hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Sept 2, 2022 16:18:00 GMT -5
If we examine any family history, we would probably find someone connected who had a disability, whether physical or mental, or criminal or addictive problems. Royal and upper-class families are no exception. King Ludwig II of Bavaria was probably schizophrenic, his brother Otto was bipolar, some were gay, some with physical disabilities. Hitler had a half-sister who was mad. The list goes on. When the British say the family is of "good stock," they usually are referring to class status, not to matters of health. Also, our knowledge of inherited genes, dominant and recessive, is relatively modern with research goes back to the early 20th century. We cannot assume that those of the 1920s and 1930s had our extensive knowledge of genetics. For Hitler, the pure race was Teutonic. While he wanted to eliminate the physical handicapped, the mentally disabled, and the homosexual (or so he said), his main thrust was to eliminate those who were not related to the Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, white gentile population, and he thought God had selected him to be the savior of the German people. Lindbergh had a complex personality, to be sure, but it's hardly likely that all this is a good fit for him.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 2, 2022 16:50:58 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... At first I thought the same, but the more we learn about Lindbergh and his extremist beliefs (not to mention Carrel's), I think the child was likely meant to die from the get go. Can't imagine him having such a "loose end."
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Sept 2, 2022 16:57:12 GMT -5
I should also point out that Lindbergh had three German mistresses. Two were sisters who were both disabled.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 9:00:35 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. Or perhaps the cushion-throwing episode as witnessed and reported upon by Will Rogers, is more indicative of Lindbergh’s general feelings about how he felt Charlie should be raised, based on his own upbringing. Moreover, it doesn’t appear from this event that Charlie had any significant health limitations based upon the way he reacted mentally, physically and emotionally here to his father’s actions, just a couple of weeks before being kidnapped.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 9:44:04 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. I continue to wonder if you have any ideas at all, as to WHO might have been involved within a staged kidnapping, that was inspired by Charles Lindbergh, and which ultimately led directly to the door Richard Hauptmann, the primary beneficiary of the $50,000 ransom payment. Was it Alexis Carrell as others have suggested here, the same man he worked side-by-side with from November 1930 at the Rockefeller Institute, inspired by his sister-in-law Elisabeth’s failing health condition, to develop a life-saving organ perfusion apparatus, that he ultimately achieved in early 1935? According to your speculation, Lindbergh must have taken time out in the middle of these pursuits, while spending large amounts of time surveying air routes, to arrange for the destruction of his first-born son who had nothing more demonstrable at the time of his disappearance than a moderately-rickety condition. Am I on the right track here in understanding your thoughts on this? The "cops" in general, including the NJSP and FBI, did not believe this was a staged kidnapping. Of course, Walsh, Keaten and Garsson had their suspicions, but were unable to prove this was the case, or even thought to come forward years later when Lindbergh had ‘fallen from grace.’ They ended up ‘barking up the wrong tree’ and doing more harm than good through overly-oppressive investigative methods inspired by their ham-fisted egos. Opening a can of worms doesn’t necessarily mean there is a connection between the can and the case. Ollie Whateley's so called "confession", revealed in DC1 through dual words-of-mouth, was an alleged opinion that a guilty party existed within the households, of course inferring Betty Gow. I believe you also call this effect, “whisper down the alley” when it better serves your process. And I'm sure Ollie himself, as primary housekeeper and up to the time of his untimely death, would have been wrestling within his own inaction and obvious inattention to the nursery shutter that wouldn't close properly.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 3, 2022 10:25:52 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I agree that the cushion-throwing episode is a characteristic of Lindbergh's attitude to child-raising. "Toughen him up" etc. And yes, the child reacted normally to the repeated cushion throwing. But Charlie had been diagnosed with a "moderate rickety condition" and at the so -called "autopsy" his enlarged skull was seen to be soft and "came apart like an orange peel." Surely responsible parents with such a delicate child would avoid any activity which might result in a backwards fall with impact against the floor or furniture. For me its symptomatic of the "don't make a fuss" attitude of both these parents towards the pregnancy, the flight, and Charlie's subsequent condition: "Dose him up with Viosterol - he'll be O.K." (my words). Nobody has suggested that Charlie couldn't react mentally, physically and emotionally at this point. But equally, there was every possibility that his condition would worsen, become obvious, and difficult to hide as time went by. Something had to be done to avoid this eventuality. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2022 11:38:33 GMT -5
Surely responsible parents with such a delicate child would avoid any activity which might result in a backwards fall with impact against the floor or furniture. I couldn't agree more. Breaking his leg or cracking his skull seems counterproductive. Or perhaps the cushion-throwing episode as witnessed and reported upon by Will Rogers, is more indicative of Lindbergh’s general feelings about how he felt Charlie should be raised, based on his own upbringing. Moreover, it doesn’t appear from this event that Charlie had any significant health limitations based upon the way he reacted mentally, physically and emotionally here to his father’s actions, just a couple of weeks before being kidnapped. You'll notice Rogers didn't mention deformed toes or rickets in his description of this "perfect" child. It was left to others to bring out there was a lack of physical contact because, of all things, it was said Lindbergh was "afraid of him." Also that his name for the child was " It." At first I thought the same, but the more we learn about Lindbergh and his extremist beliefs (not to mention Carrel's), I think the child was likely meant to die from the get go. Can't imagine him having such a "loose end." I agree with those who believe Lindbergh "sold" this scheme to those in the house as the child being taken away to be cared for out of the public's eye. However, I believe the true intent was to have the child destroyed. "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? That source isn't something that cannot be challenged. However, I personally believe its true because it sounds like something he'd say or do. Just like what was in the Larner Report/Letter (V3, pages 30-3) where it was said Lindbergh told Morrow that Anne was no longer a "Morrow" but now a "Lindbergh." For me, if someone made that up then they knew a lot about him. So let's proceed that he made this accusation concerning Anne's family after the fact. First, Morrow Sr. was alive at the time of the child's birth and I don't know when Lindbergh was supposed to have said this. Next, I'm not sure precisely how much Lindbergh knew about Morrow Jr.'s exact state prior to the engagement. No doubt he knew of the breakdowns which he could have personally attributed to any number of reasons to include being "spoiled" or "soft." When it came to Elisabeth, it was pretty much common knowledge that he had his pick. Constance was too young, and Elisabeth was supposed to be his first choice. However, many believe as he became aware of her frailty due to a childhood illness, selected Anne precisely because of her good health. Next, the entire family was deemed the upper crust elite, all of whom were highly intelligent. There's the strangeness of choosing the daughter of Morrow since CAL's father fought so hard against these types. Was it a tribute to his father, a slap in the face, or neither? And finally, it could have been this experience that drove him so far extreme in his beliefs.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 11:40:35 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I agree that the cushion-throwing episode is a characteristic of Lindbergh's attitude to child-raising. "Toughen him up" etc. And yes, the child reacted normally to the repeated cushion throwing. But Charlie had been diagnosed with a "moderate rickety condition" and at the so -called "autopsy" his enlarged skull was seen to be soft and "came apart like an orange peel." Surely responsible parents with such a delicate child would avoid any activity which might result in a backwards fall with impact against the floor or furniture. For me its symptomatic of the "don't make a fuss" attitude of both these parents towards the pregnancy, the flight, and Charlie's subsequent condition: "Dose him up with Viosterol - he'll be O.K." (my words). Nobody has suggested that Charlie couldn't react mentally, physically and emotionally at this point. But equally, there was every possibility that his condition would worsen, become obvious, and difficult to hide as time went by. Something had to be done to avoid this eventuality. Regards, Sherlock Sherlock, if only we could see Charlie at the age of 3 or 4, and never having been kidnapped and killed. I believe you would have seen a very healthy child growing up normally, having been successfully treated for the childhood ailments for which he had clearly been diagnosed and was being medically treated for. I couldn’t agree more with you that Lindbergh's parenting methods and actions were at times, both well-intended and very immature. But your statement that there was every possibility his rickety condition would worsen over time, thereby making him impossible to ‘hide away,’ seems to me, a bit like someone looking at their garden’s first rosebud that has a couple of spots on it, before snipping it off the stem because you feel it might bloom into total abnormality, even though you know there are ways to treat those same spots. As a personal and general comment, there's far too much speculation lobbying and rallying around the ‘Lindy-Did-It’ flag pole here about the true nature of Charlie's health condition as it must have rubbed up against some over-wrought and presumed hyper-perfectionist stance of a 'Eugenics-stoked' Charles Lindbergh. Both appear to be viewed for the most part, within a worst case scenario light only that summarily points to Lindbergh having orchestrated the destruction of his first-born 'basket-case' of a son. There’s little balance and true objectivity here. Case in point, your assertion that Charlie's larger-than-normal skull was soft and "came apart like an orange." How can a skull be both soft, as you say, and brittle, as noted by TrojanUSC, at the same time? Charlie had a moderate rickety condition that delayed the closing of his skull’s sutures, ie. their calcification into bone. This is why the bones of his skull came apart during the autopsy. And even at 20 months, he was still four months shy of the normal development suture closing time of approximately 24 months, irrespective of his known ‘moderate rickety condition.’ I don’t know if you’ve read this excellent post previously contributed by bookrefuge. It’s both informative and balanced, two traits that in general don’t seem to be overly welcomed on this discussion forum. It’s too bad this person doesn’t post here anymore, and if you read the subsequent posts and rebuttals, the reasons for his/her absence are pretty clear. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/816/case-eugenics-motivated-murder
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2022 12:05:43 GMT -5
I don’t know if you’ve read this excellent post previously contributed by bookrefuge. It’s both informative and balanced, two traits that in general don’t seem to be overly welcomed on this discussion forum. It’s too bad this person doesn’t post here anymore, and if you read the subsequent posts and rebuttals, the reasons for his/her absence are pretty clear. I recommend V3, page 28-98. The position above was addressed there. There's a lot I've learned since 2012 and these types of debates and counterarguments assist greatly. It's why I always thank the members of this board in my books. The person who posted that was and is always welcome to post here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 12:12:57 GMT -5
I don’t know if you’ve read this excellent post previously contributed by bookrefuge. It’s both informative and balanced, two traits that in general don’t seem to be overly welcomed on this discussion forum. It’s too bad this person doesn’t post here anymore, and if you read the subsequent posts and rebuttals, the reasons for his/her absence are pretty clear. I recommend V3, page 28-98. The position above was addressed there. The person who posted that was and is always welcome to post here. No Michael, it's quite evident that bookrefuge was essentially 'worn down' by your subsequent lack of engagement in good faith towards more meaningful discussion, which I firmly believe would have been capable of achieving something far more substantial than what's presented in the source you've referenced. And if you really do feel that strongly about having him/her participate, why don't you extend an open invitation to that person?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 12:18:45 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.”
No general disrespect towards the individual whose coattails you're riding here, but there's a whole wealth of innuendo, leading assertions and outright misinformation within this quote. I'll not spend any more time than I have to rebutting the above points, but if you like, pick one at a time. We can then have at it, and see what comes out of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2022 12:47:41 GMT -5
No Michael, it's quite evident that bookrefuge was essentially 'worn down' by your subsequent lack of engagement in good faith towards more meaningful discussion, which I firmly believe would have been capable of achieving something far more substantial than what's presented in the source you've referenced. And if you really do feel that strongly about having him/her participate, why don't you extend an open invitation to that person? Worn down? Lack of good faith? What planet do you live on? He was involved in several projects. I think at the time he was writing one on the Illuminati and the Banking system or something similar. From what I understand he wrote one since on COVID that was banned and is currently working on a new one about a 9/11 conspiracy. This idea that he's not here because of me is silly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2022 13:06:59 GMT -5
I continue to wonder if you have any ideas at all, as to WHO might have been involved within a staged kidnapping, that was inspired by Charles Lindbergh, and which ultimately led directly to the door Richard Hauptmann, the primary beneficiary of the $50,000 ransom payment. Was it Alexis Carrell as others have suggested here, the same man he worked side-by-side with from November 1930 at the Rockefeller Institute, inspired by his sister-in-law Elisabeth’s failing health condition, to develop a life-saving organ perfusion apparatus, that he ultimately achieved in early 1935? According to your speculation, Lindbergh must have taken time out in the middle of these pursuits, while spending large amounts of time surveying air routes, to arrange for the destruction of his first-born son who had nothing more demonstrable at the time of his disappearance than a moderately-rickety condition. Am I on the right track here in understanding your thoughts on this? Read Lindbergh's own testimony in Flemington. Know where he was on March 1? Neither do I, and apparenlty, he didn't either. He testified: " Very few people know what I do." How very true. There are many who he could have worked through. If I was ever able to determine exactly where he was I might have a better idea. Next, I believe it is very possible Mueller first approached Hauptmann about this. Since there's no way Mueller was the mastermind then obviously someone approached him. The "cops" in general, including the NJSP and FBI, did not believe this was a staged kidnapping. Of course, Walsh, Keaten and Garsson had their suspicions, but were unable to prove this was the case, or even thought to come forward years later when Lindbergh had ‘fallen from grace.’ They ended up ‘barking up the wrong tree’ and doing more harm than good through overly-oppressive investigative methods inspired by their ham-fisted egos. Opening a can of worms doesn’t necessarily mean there is a connection between the can and the case. Ollie Whateley's so called "confession", revealed in DC1 through dual words-of-mouth, was an alleged opinion that a guilty party existed within the households, of course inferring Betty Gow. I believe you also call this effect, “whisper down the alley” when it better serves your process. And I'm sure Ollie himself, as primary housekeeper and up to the time of his untimely death, would have been wrestling within his own inaction and obvious inattention to the nursery shutter that wouldn't close properly. I disagree. The cops in general believed it was an inside job. I submit that belief was due in part by indications of staging. The first indications of Whateley's confession come from Robinson's notes of 1934/5. Then we have Maine's letter in 1962. We can see the effects of time as he confused Banks for Whateley. But the fact that Whateley confessed is there. There's what Gow told Dave sometime in the 80's. Then what was told to me in 2016 by the minister's son. Finally, there's the other circumstantial evidence from the investigation all mentioned in V1. You can completely ignore it if you like, but I can't do that myself.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2022 13:18:24 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 don't know if this counts, but after reading this post I immediately thought of Aimee Semple McPherson. This happened in 1926 right in Los Angeles. She supposedly disappeared while swimming, presumed dead, but turned up in Mexico claiming she was fleeing kidnappers. There was even a ransom note .... wait for it .... $50,000. Pretty famous at the time and no doubt may have given some people ideas.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Sept 3, 2022 14:04:40 GMT -5
Aimee S. McPherson was a traveling preacher, a revivalist who probably conducted scams of her own. Her story is hard to believe. She would have done anything to get attention.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 3, 2022 14:07:23 GMT -5
In regard to Anne Morrow, Lindbergh may have chosen her for his wife for her physical characteristics: she was short and weighed about 100 pounds. She was also intelligent. All of the qualities would make her a good co-pilot for him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 16:09:14 GMT -5
No Michael, it's quite evident that bookrefuge was essentially 'worn down' by your subsequent lack of engagement in good faith towards more meaningful discussion, which I firmly believe would have been capable of achieving something far more substantial than what's presented in the source you've referenced. And if you really do feel that strongly about having him/her participate, why don't you extend an open invitation to that person? Worn down? Lack of good faith? What planet do you live on? He was involved in several projects. I think at the time he was writing one on the Illuminati and the Banking system or something similar. From what I understand he wrote one since on COVID that was banned and is currently working on a new one about a 9/11 conspiracy. This idea that he's not here because of me is silly. Same planet as you, my friend. Thanks though for clarifying bookrefuge is a guy, which will save me the trouble of having to refer to him in 'his/her' context, in future. I'm only sorry I wasn't contributing during the formative period of that discussion following his opening post, as I would have loved to put in my own two cents. It's clear many seasoned researchers applauded his efforts in providing such an informed, balanced and level-headed perspective on the subject. Bottom line here is that, through his departure, we all lost a great opportunity to truly test the mettle of many accepted beliefs and advance the truth within one of the most fundamental and essential discussions relating to this case. Okay, perhaps I'm being a bit unfair here, although the exchange between the two of you I feel would give a lot of readers here pause otherwise. Anyway, if you truly had nothing to do with his departure, then how about inviting him back? Or perhaps you might be able to ask him if it's okay for me to contact him, in the interests of doing the same?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 3, 2022 16:20:37 GMT -5
Joe, to my recollection, Bookrefuge left the board because he had answered his own question to his satisfaction and did not feel the need to further discuss it. He came on here to prove that Hauptman was innocent and ended up convinced that he was not only guilty but acted alone. I'm sure you've read his last post and I take it at face value.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 3, 2022 17:10:04 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.”
No general disrespect towards the individual whose coattails you're riding here, but there's a whole wealth of innuendo, leading assertions and outright misinformation within this quote. I'll not spend any more time than I have to rebutting the above points, but if you like, pick one at a time. We can then have at it, and see what comes out of the discussion. Wow. Just wow...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 18:49:28 GMT -5
No general disrespect towards the individual whose coattails you're riding here, but there's a whole wealth of innuendo, leading assertions and outright misinformation within this quote. I'll not spend any more time than I have to rebutting the above points, but if you like, pick one at a time. We can then have at it, and see what comes out of the discussion. Wow. Just wow... Those were pretty much my sentiments ILoveDFW, when I read that quote. There's a lot there to take issue with.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2022 18:51:16 GMT -5
Joe, to my recollection, Bookrefuge left the board because he had answered his own question to his satisfaction and did not feel the need to further discuss it. He came on here to prove that Hauptman was innocent and ended up convinced that he was not only guilty but acted alone. I'm sure you've read his last post and I take it at face value. Your memory must serve you better than mine, Stella. Can you perhaps steer me toward that last post you've referenced?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 3, 2022 19:53:21 GMT -5
It was a long time ago, I'll try.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 3, 2022 20:13:01 GMT -5
I don't mean to jump in here, but is this the post from BR you are referring to? On page 8 of the Eugenics Motivated Murder thread (2014).
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 3, 2022 20:19:20 GMT -5
Thank-you Lurp, you saved me hours! In one of his last posts he detailed how Hauptman could have done it, by himself- with no accomplices, and that seemed to end his curiosity about the case.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 3, 2022 20:30:39 GMT -5
Thank-you Lurp, you saved me hours! In one of his last posts he detailed how Hauptman could have done it, by himself- with no accomplices, and that seemed to end his curiosity about the case. With all due respect to BR, it boggles the mind how someone could look at the evidence that actually exists, not what history tells us, and think that Hauptmann did it alone. It's also, frankly, quite ridiculous to exonerate Lindbergh when his behavior was so unbelievably suspect in nearly every respect. If a serious screenwriter took a stab at this case and relied solely on the actual police reports, witness statements and firsthand documentation they'd have a real hard time getting their film made, as it would be so obvious that it was an inside job and Lindbergh's behavior would be perhaps the most obviously glaring aspect that would be "unrealistic" to just about anybody reading the script. I mean imagine trying to write a character who blows off a big engagement on the night of a kidnapping, darts out one minute with his shotgun then the next minute is telling everyone to wait for the fingerprint men to arrive. What happened to the urgency, Mr. Lindbergh? Then he everything he can to obstruct the police, including preventing staff from being questioned, before going searching for his son and spending the time playing pranks and games. You literally couldn't write that without audiences finding it laughably unbelievable yet it happened. And Condon you couldn't even begin to write without people immediately releasing he was involved to his eyeballs in this.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 4, 2022 2:18:51 GMT -5
Those were pretty much my sentiments ILoveDFW, when I read that quote. There's a lot there to take issue with. Sorry Joe, but I was not agreeing with you. I should have been clearer.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2022 6:15:10 GMT -5
Michael, please accept my apologies for implying bookrefuge left this board due to your interaction with him. I wasn't aware he had left on his own accord, having being able to answer his own questions. At the same time, I would welcome his return participation anytime. It's not often we see that level of insight, factual background information and level-headed approach to some of the primary questions that continue to permeate this case.
Lurp / ILoveDFW, thank you for bringing the necessary information to my attention!
Stella, if you're able to locate it, can you please send me the bookrefuge post which details how Hauptmann accomplished the kidnapping on his own? I don't necessarily agree with that stance, but have little doubt about Hauptmann's primary motivations and personal actions.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 4, 2022 7:59:54 GMT -5
Joe, sure, I'll be happy to search. It may take awhile. I have to say, we are all entitled to our opinions, this is a 90 year old case that none of us here thinks was correctly solved. The evidence can lead to different interpretations, imho.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 4, 2022 20:11:28 GMT -5
OK Joe, if you look at Bookrefuge's ahead "How Hauptmann knew about Tuesday - A Theory" he lays out how it could have happened. Then, months later, he said he wasn't on the board much anymore because he had come to the conclusion that Hauptman had done it, I must have put the two things together in my mind. You were right, he didn't necessarily think Hauptmann did it alone. I could have sworn he posted more of a goodbye but I can't find it.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Sept 5, 2022 7:08:58 GMT -5
I have now followed the thoughts and threads on the disuccsion board for many years and am impressed with the number of theories which have been presented and the references made to printed materials. While I have no theory concerning the solution of the case, a possible process in determining the thrust of the search came to mind after reading about the Venona descript of the KGB codes in the late 1940s. According to Howard Blum in "In the Enemy's House" the code was cracked, but the names of persons and places were in code words. The investigators identified those engaged in espionage by examining the details of movements of persons and their associations with others and at what times. This produced enough evidence to gain confessions from many spies who were willing to name others. Julius Rosenberg was an exception: he pled the 5th amendment and was executed (code names Antenna and Liberal). In the Llindbergh case many individuals are mentioned as possibly involved. So we eeed to take a look at the whole picture, not just a couple of details and ask the following questions:
What groups are formed and who is involved in them? What is their relationship to one another and why are they associating with one another?
What are the movements physically, who travels where , when, and for what purpose?
What knowledge does each have and how is this knowledge put into practice?
What capabilities, both physical and mental, do the individuals have, indicating their potential and limitations?
No examples are given here since they tend to distract. Evidence for movements, physical and mental abilit
etc. can be illustated. Movements can be traced. Relationships are often known.
Just a suggested difference approach that could lead to some realistic possibilities.
|
|