|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2022 22:17:59 GMT -5
Can you expand on this nebulous claim just a bit, as I'd be happy to discuss? What? There's absolutely no need to keep blowing your own horn here. No one here questions your efforts and weirdness. Sorry. I think sometimes you need a reminder because you act like I don't have the sources to back up what I've written. Charlie's skull was "pliable" due to his age and the rickets diagnosis, perhaps a bit more so than would be expected for a child his age. This according to Dr. Mitchell's testimony. But we're still talking about skull material here and not something of the Mr. Potato Head variety. No stick caused that hole in Charlie's skull, and you can take that to the bank, my friend. The "pliable" testimony was general in nature, talking about what's expected in children of that age. Prior to his testimony, Dr. Mitchell theorized the hole was either created by a bullet or a board with a nail in it. This was before he was informed that Inspector Walsh actually made the hole with a stick when he manipulated the corpse in order to remove its clothing. Major Schoeffel made this public for the first time because the press inquired whether a nail from Hauptmann's garage could have made the hole after hearing about Dr. Mitchell's theory. You didn't know about that did you? You see, according to Walsh's testimony, he informed Schwarzkopf about accidentally poking the hole in the skull. So, no, I'm not going to "take it to the bank," rather, I'll rely on the man who was there, and actually willingly admitted that he did it. There was no need to make something like this up because it made no difference to the case whatsoever. The blunt force trauma, blamed for the cause of death, was on the other side of the head. Right, stick punctures bony skull material in a nice round 1/2" hole when the same skull material opposite the hole fractures and emits radiating fracture lines. No dice. Have you considered the reason for that hole having been explained away by a stick is because the prosecutor didn't want to have to explain how death could have occurred in Mercer County by way of a potential gunshot wound well removed from the Lindbergh property? Yes " irregular rounded" hole created by a stick that Inspector Walsh used by his own admission. You know, the guy who was actually there. Next, the only thing I find interesting about your theory is that you came up with it. I'm shocked actually. But no. The death was determined to have been caused by the trauma on the other side of the head caused by external force. Besides, it was Dr. Mitchell's testimony about "when" he died that was most important. And we know he was coached about that since it differs from his testimony in the Means trial. No idea what you're talking about here. More proof of my earlier point. Try calming down and let's discuss each point in its entirety with regards to any of the case players, as opposed to just yelling at clouds. Pot calling the kettle black. And you've shown nothing to prove that this child was worthy of being consigned to oblivion by someone you don't really have much of a read on at all, despite all of your research and claims. Coming from someone who can't even remember what I've written.... There's a ton of smoke you've chosen to ignore. That's your decision. I mean, you believe Condon was "honest" even when he told two different FBI Agents two completely different stories about the Needle Salesman. To one, he gave a detailed description and suggested he was the Lookout. To another, he couldn't give a description because he wasn't home at the time. So of course, nothing I write or say makes any sense to you. How could it under these circumstances? You've answered that already? What you've expressed is your opinion that Charles Lindbergh would have had his son killed for his being less than perfect in your own mind. Therein lies the idiocy. Already addressed. See your Condon position to compare and contrast. I don't plan to, but maybe they'll take you back so you have something else to do. You mean dealing with criminals right?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 7:49:29 GMT -5
Charlie's skull was "pliable" due to his age and the rickets diagnosis, perhaps a bit more so than would be expected for a child his age. This according to Dr. Mitchell's testimony. But we're still talking about skull material here and not something of the Mr. Potato Head variety. No stick caused that hole in Charlie's skull, and you can take that to the bank, my friend. The "pliable" testimony was general in nature, talking about what's expected in children of that age. Prior to his testimony, Dr. Mitchell theorized the hole was either created by a bullet or a board with a nail in it. This was before he was informed that Inspector Walsh actually made the hole with a stick when he manipulated the corpse in order to remove its clothing. Major Schoeffel made this public for the first time because the press inquired whether a nail from Hauptmann's garage could have made the hole after hearing about Dr. Mitchell's theory. You didn't know about that did you? You see, according to Walsh's testimony, he informed Schwarzkopf about accidentally poking the hole in the skull. So, no, I'm not going to "take it to the bank," rather, I'll rely on the man who was there, and actually willingly admitted that he did it. There was no need to make something like this up because it made no difference to the case whatsoever. The blunt force trauma, blamed for the cause of death, was on the other side of the head. Okay, fair enough, but allow me to explore this a bit more. So Walsh reported to Schwarzkopf at the general time of the alleged incident, that he was responsible for the irregular, round hole on the left side of the corpse's skull, as a result of his 'maneuvering stick' used to turn the corpse for further identification, right? Dr. Mitchell originally believed a bullet could have made the hole based upon his understanding that the skull would have been too hard to give way to a stick. He then goes on to revise his conclusion to coincide with Walsh's original claim and the prosecution's case. It seems to me there lies the possibility that Walsh's stick simply "found" the original hole in Charlie's skull, which he then assumed he must have just made. Again, we're talking about skull bone here, regardless of the affect of rickets. Do you have anything that discounts this possibility other than that Swayze and Mitchell were not able to locate an actual bullet within the brain material?
Right, stick punctures bony skull material in a nice round 1/2" hole when the same skull material opposite the hole fractures and emits radiating fracture lines. No dice. Have you considered the reason for that hole having been explained away by a stick is because the prosecutor didn't want to have to explain how death could have occurred in Mercer County by way of a potential gunshot wound well removed from the Lindbergh property? Yes " irregular rounded" hole created by a stick that Inspector Walsh used by his own admission. You know, the guy who was actually there. Next, the only thing I find interesting about your theory is that you came up with it. I'm shocked actually. But no. The death was determined to have been caused by the trauma on the other side of the head caused by external force. Besides, it was Dr. Mitchell's testimony about "when" he died that was most important. And we know he was coached about that since it differs from his testimony in the Means trial. But according to Dr. Mitchell's testimony at Flemington, there were no indications of scalp lacerations to demonstrate an external blow, in the immediate vicinity of the skull fracture.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 8:01:06 GMT -5
And you've shown nothing to prove that this child was worthy of being consigned to oblivion by someone you don't really have much of a read on at all, despite all of your research and claims. Coming from someone who can't even remember what I've written.... There's a ton of smoke you've chosen to ignore. That's your decision. I mean, you believe Condon was "honest" even when he told two different FBI Agents two completely different stories about the Needle Salesman. To one, he gave a detailed description and suggested he was the Lookout. To another, he couldn't give a description because he wasn't home at the time. So of course, nothing I write or say makes any sense to you. How could it under these circumstances? I'm talking about Charles Lindbergh here, and implying you don't know enough about the man to logically and fairly conclude he was responsible for the murder of his son.
I don't plan to, but maybe they'll take you back so you have something else to do. You mean dealing with criminals right? Yes, the same minds you possibly dealt with for far too long while simultaneously researching this case. This appears to have resulted in your projection of all of their applicable misgivings onto the likes of Charles Lindbergh and John Condon, and probably others. I just don't believe you understand enough about each man to present the type of reasonable balance within argument, to support your theories.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 30, 2022 8:03:33 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 8:29:16 GMT -5
Charlie's diagnosis of a "moderate rickety condition," would also have delayed this closing, as it would have delayed the fusing of his skull sutures into bony skull-like material. Even so, sutures in a perfectly-healthy child don't reach this stage until an average age of 24 months, so again Charlie had four months to go on this account. The sutures were still relatively soft and pliable, which is why his skull basically fell into its individual plates as Swayze attempted to saw through the top of the skull. Not abnormal at all, which is why that fact was never questioned by Dr. Mitchell as being unusual in any way. The sutures certainly seem to get their share of yellow jounalistic press at this discussion board though.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 8:47:42 GMT -5
There's a lot we don't know. But its what we do know that needs to be considered. Who was Dr. Van Ingen? What did he diagnose? What did the FBI say they expected if they interviewed Van Ingen? What other issues concerning the child's health do we know about? Again, I'm of the position that Lindbergh seeing the condition of those toes had the wheels in his head spinning almost immediately. This child was supposed to be the second coming. Another interesting tidbit came during the NJSP review in the late 70s early 80s. The identity of the child was a major issue at the time and it was Lane who found the hair from both sources matched due to something he had never seen before in his life. It was so unique that he believed that could be used to identify him. He suggested the possibility that it was caused by a "disease." That's the NJSP, not me. Anyway, no need to rehash what I've written in the books. My position may be far more cynical than most, but its what I believe. There's always new information to be found, heck, I'm pursuing something now that only one person has read that I know of, so I will always consider new information to be applied to existing facts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 9:08:39 GMT -5
Okay, fair enough, but allow me to explore this a bit more. So Walsh reported to Schwarzkopf at the general time of the alleged incident, that he was responsible for the irregular, round hole on the left side of the corpse's skull, as a result of his 'maneuvering stick' used to turn the corpse for further identification, right? Dr. Mitchell originally believed a bullet could have made the hole based upon his understanding that the skull would have been too hard to give way to a stick. He then goes on to revise his conclusion to coincide with Walsh's original claim and the prosecution's case. It seems to me there lies the possibility that Walsh's stick simply "found" the original hole in Charlie's skull, which he then assumed he must have just made. Again, we're talking about skull bone here, regardless of the affect of rickets. Do you have anything that discounts this possibility other than that Swayze and Mitchell were not able to locate an actual bullet within the brain material?
Okay. So considering that Walsh was being truthful, this seems to be the only possible counterargument. To me, it would be like hitting a target dead center without trying. Taking a stick and accidentally putting it through a 1/2" preexisting hole that wasn't seen or known about? I don't gamble, but if I did, I'd stay away from that bet based on the crazy odds of it. The unclosed fontanel was visible to everyone. Why not put the stick in that hole? For me, it shows he's avoiding a pre-existing hole in his head and not the other way around. But according to Dr. Mitchell's testimony at Flemington, there were no indications of scalp lacerations to demonstrate an external blow, in the immediate vicinity of the skull fracture. Because, according to him, it was so badly decomposed. It was always his conclusion that an external blow was the cause of death.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 9:15:50 GMT -5
There's a lot we don't know. But its what we do know that needs to be considered. Who was Dr. Van Ingen? What did he diagnose? What did the FBI say they expected if they interviewed Van Ingen? What other issues concerning the child's health do we know about? Again, I'm of the position that Lindbergh seeing the condition of those toes had the wheels in his head spinning almost immediately. This child was supposed to be the second coming. Another interesting tidbit came during the NJSP review in the late 70s early 80s. The identity of the child was a major issue at the time and it was Lane who found the hair from both sources matched due to something he had never seen before in his life. It was so unique that he believed that could be used to identify him. He suggested the possibility that it was caused by a "disease." That's the NJSP, not me. Anyway, no need to rehash what I've written in the books. My position may be far more cynical than most, but its what I believe. There's always new information to be found, heck, I'm pursuing something now that only one person has read that I know of, so I will always consider new information to be applied to existing facts. I believe your position about Lindbergh looking at his son's crossed toes and having something set off in his mind enough to dispose of him, is highly questionable and lacks balance. Every source you quote about Charlie by necessity having to have been the "second coming," appears to have come from well known people, celebrities and the average person writing in, newspaper columnists and your own imagination. In fact, Charles Lindbergh himself was very clear about how he wanted his son to grow up, pursuing something that he had aptitude and interest for, and that he hoped the press wouldn't feel compelled to dog his every step along the way. Does this sound like someone who would have reacted with horror over a congenital condition which he also would have understood immediately, was correctable through surgery at a later age, if it wasn't remedied non-surgically in the meantime? To even suggest Lindbergh would have taken to heart what the press and public had to say in this case, seems entirely ingenuous on your part. Again, you demonstrate that you don't really know the man. And his crossed toes certainly didn't seem to slow Charlie down. Might not Lindbergh, through his willingness and desire to overcome any obstacles, have also appreciated that very fact in his own son?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 9:23:40 GMT -5
I'm talking about Charles Lindbergh here, and implying you don't know enough about the man to logically and fairly conclude he was responsible for the murder of his son. I want you to think about this position for a minute Joe. I've been researching this case for 22 years. My entire living room is filled with files on him that I'd wager you've not only never seen, but don't know even exist. I've been through the NJSP Archives, in its entirety, multiple times researching collections and files. Some of them, according to Mark, that no one in his employment ever went thru. I've read all the books too. From Davis to Berg. I've also spent almost three decades working shoulder to shoulder with convicted felons of every stripe. I wasn't the type to avoid them either - quite the opposite. I picked their brains each day every chance I got. But you type this out as if you know more? Seriously. None of what I've written above means I'm perfect or that I cannot be challenged, of course, but you're talking to me like I'm a dumb kid who has yet to read a book on the case. And while I don't doubt that you've done all you can considering your proximity to much of the source material, does that qualify you to disqualify me? Give it some thought. Yes, the same minds you possibly dealt with for far too long while simultaneously researching this case. This appears to have resulted in your projection of all of their applicable misgivings onto the likes of Charles Lindbergh and John Condon, and probably others. I just don't believe you understand enough about each man to present the type of reasonable balance within argument, to support your theories.
See my response above. Also, as another point, I have all of the books, reports, memos, letters, and history of Condon that currently is known to exist. I've read them all, multiple times. Have you? I know you haven't because I have some things that probably haven't been read since 1932. But you are the one telling me I don't know enough. And besides, it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see a man tell two completely different stories within about a month concerning the exact same event to conclude he's either crazy or a liar. Very few, I'd submit, would claim as you have.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 9:36:38 GMT -5
Okay, fair enough, but allow me to explore this a bit more. So Walsh reported to Schwarzkopf at the general time of the alleged incident, that he was responsible for the irregular, round hole on the left side of the corpse's skull, as a result of his 'maneuvering stick' used to turn the corpse for further identification, right? Dr. Mitchell originally believed a bullet could have made the hole based upon his understanding that the skull would have been too hard to give way to a stick. He then goes on to revise his conclusion to coincide with Walsh's original claim and the prosecution's case. It seems to me there lies the possibility that Walsh's stick simply "found" the original hole in Charlie's skull, which he then assumed he must have just made. Again, we're talking about skull bone here, regardless of the affect of rickets. Do you have anything that discounts this possibility other than that Swayze and Mitchell were not able to locate an actual bullet within the brain material?
Okay. So considering that Walsh was being truthful, this seems to be the only possible counterargument. To me, it would be like hitting a target dead center without trying. Taking a stick and accidentally putting it through a 1/2" preexisting hole that wasn't seen or known about? I don't gamble, but if I did, I'd stay away from that bet based on the crazy odds of it. The unclosed fontanel was visible to everyone. Why not put the stick in that hole? For me, it shows he's avoiding a pre-existing hole in his head and not the other way around. The corpse was discovered face down and partially buried, half covered with leaves, other debris and vermin, so I don't preclude the possibility that Walsh, trying to gain leverage on the skull at some point in the exercise, did not recognize the existence of a previous hole. As you say, given the actual size of the hole, the odds seem to indicate otherwise, but discounting them outright seems akin to a case of "shrugging off," that same concept you admonish others to avoid at all costs. There are a whole host of notable events within this case that simply defy their long odds.
I'm left here with a very clear picture that, (unless it had a rotating drill or impact punch at the end of it) no wooden stick would have been able to make that relatively clean hole in bony skull matter.
But according to Dr. Mitchell's testimony at Flemington, there were no indications of scalp lacerations to demonstrate an external blow, in the immediate vicinity of the skull fracture. Because, according to him, it was so badly decomposed. It was always his conclusion that an external blow was the cause of death. Until he heard about the alleged stick perforation, that doesn't appear to have been the case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 9:51:16 GMT -5
I'm talking about Charles Lindbergh here, and implying you don't know enough about the man to logically and fairly conclude he was responsible for the murder of his son. I want you to think about this position for a minute Joe. I've been researching this case for 22 years. My entire living room is filled with files on him that I'd wager you've not only never seen, but don't know even exist. I've been through the NJSP Archives, in its entirety, multiple times researching collections and files. Some of them, according to Mark, that no one in his employment ever went thru. I've read all the books too. From Davis to Berg. I've also spent almost three decades working shoulder to shoulder with convicted felons of every stripe. I wasn't the type to avoid them either - quite the opposite. I picked their brains each day every chance I got. But you type this out as if you know more? Seriously. None of what I've written above means I'm perfect or that I cannot be challenged, of course, but you're talking to me like I'm a dumb kid who has yet to read a book on the case. And while I don't doubt that you've done all you can considering your proximity to much of the source material, does that qualify you to disqualify me? Give it some thought. I don't doubt you've probably read more about Charles Lindbergh and talked to more convicts than I have and I'm certainly not calling you dumb. I don't necessarily believe though that volume of reading equals true understanding. Can you just explain why, within all of that time and over the course of four books, you've not once to my knowledge, attempted to provide a balanced viewpoint which objectively calls into play, both the negative and positive attributes of Charles Lindbergh, or John Condon for that matter. it's a very simple question and the answer might just surprise you.
Yes, the same minds you possibly dealt with for far too long while simultaneously researching this case. This appears to have resulted in your projection of all of their applicable misgivings onto the likes of Charles Lindbergh and John Condon, and probably others. I just don't believe you understand enough about each man to present the type of reasonable balance within argument, to support your theories.
See my response above. Also, as another point, I have all of the books, reports, memos, letters, and history of Condon that currently is known to exist. I've read them all, multiple times. Have you? I know you haven't because I have some things that probably haven't been read since 1932. But you are the one telling me I don't know enough. And besides, it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see a man tell two completely different stories within about a month concerning the exact same event to conclude he's either crazy or a liar. Very few, I'd submit, would claim as you have. See my above response.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 15:56:29 GMT -5
The corpse was discovered face down and partially buried, half covered with leaves, other debris and vermin, so I don't preclude the possibility that Walsh, trying to gain leverage on the skull at some point in the exercise, did not recognize the existence of a previous hole. As you say, given the actual size of the hole, the odds seem to indicate otherwise, but discounting them outright seems akin to a case of "shrugging off," that same concept you admonish others to avoid at all costs. There are a whole host of notable events within this case that simply defy their long odds.
I'm left here with a very clear picture that, (unless it had a rotating drill or impact punch at the end of it) no wooden stick would have been able to make that relatively clean hole in bony skull matter. I think you have to understand that if Walsh saw a pre-existing hole there's no reason to claim responsibility for it. In fact, he had more reason not to bring attention to the fact that he screwed up by creating the hole in the first place. As far as shrugging anything off, I haven't done that. I've acknowledged it, considered it, but don't find it a meaningful option. In the end, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Resisting that fact by stating " no wooden stick would have been able to make..." seems irrational to me. It shouldn't have - but it did. There's no alternative explanation that is more workable than the truth that Walsh told. You don't "like" it, so you're going to accept anything but the obvious. So if there's a 1 in a 10,000 option that indicates otherwise that will be the one you pick. Clear as day. Until he heard about the alleged stick perforation, that doesn't appear to have been the case.Among other sources, he testified to it during the Means trial: Q. From your examination of this body what, in your opinion, was the cause of the child's death?
A. That child died by some external violence to the head which caused a fracture of the skull. It had a marked fracture extending from the top of the head down the side, and then it branched off, one going posteriorly and the other anteriorly on that side of the skull (indicating). In other words, he had a marked fracture of the left side of the skull.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 16:19:38 GMT -5
I don't doubt you've probably read more about Charles Lindbergh and talked to more convicts than I have and I'm certainly not calling you dumb. I don't necessarily believe though that volume of reading equals true understanding. Can you just explain why, within all of that time and over the course of four books, you've not once to my knowledge, attempted to provide a balanced viewpoint which objectively calls into play, both the negative and positive attributes of Charles Lindbergh, or John Condon for that matter. it's a very simple question and the answer might just surprise you. I think that's pretty obvious since you recently ordered The Immortalists, something I read in 2007. Have you read " War Against the Weak"? I'm guessing no. Frankly, I'd say you've got a lot of catching up to do. Of course that doesn't mean your opinions aren't valuable or should be disregarded, but to accuse me of not knowing or that I don't "understand" enough myself seems a tad hypocritical. Next, here we go with the books. Joe, I never intended to rewrite somebody else's books. What I've attempted to do was provide all the new information, along with some old, in order for the readers to properly prepare themselves to make an informed decision. I believe I've been more than balanced. Look at what I did to the Jone's material about the baby being in John's Hopkins. Did I help that position or harm it? That's balance. I offered up the possibility that a fox may have created that toe issue even though I don't personally believe it. Why? Because I found that information during my research and wanted to leave that up to those reading to decide for themselves. That's balance. And while I, at times, knocked down Fisher and Cahill, I did the same in certain places dealing with Kennedy, Scaduto, A&M, Pearlman, Behn, and Norris. That's called balance Joe. Sometimes I proved it, and other times offered my opinions. Heck, I went out of my way to express that I didn't believe Dwight Jr. was involved In fact, there's a place or two where I disagree with my friend Lloyd, and in the Sharp chapter I disagree with Mark. So yes, there's that balance - again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 16:31:54 GMT -5
Since I have Dr. Mitchell's testimony in front of me, here is what was said: In other words, to make it clear to you, it is what is commonly known as the soft spot on the top of a child's heard after birth, which usually closes within about the first year, but in this case this fontanelle was still open. I made a measurement of the fontanelle, which was larger than normally should be present.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 30, 2022 16:43:02 GMT -5
Yes it usually does but he was still within the norm. I'm sure Dr. Van Ingen was keeping an eye on it as any pediatrician would.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 30, 2022 17:03:58 GMT -5
Dr. Van Ingen was the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics prabook.com/web/philip_van.ingen/1111992 He went to Yale, then Columbia for med school. He stated that Charlie had a mild rickety condition, why would a physician of his stature lie about his patient. I also think it is very clear that Charlie was being uncooperative during his last exam and would not stand upright, just displaying typical "terrible twos" behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 18:07:02 GMT -5
Yes it usually does but he was still within the norm. I'm sure Dr. Van Ingen was keeping an eye on it as any pediatrician would. I'm certainly no doctor, but the second part of his testimony seems to indicate it was larger than normal. The other thing is Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow where he wrote on May 4th claiming it " ought to be closed by now." Early May makes him about 22 months. Next, we know Van Ingen diagnosed him with Rickets. So he's seeing one or more things to cause this diagnosis.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 18:11:07 GMT -5
And from Livestrong.com - Symptoms of Vitamin D Deficiency in Babies.
A baby is born with 6 fontanelles, opening between the plates of the skull that sometimes referred to as soft spots. The anterior fontanelle has closed in 38 percent of babies by 12 months of age and in 96 percent of babies by 24 months. In babies with rickets however, these closures will be delayed and fontanelles may also appear larger than in normal babies.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2022 18:17:31 GMT -5
Yes it usually does but he was still within the norm. I'm sure Dr. Van Ingen was keeping an eye on it as any pediatrician would. I'm certainly no doctor, but the second part of his testimony seems to indicate it was larger than normal. The other thing is Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow where he wrote on May 4th claiming it " ought to be closed by now." Early May makes him about 22 months. Next, we know Van Ingen diagnosed him with Rickets. So he's seeing one or more things to cause this diagnosis. Charlie only lived to be about 20-1/2 months of age, so how is Dr. Van Ingen's theoretical prognosis even relevant? Rickets is known to cause a larger-than normal fontanelles and their delayed closing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2022 18:28:25 GMT -5
Dr. Van Ingen was the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics prabook.com/web/philip_van.ingen/1111992 He went to Yale, then Columbia for med school. He stated that Charlie had a mild rickety condition, why would a physician of his stature lie about his patient. I also think it is very clear that Charlie was being uncooperative during his last exam and would not stand upright, just displaying typical "terrible twos" behavior. Exactly. He was arguably the best in his field and was attending to the child ever since Dr. Hawks turned him over. He diagnosed the child with Rickets. Exactly when, I don't know, but it seems odd (to me) that a child under his supervision as soon as he was could have developed such a condition. In his pre-trial interview, which was designed to confirm the child's identity NOT his health, he mentions a "square head" as being associated with the Rickets. So there was no quiz about health. What was offered was meant to assist to help prove this was who the State was going to present in court. Referring back to Van Ingen's letter, HE claimed the child was " rather spoiled." If he wasn't the best pediatrician, as you've noted, I would think "terrible twos" myself. He also mentioned the toes, and the unusually dry skin which he claimed was " unusual in a child of his age." Also, his " height" and " chest" being " unusually well developed" but everything else concerning his development was " slightly delayed." I've been told there were certain conditions that weren't known back in 1932 or commonly attributed to something else. Can't say that applies here but its a possibility. Next, there was so much emphasis on shielding, respecting, and protecting the family. Again, I cannot say that's what happened here either but its another consideration. And finally but certainly not lastly, the FBI seemed to think Van Ingen had more to say. My guess is he would have if he was asked. However, there's nothing in the files that indicate he ever was, only that the FBI wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 30, 2022 18:49:22 GMT -5
Dr. Van Ingen was the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics prabook.com/web/philip_van.ingen/1111992 He went to Yale, then Columbia for med school. He stated that Charlie had a mild rickety condition, why would a physician of his stature lie about his patient. I also think it is very clear that Charlie was being uncooperative during his last exam and would not stand upright, just displaying typical "terrible twos" behavior. Exactly. He was arguably the best in his field and was attending to the child ever since Dr. Hawks turned him over. He diagnosed the child with Rickets. Exactly when, I don't know, but it seems odd (to me) that a child under his supervision as soon as he was could have developed such a condition. In his pre-trial interview, which was designed to confirm the child's identity NOT his health, he mentions a "square head" as being associated with the Rickets. So there was no quiz about health. What was offered was meant to assist to help prove this was who the State was going to present in court. Referring back to Van Ingen's letter, HE claimed the child was " rather spoiled." If he wasn't the best pediatrician, as you've noted, I would think "terrible twos" myself. He also mentioned the toes, and the unusually dry skin which he claimed was " unusual in a child of his age." Also, his " height" and " chest" being " unusually well developed" but everything else concerning his development was " slightly delayed." I've been told there were certain conditions that weren't known back in 1932 or commonly attributed to something else. Can't say that applies here but its a possibility. Next, there was so much emphasis on shielding, respecting, and protecting the family. Again, I cannot say that's what happened here either but its another consideration. And finally but certainly not lastly, the FBI seemed to think Van Ingen had more to say. My guess is he would have if he was asked. However, there's nothing in the files that indicate he ever was, only that the FBI wanted to. Also not to parse words but he said "moderate rickey condition," which is not the same as mild.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 30, 2022 19:04:51 GMT -5
Trojanusc, you are correct, moderate.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 31, 2022 8:57:29 GMT -5
It's also worth noting that Charlie was being prescribed 14 drops of Viosteol 250D per day, basically a bit more than the minimum dose generally suggested for mild rickets at the time.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 31, 2022 10:11:37 GMT -5
Why are these same topics argued over and over and over ad nauseam? Stick to the damned topic! Have seen these very same posts forever under all kinds of topics. Geeeeeez...
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 31, 2022 16:51:36 GMT -5
The sword crossing occurs when the conversation lags.. Maybe it's a device to increase interest on the board. It would be great to inroduce some new information or some new ideas.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 31, 2022 18:36:35 GMT -5
The sword crossing occurs when the conversation lags.. Maybe it's a device to increase interest on the board. It would be great to inroduce some new information or some new ideas. Not at all. Same crap over and over under topics it has no business being under. It is out of control.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Nov 1, 2022 6:35:36 GMT -5
The sword crossing occurs when the conversation lags.. Maybe it's a device to increase interest on the board. It would be great to inroduce some new information or some new ideas. Not at all. Same crap over and over under topics it has no business being under. It is out of control. The same issue has existed here for years in just about every other thread. Perhaps you could volunteer as Controller of Content at this site, or make positive suggestions as to how the discussion format can be improved. As it is, your rebuttal or commentary posts of late, seem limited to laughing face and poop emojis.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2022 8:00:21 GMT -5
As it is, your rebuttal or commentary posts of late, seem limited to laughing face and poop emojis. What's the difference between emojis and words? You basically said, no actually did say, that I wasn't balanced. That's the same thing if you ask me. Anyway, if you are looking for a letter or source geared toward something specific that you have in mind just ask me. I don't care what it is. If I have it or remember something I'll share it with you or anyone else if I can. Fact is, I've found and shared numerous things with people over the years to help them support their theories that I did not and do not believe in myself.
|
|
|
Post by obi on Nov 4, 2022 6:47:42 GMT -5
As it is, your rebuttal or commentary posts of late, seem limited to laughing face and poop emojis. What's the difference between emojis and words? You basically said, no actually did say, that I wasn't balanced. That's the same thing if you ask me. Anyway, if you are looking for a letter or source geared toward something specific that you have in mind just ask me. I don't care what it is. If I have it or remember something I'll share it with you or anyone else if I can. Fact is, I've found and shared numerous things with people over the years to help them support their theories that I did not and do not believe in myself. With all due respect to knowledgeable members critical of letting the conversation wander, many important things I have learned here were on 'Threads Gone Wild.' It seems to me, had you strictly followed the original thread these points would likely not have been mentioned - or there would be thousands of new threads. This, from an uneducated, rookie perspective. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 4, 2022 12:28:58 GMT -5
With all due respect to knowledgeable members critical of letting the conversation wander, many important things I have learned here were on 'Threads Gone Wild.' It seems to me, had you strictly followed the original thread these points would likely not have been mentioned - or there would be thousands of new threads. This, from an uneducated, rookie perspective. Thanks. I appreciate the input. I should probably offer up an explanation, as I always do, in my unique style.... This is the 3rd Board I created after the first two venues crashed or disappeared. The format was different, and I fielded all kinds of suggestions from members of the previous boards. Some have since disappeared, and others, like Joe, are still here so I think he'll back me up on this. Anyway, the idea was to create different categories in order to organize and make the discussions more neat and tidy specific to certain topics. It seemed like a great idea, and its why I understand Mary's position. However, as I tried to moderate this strategy, it became a disaster. First and foremost, it was like a full time job to move certain discussions as they veered off into different topics. And once I did it, certain authors lost track of their posts and/or reformulated them in other places. In short, it was a nightmare. At a certain point, not only was I exhausted, I believed I was doing more harm than good, so the decision was made to let the discussions run their courses in the threads they existed in. It's almost like there is no other choice. It's kinda like my FBI reports on this case. Many seem to cover multiple subjects, and once I file them, I can never seem to find them again because they are in a file concerning a subject that has nothing to do with the one I am looking for. The only solution is to leave them unfiled, in a file merely labeled "FBI," or make multiple copies to put in every different subject that's covered in them. Not quite a Catch-22 but very close.
|
|