracy, that type we hear "never" happens.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 29, 2022 9:05:30 GMT -5
1) What? Again, we don't know what the child looked like prior to the kidnapping as the Lindbergh's lied about his looks and refused to release more current pictures. Conditions such as hydrocephalus often don't begin appearing significantly until 1.5-2 years of age. Why did CAL refuse to provide current photos? The corpse that was found was also noted for its abnormally large head, which "came apart like an orange." I hate to tell you but healthy skulls, even those of children, typically do not come apart like soft pieces of fruit. Photos of Charlie at the age of approximately 16 months do exist and show him to be doing normal things a child of his age would have been doing. Most of them are not clearly in focus though and I'd venture wouldn't present a particularly good profile for a wanted poster. Ultimately, I don’t know why a more current photo was not chosen, but why do you seemingly ignore any contemporary accounts of Charlie’s very normal behavior and actions just before the kidnapping, as eye-witnessed and related by Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Aida Breckinridge, Will Rogers and others.
As for your ‘orange peel’ scenario, you are incorrect, and I really wish you’d start presenting facts here, as opposed to a continual stream of misinformation and unfounded speculation about Charlie having had hydrocephalus. The sutures in a child’s skull do not fuse into bone until approximately the 24 months period. Go to any of the online medical sites to confirm this. Charlie was an unusually well-developed child, according to Dr. Van Ingen, as noted during his February 1932 examination. He also was diagnosed as having a moderate-rickety condition, which was not uncommon at the time even within well-to-do families, and for which he was being medically treated, ie. the UV-emitting sunlamp in his nursery as well as a bit more than the recommended minimum dose of Viosterol clearly stated within Anne’s published diet recommendations to the kidnappers. Rickets can not only cause some enlargement of the skull but can also delay suture conversion and closing of the large fontanelle, beyond the normal development period. Charlie was 20 months old when he was kidnapped. Give the kid a break.
2) Again, if you don't think there were some underworld figures who were willing to do underhanded things to make a few bucks, especially in the depression, I don't know what to tell you. What you and others here are proposing is much easier said than done, and I’m sure you must understand this. Again, I’m curious if you might have some reasonable candidates for this shadowy, non-descript gang, which would have had to have a defined hierarchy originating with Lindbergh himself. Remember as well, that the strangeness and relative enormity of this crime world-wide, would be sure to, and clearly did, attract the attention of every branch of national law enforcement and political affiliation all the way up to the office of the president of the United States. A faked kidnapping would not really have been a great career move, if such an insane scheme had backfired and been exposed. Not surprisingly, no one ever came forward to claim knowledge of this ever having occurred, not even when Lindbergh was widely resented for his isolationist stance just prior to America’s entry into WWII.
And if you think underworld figures might have been involved in a faked kidnapping, why then would Lindbergh have chosen to accept the recommendation of Ruth Pratt, member of the Republican National Committee to engage the services of Mickey Rosner just a day after the kidnapping, thereby attempting to seek help from the underworld? Wouldn’t that be like walking into a tent full of hornets for Lindbergh, if he was in on such a scheme?
3) There's zero evidence of Hauptmann surveying and doing surveillance. No one would have specifically been looking to catch Hauptmann in the act of doing surveillance before the kidnapping. At the same time, he was head and shoulders above anyone else as majority beneficiary of the ransom payment, demonstrated dozens of examples of the same handwriting characteristics as that of the ransom note writer, was proven to have built the ladder, tied himself to the nursery note and nursery through his statements as CJ. Who other than the little devil on his shoulder, do you think might have told him what to do here?
4) Ho-age was involved and did a significant amount of work for Gov. Hoffman. Leon Hoage was a bright guy, but he wasn’t involved in the case until jumping on the Gov. Hoffman bandwagon, so he had no experience with the crime scene when it was actually relevant four years earlier. Instead, he was limited to relying on investigative techniques and reports written primarily by state troopers who spent most of their active hours patrolling the countryside and handing out traffic tickets before the crime. 5) They feared the wrath of Lindbergh for speaking. As did just about everyone else in this case who kept their mouth shut when they saw CAL do shady things. Making such a blanket statement just self-serves your agenda here. As I’ve noted above, why didn’t any of these people who ‘feared the wrath’ of Lindbergh, come forward when Lindbergh was one to not be feared, and even resented?6) Ridiculous assumption. If he feared for the life of his child or children, it's not surprising that the kept his mouth shut. It’s not an assumption but a theory that is well supported by the facts, if you care to examine them more closely. Hauptmann took the most self-serving path of least resistance in accepting his fate when he took all of his secrets to the grave with him.7) There is no conclusive evidence that Hauptmann wrote the notes. Handwriting science is bogus. Plus, why would Hauptmann say this if he did, indeed, write the notes? Wouldn't he be saying "that's not my writing!" There was overwhelmingly-conclusive evidence from established Questioned Document Examiners at the time and to this day, that Hauptmann penned each and every one of the ransom notes, but my guess is you prefer to ‘go rogue’ here and have probably never examined the circumstantial physical evidence with your own two eyes.8) The descriptions only match if you want them to. He described a "fleshy growth," which did not exist. A severe hacking cough from an illness such as TB, which did not exist. He said the kidnappers were italian at one point. His lies are too voluminous and numerous to go over in detail, yet you write them off and ignore them at every turn. He tried his hardest not to identify Hauptmann. The sketch looks like at least 50% of Caucasian people in NYC in 1932. Condon was talking about a well-developed musculature on the inside of the palm at the base of the thumb, such as would be seen in a tradesman who regularly works with his hands. In at least one account, CJ told Condon he had a cold, and if you’ve ever had a bad one with a cough, you probably know it can sound like your lungs are being coughed up. Any ideas why CJ might have had a cold? Condon was only speculating that an Italian was involved, ie. “Statti cito!”, a pet theory of his, as was his belief that Hauptmann hadn’t actually written Condon’s address and phone number on his closet trim. Why do you consider any of the above as ‘lies’ other than to attempt to reinforce your own speculation? 9) Well some speculation must occur, given that there's zero evidence Hauptmann himself was ever at Highfields, yet we know he's related to the crime. We know he’s related to the crime, big time.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 29, 2022 17:32:22 GMT -5
If Lindbergh were that many degrees removed from the kidnapping, then no one in the household would have to be "in the know" except himself and perhaps Anne. Why would he risk involving others that may talk later.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 29, 2022 17:38:35 GMT -5
If Lindbergh were that many degrees removed from the kidnapping, then no one in the household would have to be "in the know" except himself and perhaps Anne. Why would he risk involving others that may talk later. He was probably two degrees removed. I also think the evidence shows clearly the staff knew more than they told police, probably that the child would be "going away." Why else would he prevent his staff from being questioned at all? Why, when ultimately questioned, did Gow blurt she blurt she was "promised [she] wouldn't be touched!" Lindbergh threatning Gow is another piece of evidence, as is Whatley's deathbed semi-confession as Michael discovered. Plus, remember Lindbergh believed Curtis when he suggested the child was handed out the front door by a staff member, despite denying that possibility all along.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 29, 2022 17:43:03 GMT -5
1) What? Again, we don't know what the child looked like prior to the kidnapping as the Lindbergh's lied about his looks and refused to release more current pictures. Conditions such as hydrocephalus often don't begin appearing significantly until 1.5-2 years of age. Why did CAL refuse to provide current photos? The corpse that was found was also noted for its abnormally large head, which "came apart like an orange." I hate to tell you but healthy skulls, even those of children, typically do not come apart like soft pieces of fruit. Photos of Charlie at the age of approximately 16 months do exist and show him to be doing normal things a child of his age would have been doing. Most of them are not clearly in focus though and I'd venture wouldn't present a particularly good profile for a wanted poster. Ultimately, I don’t know why a more current photo was not chosen, but why do you seemingly ignore any contemporary accounts of Charlie’s very normal behavior and actions just before the kidnapping, as eye-witnessed and related by Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Aida Breckinridge, Will Rogers and others.
As for your ‘orange peel’ scenario, you are incorrect, and I really wish you’d start presenting facts here, as opposed to a continual stream of misinformation and unfounded speculation about Charlie having had hydrocephalus. The sutures in a child’s skull do not fuse into bone until approximately the 24 months period. Go to any of the online medical sites to confirm this. Charlie was an unusually well-developed child, according to Dr. Van Ingen, as noted during his February 1932 examination. He also was diagnosed as having a moderate-rickety condition, which was not uncommon at the time even within well-to-do families, and for which he was being medically treated, ie. the UV-emitting sunlamp in his nursery as well as a bit more than the recommended minimum dose of Viosterol clearly stated within Anne’s published diet recommendations to the kidnappers. Rickets can not only cause some enlargement of the skull but can also delay suture conversion and closing of the large fontanelle, beyond the normal development period. Charlie was 20 months old when he was kidnapped. Give the kid a break.
I don't need to go over the same stuff with you time and time again that others have. You don't want to hear evidence that contradicts the official narrative and that's fine. I'll only respond to your first point and say that two year old skulls, even while still a bit more brittle than their adult counterparts, typically do not fall into pieces at the slightest touching or prodding. Rickets was a poor people's disease and it was clear Charlie's case was not improving. There's also evidence he had trouble standing (perhaps related to the overlapping toes or perhaps not), his head was too large (as noted in the cursory autopsy), some weird dentition issues, and other points which, which combined with the brittleness of the skull, point to a hydrocephalic condition, which would become more and more apparent at about his age. If the Lindbergh's really wanted their child back, they wouldn't be providing photos that were consistently out of date to the press, including hiding the fact he'd recently had a haircut so his telltale golden locks would be no more.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2022 7:40:48 GMT -5
If Lindbergh were that many degrees removed from the kidnapping, then no one in the household would have to be "in the know" except himself and perhaps Anne. Why would he risk involving others that may talk later. With a theory such as this, there are a lot of differing ideas within it that one might accept or not accept as possibilities. For me, there's no way everyone in that house wasn't aware of what was going on. No one could have done what's alleged with a house full of people and a barking dog. Never mind everything else that was supposed to have occurred. It just doesn't work. Then we have those things that involve Gow and Whatelely to consider. Then Lindbergh. Then the police reactions and beliefs. Jersey City cops immediately suspected " inside job with outside help." It was only the top brass at the NJSP who steered investigations away from that position despite many among the ranks blaming Lindbergh in one way or another. It was the worst kept secret. And why? Because Lindbergh was controlling Schwarzkopf. Later we get to see what Keaten truly felt. So its not just a couple of people on this message board and it goes way back all the way to the beginning. It all points to something else going on. The hardest part for anyone to swallow would be Anne knowing and being willing. But when looking at anything one must take the past, present, and future into account. Take the transcontinental flight. She was caring for an unborn child at that time. And yet, she was willing to subject herself to the damaging consequences because she didn't want to "spoil" the record. Later, she wrote " Wave of the Future." While it sounds like Lindbergh, she wrote that. Next, how many of what would be referred to as "defects" at the time, would an Eugenicist believe was acceptable in their offspring? What was with the secrecy and delays concerning Charles Jr. but the "chuckling" call from Lindbergh to the press about Jon? Or the "happy" and "joyful" Lindy running and bounding out to help extinguish a brush fire only days after supposedly getting fleeced out of 50K? Sometimes when there's smoke its just smoke. But other times there's actually a fire.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2022 8:17:35 GMT -5
What you and others here are proposing is much easier said than done, and I’m sure you must understand this. Again, I’m curious if you might have some reasonable candidates for this shadowy, non-descript gang, which would have had to have a defined hierarchy originating with Lindbergh himself. Remember as well, that the strangeness and relative enormity of this crime world-wide, would be sure to, and clearly did, attract the attention of every branch of national law enforcement and political affiliation all the way up to the office of the president of the United States. A faked kidnapping would not really have been a great career move, if such an insane scheme had backfired and been exposed. Not surprisingly, no one ever came forward to claim knowledge of this ever having occurred, not even when Lindbergh was widely resented for his isolationist stance just prior to America’s entry into WWII. Which is much easier said than done: Staging the scene and quietly handing off a child OR the actual events YOU believe must have occurred for it to have actually happened? Cops DID believe it was an inside job, but did not act on it. And yes, someone did "come forward." To being with there's Whatelely. Next, there's Keaten and Walsh telling people what they actually believed. And there's also the Jones issue to wrestle with. One might argue Jones is BS, but regardless, these few examples completely demolish your assertion. Condon was talking about a well-developed musculature on the inside of the palm at the base of the thumb, such as would be seen in a tradesman who regularly works with his hands. In at least one account, CJ told Condon he had a cold, and if you’ve ever had a bad one with a cough, you probably know it can sound like your lungs are being coughed up. Any ideas why CJ might have had a cold? Condon was only speculating that an Italian was involved, ie. “Statti cito!”, a pet theory of his, as was his belief that Hauptmann hadn’t actually written Condon’s address and phone number on his closet trim. Why do you consider any of the above as ‘lies’ other than to attempt to reinforce your own speculation? Once again, you are making something up in order to explain away Condon's lies. The man examined every suspects thumb in order to assist in disqualifying him. No where does he say its useless for the reasons you describe above - quite the contrary. So you know what apparently Condon did not. And since he INVENTED the whole thing, I'll defer to his words and ACTIONS as it concerns it. Like the fact he didn't say anything about it till later. Or the fact this "lump" went from the Left, to the right, to both, back to the left. What a joke! He helped eliminate Barry, who even today is still considered a suspect by some, because he did not have that lump on his thumb. He felt for it on Hauptmann's hand... If what you say is true - why? What's the point? Never mind, I really don't want to hear whatever nonsense you come up with here. It was a "pet theory" of his. So why? Because he heard someone in the background telling the caller to shut up in Italian? Or because he made the whole thing up. If the first then of course Italians are involved. If he's lying that's what he wanted police to believe. You want a third option that does not exist. The woman at Tuckahoe. Italian. She was real, wasn't, was, wasn't, and was. Again, you want a third option that doesn't exist. The Needle Salesman. Condon said he was Italian before a later investigation reveals he claimed he never saw him. So when he encountered him he was Italian but later claims he never met him. What's your third option here Joe? The Look-Out at Woodlawn Cemetery was " Calabrese Italian" according to Condon. Then after Hauptmann's arrest, he's trying to assist Hauptmann by telling Special Agent Turrou the Look-Out he saw at Woodlawn strongly resembled Fisch! Give me a break Joe.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 30, 2022 14:38:54 GMT -5
I'm still processing all of the evidence and I will probably never come come to a conclusion. One thing I don't agree with is, I just don't think Charlie was as ill as many on this board seem to think. He looks perfectly normal in his last photographs, has no problem standing or running around, is starting to say a few words and put words together. Dr. Van Ingen describes him as robust. It can take up to 24 months for fontanels to close, so he was still within the normal range. And anyone who has been to a doctors office with a toddler knows that not standing up means they wouldn't stand up, not that they couldn't stand up. They call it the terrible twos for a reason. Also, I can't see Lindbergh continuing to have more children with Anne if he considered his first one "defective".
But, I take Ollie's "confession" seriously, and Betty Gow's outburst, and the confusion in the household's testimony surrounding the procurement of the needle and blue thread.
One question I have, does everyone think that the sleeping suit was removed immediately after the kidnapping as some sort of insurance that they were dealing with the right kidnapper? Or do you think they just bought a new sleeping suit to be sent to Lindbergh. Sorry if this is off-topic.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 30, 2022 16:11:15 GMT -5
I'm still processing all of the evidence and I will probably never come come to a conclusion. One thing I don't agree with is, I just don't think Charlie was as ill as many on this board seem to think. He looks perfectly normal in his last photographs, has no problem standing or running around, is starting to say a few words and put words together. Dr. Van Ingen describes him as robust. It can take up to 24 months for fontanels to close, so he was still within the normal range. And anyone who has been to a doctors office with a toddler knows that not standing up means they wouldn't stand up, not that they couldn't stand up. They call it the terrible twos for a reason. Also, I can't see Lindbergh continuing to have more children with Anne if he considered his first one "defective". But, I take Ollie's "confession" seriously, and Betty Gow's outburst, and the confusion in the household's testimony surrounding the procurement of the needle and blue thread. One question I have, does everyone think that the sleeping suit was removed immediately after the kidnapping as some sort of insurance that they were dealing with the right kidnapper? Or do you think they just bought a new sleeping suit to be sent to Lindbergh. Sorry if this is off-topic. Bear in mind that some conditions, such as hydrocephalus, don’t start becoming serious until Charlie’s age. We know the skull was too brittle, even for a child of that age, it was too big, he had trouble standing by that point, dentition issues, etc. We also have the oddity of select organs being removed while other more superficial organs being in tact. Ask yourself why, when more recent photos had been taken, the Lindberghs chose to release very outdated photos that bore little resemblance to the child who disappeared that night. I’d suggest checking out Dr. Gardner’s follow up book “The Crime of the Century,” as it goes into some well researched information on the child’s health.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 31, 2022 3:56:02 GMT -5
Hi stella7, The problem which we have with Charlie's health is that virtually all the accounts come from Lindbergh, the staff, or Lindbergh loyalists such as Will Rogers. If there were severe problems these people would be sworn to secrecy. It is also likely that as a eugenicist Lindbergh had a very low threshold to cross before deciding the child was handicapped. The lack of recent photographs is significant. Dr van Ingen has been described as having a shy retiring personality and was bound by doctor/patient confidentiality; I think he knew more than he ever revealed bearing in mind the aura surrounding Lindbergh. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 31, 2022 4:20:36 GMT -5
Hi stella 7, A further thought: if Lindbergh made the connection between Charlie's condition his high altitude trans continental flight with Anne when she was 7 months pregnant his fear of a genetic fault reappearing in his subsequent children disappears. Anne had to be carried from the plane when she became ill due to lack of oxygen; she was whisked away for treatment and everything was downplayed so as "not to harm the cause of aviation." Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2022 8:52:56 GMT -5
I'm still processing all of the evidence and I will probably never come come to a conclusion. One thing I don't agree with is, I just don't think Charlie was as ill as many on this board seem to think. He looks perfectly normal in his last photographs, has no problem standing or running around, is starting to say a few words and put words together. Dr. Van Ingen describes him as robust. It can take up to 24 months for fontanels to close, so he was still within the normal range. And anyone who has been to a doctors office with a toddler knows that not standing up means they wouldn't stand up, not that they couldn't stand up. They call it the terrible twos for a reason. Also, I can't see Lindbergh continuing to have more children with Anne if he considered his first one "defective". Taking into account USC and Sherlock's points there's a lot to consider. There's a lot we don't know. But there's some that we do. Wayne's research is pretty important when looking at the child's toes. To Sherlock's point, I wonder how Lindbergh felt JUST seeing his newborn arrive with imperfect toes. For me that's enough, so I also consider "what if" it was worse. Next we have this "perfect" child suffering from what we're all led to believe was "Rickets." Lindbergh must have been asking himself "what's next?" Concerning the toes, if corrective measures were taken, his corpse reveals they definitely weren't "fixed" by the time of his death. Then Cummings gets blamed for the child's worsening conditions, and the new nurse, Copin, is fired. She's the one everyone credits as the child's condition "improved" while under her care. Who fired her? Lindy. Anyway, those who gave the child glowing reviews as being perfectly normal never mention that his toes weren't. Funny how even Hochmuth was telling people in the summer of '32 that the baby had issues to include its toes. Also to Sherlock's point is the perception and/or expectations Lindbergh may have had for his first born. I do believe that Anne was so bad off she had to be lifted out of the cockpit and carried into a waiting car. There can be no doubt that all involved believed/suspected trauma had occurred to the unborn child at that point. Just how much is anyone's guess. The stories of a premature birth arose from this but cannot be true. However, something really bad happened for sure and no doubt was cause for concern. Were negative predictions made at that time? Could a doctor have said a premature birth was a possibility due to this situation, something similar, or something worse? Was it Dr. Hawks who told the cab driver about the child? Once again, there's a lot of smoke. So going back to the flight... There were rumors that Lindbergh blamed Anne's side of the family for the child's problems. No doubt the old man died, Elisabeth's issues, Dwight Morrow Jr.'s mental demons, etc. This is how the guy thought and I'm sure it was always in the back of his head so it makes sense. But if it was the plane trip it was never about that which I'm sure he was aware of. However, he doesn't strike me as the type of guy to take the blame or concede a mistake. So here is his explanation and pointing the blame at Anne, his victim, instead of looking in the mirror at himself. It all makes sense. Doesn't make it true but if it "works" then I believe it should be considered. Again, if something doesn't feel right to you there's a reason. Listen to your gut and pursue it until you are satisfied. But, I take Ollie's "confession" seriously, and Betty Gow's outburst, and the confusion in the household's testimony surrounding the procurement of the needle and blue thread. I absolutely LOVE the picture of Gow in Davidson's new book. I wonder what she was so afraid of? One question I have, does everyone think that the sleeping suit was removed immediately after the kidnapping as some sort of insurance that they were dealing with the right kidnapper? Or do you think they just bought a new sleeping suit to be sent to Lindbergh. Sorry if this is off-topic. The one sent in the mail was used. So if it was purchased it didn't come from a store unless they sold them at 2nd hand shops perhaps. When the corpse was found it was missing. The thumbguard found on the private lane has led to speculation from the Prosecution that the child was disrobed on the spot that very night. "Why" doesn't make sense to me. However, since it was accidentally discovered so much later on after everyone had been searching for clues there's also the theory it had been dropped there after the fact. Remembering who found it makes it much more appealing but there's no way to know. But another theory is they returned to the "grave" and disrobed the corpse after the fact. Since I believe the corpse wasn't in that grave at the time it means it would have been a much easier option for them. Lindbergh testified he couldn't say if it was real at the Means trial. This proves whatever happened in Flemington was theater. That in and of itself should be something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 31, 2022 15:39:26 GMT -5
Just wanted to quote Dr. Gardner here, who does a good job describing the physical characteristics in question, consulted with a few pediatricians and and offers some food for thought:
“ Then, in a pre-trial deposition on November 21, 1934, Van Ingen added to his earlier report: “He had a square head which went with a moderate rickety condition,” and “it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight in order to measure him.”
Van Ingen begged off a specific diagnosis about posture issues, saying Charlie was a “spoiled youngster.” But the square head shape, also sometimes called “toaster head,” along with the posture issue known as “slinky baby,” imply a more serious condition than moderate rickets. The Lindberghs were concerned enough to keep a sunlamp near Charlie’s crib and to include in their public appeal to the kidnappers a daily megadose of a high-powered form of Vitamin D: fourteen drops of Viosterol. Commonly associated with undernourished children, rickets also occurs in a hereditary condition making it difficult for bones to acquire enough calcium. Ten drops of Viosterol was the “equivalent of about 50 teaspoons of cod-liver oil” (where three teaspoons was the usual prescription), according to Edgar Mayer, a contemporary medical authority. “Viosterol is a drug which the physician alone should prescribe,” he noted.“
The brief autopsy report on Charlie’s body also revealed the same several “special characteristics,” those first reported in the press by Dr. Charles Mitchell, including an “unusually high & prominent forehead & cranium apparently greater in circumference than would be found in a child this age, the first toe of the right foot completely overlaps the large toe and the second toe of the right foot partially overlaps the large toe.” Two lower canine teeth tended to divert towards the incisors and were below the line of adjacent teeth. “The fontanel was not closed, the opening in the skull at this point being about one inch in diameter.” At twenty months Charlie was at the outer edge of the time when the fontanel should be closed. Then, at Hauptmann’s trial, Mitchell testified about another remarkable thing: when they tried to saw off the top of Charlie’s skull during autopsy, “it began to come apart of its own.” In other words, prompted defense attorney Edward Reilly, “you could practically open it like an orange.” Reilly promised to revisit whether “the skull of this unfortunate child . . . wasn’t so pliable because of its youth and exposure to the elements,” but he never did.”
When all these characteristics are considered together, they indicate a malformation of the skull, either “luckenschadel” or, more associated with hydrocephalus, a condition known as “copper beaten” skull. Reilly’s “diagnosis” had perfectly described Charlie’s condition, but his apparent assumption that the skull had deteriorated in this fashion because of exposure to the elements was wrong. A normal skull—even that of a two-year-old—would not have so deteriorated in that short a time. Down in the vaults of cathedrals are ossuaries from before the Middle Ages testifying silently to the strength of the bones of saints—but also of commoners. Intact skulls from the time of the Neanderthals tell us much of what we know about that prehistoric era.”
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 1, 2022 9:48:47 GMT -5
Craniotabes: its worth a Google: the softening of the skull bones in infants due to Vitamin D deficiency. Such skulls have been described as similar to a ping pong ball in the way they react to applied pressure. And yet Lindbergh thought it funny to knock the child over by throwing cushions at him each time he tried to stand. The kid should have worn a crash helmet with such a father.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 1, 2022 11:40:34 GMT -5
A.n.n. Prentice, in Pediatric Bone (Second Edition), 2012 Vitamin D Status Vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy is associated with congenital rickets and craniotabes in the newborn and with the development of rickets in infancy, especially when the child is exclusively breastfed [10,141]. Pregnant women who receive regular sunlight exposure during the summer months are not at risk of vitamin D deficiency, but women who wear concealing clothes, are housebound, or for other reasons do not receive adequate UVB exposure are at risk unless their diet provides sufficient vitamin D.
Vitamin D absorption by the foetus is six times higher in the final 3 months of pregnancy than earlier. For the final 2 months of her pregnancy Anne Lindbergh was confined to bed, indoors. We don't know if she was already Vit D deficient but this situation, away from sunlight, surely didn't help.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 1, 2022 12:33:00 GMT -5
The same could be said of a lot of women, but I'm sure that Sirius flight she had to be carried off of didn't help.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 1, 2022 15:24:03 GMT -5
Yes, I think the irresponsibility of Charles and Anne in taking to the air beggars belief. A petite woman, first pregnancy, noise, fumes, vibration, and no oxygen. It may be a pointer to their carefree attitude to the pregnancy. Were Anne's Vit D levels being monitored? Wrapped up in a flying suit, she wasn't getting much UV radiation. So CAL had two reasons for arranging the dispatch of his son: 1. As a eugenicist who valued perfection he saw Charlie's problems as incurable defects with only one solution. 2. Had the child continued to live his condition would develop and eventually become known more widely. The connection with their irresponsible flight would be made and the Lindbergh couple would fall from grace. This had to be avoided.
Incidentally, Charlie's megadose of Viosterol as described by trojanusc has Lindbergh's ("I know better than the doctors") fingerprints all over it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 1, 2022 18:33:39 GMT -5
Yes, I think the irresponsibility of Charles and Anne in taking to the air beggars belief. A petite woman, first pregnancy, noise, fumes, vibration, and no oxygen. It may be a pointer to their carefree attitude to the pregnancy. Were Anne's Vit D levels being monitored? Wrapped up in a flying suit, she wasn't getting much UV radiation. So CAL had two reasons for arranging the dispatch of his son: 1. As a eugenicist who valued perfection he saw Charlie's problems as incurable defects with only one solution. 2. Had the child continued to live his condition would develop and eventually become known more widely. The connection with their irresponsible flight would be made and the Lindbergh couple would fall from grace. This had to be avoided. Incidentally, Charlie's megadose of Viosterol as described by trojanusc has Lindbergh's ("I know better than the doctors") fingerprints all over it. I'd assume whatever the issues Charlie was experiencing, the Vitamin D treatment was probably not going to fix it. He was probably at an age where the condition was starting to manifest clearer symptoms which would be untenable to hide and it was unthinkable to Lindbergh that he'd have a cripple offspring. It has been said here a few times but Lindbergh took so many of his cues from the eugenics movement in Europe and it was pretty common at the time to "rid" yourself of imperfect offspring, often by a staged kidnapping. This was common enough that it was the first thing Scotland Yard asked the NJSP, who assured them that they had looked into the baby's health. Yet they appeared just to take Lindbergh's word for it and never did any proper investigation.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 1, 2022 18:55:51 GMT -5
Hi Trojan, can you point to any specific cases in Europe where an unwanted child was disposed of through a staged kidnapping? It's been said a lot that such things were done, and Scotland Yard did put it out there, but do you know of any specific instances?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 1, 2022 21:22:32 GMT -5
Hi Trojan, can you point to any specific cases in Europe where an unwanted child was disposed of through a staged kidnapping? It's been said a lot that such things were done, and Scotland Yard did put it out there, but do you know of any specific instances? I found an example or two a couple years ago when I went digging, I'll see if I can find them again. While the kidnapping element did exist somewhat abroad, I think it was quite American-ized by Lindbergh, given just how common kidnappings were in America in the early 20th century. It was a very believable ruse. Kidnappings for money are pretty rare today but back then they were a dime a dozen, so it was the ideal way to get rid of a defective offspring while generating public sympathy. While not a kidnapping per se, two mentally challenged first cousins of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II were skirted off to an insane asylum in the late 30s/early 40s, with the public being told they had died. It took until the 80s for it to become known. This kind of thing may have been what was originally in store for CAL Jr but I don't think Lindbergh could stomach anybody ever finding out and he probably viewed it as a mercy killing. archive.macleans.ca/article/1987/4/20/a-royal-family-secret
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 2, 2022 9:33:33 GMT -5
Yeah, that happened to the Queen's uncle too--John. Hidden away as a young boy. In any case, it's interesting that Scotland Yard went to that scenario, and its certainly true that kidnappings were a big thing back then. Like you, I also initially thought that the plan was for CAL Jr. to be hidden away, but something went wrong and he wound up dead. But then again, while hiding a child in an institution might've worked with some obscure members of the British royal family, keeping the world's most famous child hidden is not really feasible in the long term, and Lindbergh was a hyper-perfectionist with some staunch eugenicist beliefs, and the crime scene looks staged, among many other anomalies, so...
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Sept 2, 2022 13:34:09 GMT -5
"Lindbergh blamed Anne's side of the family for the child's problems. No doubt the old man died, Elisabeth's issues, Dwight Morrow Jr.'s mental demons, etc"
this just made me think; CAL must have known all this (at least Elisabeth's issue and maybe Dwight Jr) before he married Anne. with it being the height of his celebrity, he could have married almost any woman he chose. would he marry into a "defective" family?
i'm not saying i don't agree CAL blamed the Morrow's for the baby's issues, just asking a question.
|
|