Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Nov 5, 2022 10:15:30 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. Quality segue there! Perhaps my choice of terms “not balanced” or “lack of balance” doesn’t always apply in an overall sense here. Where I believe it does apply though, is when certain events or accounts, especially those which are not regularly or even addressed at all by other authors, are presented for consideration within a relatively-limited light. I understand that it’s not your purpose to rewrite the works of other authors, so I’m pretty certain we’re safe here in believing that no other author has even attempted to evaluate in a balanced way, the many factors which would have contributed to Charlie’s black terrier Skean not having made the trip to Highfields for the critical weekend prior to the night of Charlie's disappearance. Let’s explore Skean’s absence if we can, as your entry in DK-1 is quite cursory and I don’t believe presents all of the considerations with which to make an informed decision either way. And yet somehow it seems to often just get lumped into a laundry list of “relevant questions” within a bucket that essentially targets Lindbergh as faked kidnapping conspirator. Perhaps here would have been an opportunity to delve more deeply into what could potentially be one of the most important considerations in this case. Make no mistake here though. If I knew for a fact at the "end of the day," that Charles Lindbergh actually conspired to leave Skean at Englewood, for the express purpose of ensuring Charlie’s terrier would not have been in his nursery on the night of March 1, 1932 to bark at potential intruders, then I would certainly come to view Lindbergh’s motives and actions in an entirely different light. We know that Lindbergh drove Henry and Aida Breckinridge to Highfields on Saturday afternoon, where they (and Alva Root) visited until late afternoon the next day. According to Aida Breckinridge’s statement, Lindbergh first arrived at their apartment just “after luncheon” on the Saturday, having driven there from the Rockefeller Institute, where he was working that morning. Here, they chatted for a number of hours at the Breckinridge’s apartment, before the three left for Highfields around 4:00 pm. From these additional considerations which have never been included in any previous LKC author’s works including your own, would Lindbergh have even had the opportunity or desire to bring Skean with him for this specific trip? Would he have considered it of enough importance, based on the reasonable understanding that Skean was not a “watchdog” but more Charlie’s bedtime companion? Would he have have wanted to, or even been allowed to bring Skean into the Breckinridge apartment? Would he have wanted to leave Skean in his car unattended, while visiting the Breckinridges for what might well be a considerable period of time? How was Skean in the company of strangers in a car over a relatively long drive? Could Lindbergh simply have gone back to Englewood for Skean before he and the Breckinridges departed for Highfields, and would he have even thought it important enough? Could Anne have asked Ellerson or Betty to bring Skean with them when the latter was requested to come to Highfields on the Tuesday afternoon? Does Anne's "omission" here now make her or even Betty and Ellerson, potentially complicit within some untoward scheme? These and a few more perhaps, are questions I don’t have answers for at this point in order to conclude one way of another. As you can can probably tell, I’m very curious to know all there is to know about this account, which for now seems to have been largely and otherwise consigned here, to something along the lines of Lindbergh simply choosing not to wait for Skean to return from his walk at Englewood, therefore yada, yada, yada and wink wink, nudge nudge.. I’d venture that if this account were to be explored enough with all the facts and a little insight, it might well yield a lot more of value than what can be concluded through the many pages covered trying to track down something like the origin of the grey blanket discovered in the Schindler Buick.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 5, 2022 12:37:30 GMT -5
I think it's only natural to let the discussion lead where it may, one thought leads to another and so on. Does it make it harder to find references to an old topic we've discussed before and then can't find it again? Yes, but I don't have an answer on how to fix that. Recently we brought up when milk was fortified with vitamin D and whether or not Charlie was drinking this. I know we had this discussion many years in the past, about milk delivery and dairies in Princeton but darned if I could find it. I would venture to say that most people on this board are more serious researchers than I am, so thank-you for all that you share with us casual participants.
Interesting point Joe about how the weekend started and the inconvenience of picking up Skean. Was it Lindbergh's intention to pick him up and he didn't want to wait, or wasn't it important to him at all?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2022 19:45:40 GMT -5
I understand that it’s not your purpose to rewrite the works of other authors, so I’m pretty certain we’re safe here in believing that no other author has even attempted to evaluate in a balanced way, the many factors which would have contributed to Charlie’s black terrier Skean not having made the trip to Highfields for the critical weekend prior to the night of Charlie's disappearance. One of the main inspirations for my first book was the hope it would spur more discussion. So - better late than never I guess. Let's explore Skean’s absence if we can, as your entry in DK-1 is quite cursory and I don’t believe presents all of the considerations with which to make an informed decision either way. And yet somehow it seems to often just get lumped into a laundry list of “relevant questions” within a bucket that essentially targets Lindbergh as faked kidnapping conspirator. Perhaps here would have been an opportunity to delve more deeply into what could potentially be one of the most important considerations in this case. Make no mistake here though. If I knew for a fact at the "end of the day," that Charles Lindbergh actually conspired to leave Skean at Englewood, for the express purpose of ensuring Charlie’s terrier would not have been in his nursery on the night of March 1, 1932 to bark at potential intruders, then I would certainly come to view Lindbergh’s motives and actions in an entirely different light. Okay, so by calling it "cursory," I assume that means you've fully explored my sources as to not repeat what you think are my mistakes - is that true? Have you asked the relevant questions concerning them? For example, Anne wrote in her diary which indicated that, in essence, if Skean had been in Hopewell the kidnapping likely would not have occurred. What questions do you ask about this source? None. Did you ask why the Kidnapper believed he could enter the nursery without Skean there to bite him in the ass? No. Did you wonder why there was no raw meat or dog treats next to the 3/4" chisel or ladder? Negative. What did you ask? Nothing. Furthermore, this is but ONE of many suspicious events that are ALL linked to Lindbergh. So while each one can be questioned and examined singularly, there's a totality of events that needs to be considered together as well. Have you done that? I don't think so. Example: Security Guard. Old man Morrow told Lindbergh if he didn't get security his child would be kidnapped. He had a man asking for the position who had done it for the Construction company in charge of building Highfields. Lindbergh said no. That's not even the tip of the iceberg. So don't forget, and make sure to ask questions Joe. Okay, so we're off to a bad start, let's see if you can redeem yourself. We know that Lindbergh drove Henry and Aida Breckinridge to Highfields on Saturday afternoon, where they (and Alva Root) visited until late afternoon the next day. According to Aida Breckinridge’s statement, Lindbergh first arrived at their apartment just “after luncheon” on the Saturday, having driven there from the Rockefeller Institute, where he was working that morning. Here, they chatted for a number of hours at the Breckinridge’s apartment, before the three left for Highfields around 4:00 pm. Alright, first of all, this is what the source actually says: Right after luncheon on Saturday, Slim came over to our apartment, earlier than he had expected, from the Rockefeller Institute, and somewhere around four o'clock, a little ahead of our schedule as I remember, he drove us down to Hopewell. Since you didn't ask any questions, let's do that now shall we? Why did Lindbergh come early? What was Alva's source that Lindbergh came directly from Rockefeller Institute? Is it possible, Lindbergh came from the Morrow Estate? Or, on their way to Hopewell, did Lindbergh stop off at Next Day Hill first before proceeding to his new home? From these additional considerations which have never been included in any previous LKC author’s works including your own, would Lindbergh have even had the opportunity or desire to bring Skean with him for this specific trip? Would he have considered it of enough importance, based on the reasonable understanding that Skean was not a “watchdog” but more Charlie’s bedtime companion? Would he have have wanted to, or even been allowed to bring Skean into the Breckinridge apartment? Would he have wanted to leave Skean in his car unattended, while visiting the Breckinridges for what might well be a considerable period of time? How was Skean in the company of strangers in a car over a relatively long drive? Could Lindbergh simply have gone back to Englewood for Skean before he and the Breckinridges departed for Highfields, and would he have even thought it important enough? Could Anne have asked Ellerson or Betty to bring Skean with them when the latter was requested to come to Highfields on the Tuesday afternoon? Does Anne's "omission" here now make her or even Betty and Ellerson, potentially complicit within some untoward scheme? Okay, so here comes the questions. Unfortunately, you are framing them from the position that my questions above were somehow answered to your satisfaction. Now comes the idea that Lindbergh wouldn't do what he wanted. If he wanted Skean with him Skean would have been with him. That was who he was and to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Next, what "considerable amount of time" are you talking about? These and a few more perhaps, are questions I don’t have answers for at this point in order to conclude one way of another. As you can can probably tell, I’m very curious to know all there is to know about this account, which for now seems to have been largely and otherwise consigned here, to something along the lines of Lindbergh simply choosing not to wait for Skean to return from his walk at Englewood, therefore yada, yada, yada and wink wink, nudge nudge.. Instead of all of this nonsense, do you find Jung's version unreliable and why? Did bother to consult Anne's statements? Her March 11th said she arrived at Highfields between 5:30PM and 6:00PM and that Lindbergh arrived later that night. What time did Alva say they left again??? Did you consult Anne's March 13 statement? You know, that one that says Lindbergh didn't arrive until the time she was washing dishes in the baby's bathroom around 7:30PM. For those keeping track, that's 3-1/2 hours after Alva said they left for Hopewell. I'd venture that if this account were to be explored enough with all the facts and a little insight, it might well yield a lot more of value than what can be concluded through the many pages covered trying to track down something like the origin of the grey blanket discovered in the Schindler Buick. Are you still of that opinion? Next, the information surrounding the blanket investigation is chuck full of important information. I'm sorry you weren't able to see or consider any of it. I just might have to demote you to the B-League Joe.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Nov 8, 2022 10:20:36 GMT -5
I understand that it’s not your purpose to rewrite the works of other authors, so I’m pretty certain we’re safe here in believing that no other author has even attempted to evaluate in a balanced way, the many factors which would have contributed to Charlie’s black terrier Skean not having made the trip to Highfields for the critical weekend prior to the night of Charlie's disappearance. One of the main inspirations for my first book was the hope it would spur more discussion. So - better late than never I guess. It’s not for lack of ongoing effort on my part. However, and as it so often happens here, accounts like Skean’s absence seem to be simply accepted at face value, as yet another strongly inferred example of Charles Lindbergh’s general dastardliness, buried within laundry lists of similar such grievances. Any reasonable attempt to drill down into such examples for the purpose of seeking the actual truth of the matter, is generally met with something akin to “Refer to Volume 3, pages so and so..”, “It’s all been discussed before..” or.. the golden sound of silence. As this discussion board is really the only ‘show in town’ at this time though, I guess I’ll just keep trying.Let's explore Skean’s absence if we can, as your entry in DK-1 is quite cursory and I don’t believe presents all of the considerations with which to make an informed decision either way. And yet somehow it seems to often just get lumped into a laundry list of “relevant questions” within a bucket that essentially targets Lindbergh as faked kidnapping conspirator. Perhaps here would have been an opportunity to delve more deeply into what could potentially be one of the most important considerations in this case. Make no mistake here though. If I knew for a fact at the "end of the day," that Charles Lindbergh actually conspired to leave Skean at Englewood, for the express purpose of ensuring Charlie’s terrier would not have been in his nursery on the night of March 1, 1932 to bark at potential intruders, then I would certainly come to view Lindbergh’s motives and actions in an entirely different light. Okay, so by calling it "cursory," I assume that means you've fully explored my sources as to not repeat what you think are my mistakes - is that true? Have you asked the relevant questions concerning them? What sources regarding Skean's absence are you talking about? I did a word search of 'Dark Corners' and "Skean” appears a total of six times in DC-1, pages 58 (5X) and 63 (1X - photo). Here's what you wrote about Skean's absence in four volumes and unless I’m missing something here, it is very cursory:
“However, in another strange twist of “fate,” Lindbergh did not bring the baby’s dog Skean—a black Scottish terrier—who hadn’t returned from his walk in the park, and Lindbergh was apparently in no mood to wait for him. Skean had never missed a trip to Hopewell with the baby during their time there. In fact, Skean rarely strayed far from him. As Anne would later torture herself with the variables that led to the ability for those responsible to commit this crime, Skean having not been at Highfields that weekend was among them. She obviously believed if he had been with them, this crime may not have been possible.”For example, Anne wrote in her diary which indicated that, in essence, if Skean had been in Hopewell the kidnapping likely would not have occurred. What questions do you ask about this source? None. There's really not a whole lot to question here within this very honest, poignant and revealing after-the-fact kind of a wish on the part of an anguished mother that Skean was not in his usual place in Charlie’s nursery on the evening of March 1, 1932. And her feelings of despondent regret might well also reflect her own realization that she could have brought Skean herself on the Saturday that her, Charlie and Alva Root were driven to Highfields from Next Day Hill, if in fact Skean had have been available for that particular trip. Or perhaps she could have asked Betty Gow or Henry Ellerson to bring Skean along on the ‘stay-over’ Tuesday afternoon. Did Anne even think of it as important enough, after all, was Skean even generally considered to have been Charlie’s “watchdog?”
What I see time and time again here with the “absent Skean” account is little more than convenient 20/20 hindsight coupled with that old simple cause-and-effect logic. Same goes with the Dwight Morrow statement, this despite the many months the Lindberghs enjoyed relative peace, privacy and security at their rented farmhouse on Cold Soil Road before moving permanently into what probably would have seemed like a fortress in comparison. And yet, these type of genuine insights don’t seem to even register a tick on the “Lindy-Did-It” meter.
Did you ask why the Kidnapper believed he could enter the nursery without Skean there to bite him in the ass? No. Did you ever stop to think why a kidnapper, one who would have been an absolute world removed from that of the Lindberghs, and within this incredibly high stakes and reward crime, would out of necessity, have expected there to have been a dog in the nursery or on the property in the first place? How many dogs roaming the property would a potential kidnapper have seen while doing surveillance on the Highfields property, if he was not being accosted by these same dogs? Did you wonder why there was no raw meat or dog treats next to the 3/4" chisel or ladder? Negative. What did you ask? Nothing. Suggest packing up your Kibbles ‘N Bits here and go back one reply. Furthermore, this is but ONE of many suspicious events that are ALL linked to Lindbergh. So while each one can be questioned and examined singularly, there's a totality of events that needs to be considered together as well. Have you done that? I don't think so. Oh yes I have. From the very beginning of my case interest, study and research. Bottom line though, a lot of simple and poorly-substantiated cause-and-effect logicisms, unfounded tabloid-worthy innuendo and assertions, inconclusive allegations and sketchy suppositions, simply yields a big bag of the above. That and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Sorry, but I prefer the hard, scientific and cold, grey light of morning kind of evidence that there is plenty of in this case, or thoroughly challenging and successfully bringing to ground any of the other hazy and non-descript stuff, before I’d rip anyone for being the murderer of his own son. You just don't seem to want to go there though for some reason.
Example: Security Guard. Old man Morrow told Lindbergh if he didn't get security his child would be kidnapped. He had a man asking for the position who had done it for the Construction company in charge of building Highfields. Lindbergh said no. That's not even the tip of the iceberg. So don't forget, and make sure to ask questions Joe. At face value, this is just another lame duck example of the above. See also Dwight Morrow, above. Okay, so we're off to a bad start, let's see if you can redeem yourself. I’ll give it the old college try as usual, in spite of the apparent lack of desire to engage in meaningful debate and synergy-at-large here.We know that Lindbergh drove Henry and Aida Breckinridge to Highfields on Saturday afternoon, where they (and Alva Root) visited until late afternoon the next day. According to Aida Breckinridge’s statement, Lindbergh first arrived at their apartment just “after luncheon” on the Saturday, having driven there from the Rockefeller Institute, where he was working that morning. Here, they chatted for a number of hours at the Breckinridge’s apartment, before the three left for Highfields around 4:00 pm. Alright, first of all, this is what the source actually says: Right after luncheon on Saturday, Slim came over to our apartment, earlier than he had expected, from the Rockefeller Institute, and somewhere around four o'clock, a little ahead of our schedule as I remember, he drove us down to Hopewell. Since you didn't ask any questions, let's do that now shall we? Why did Lindbergh come early? What was Alva's source that Lindbergh came directly from Rockefeller Institute? Is it possible, Lindbergh came from the Morrow Estate? Or, on their way to Hopewell, did Lindbergh stop off at Next Day Hill first before proceeding to his new home? Okay, despite your sense of gamesmanship, perhaps now we are getting somewhere. Do you still wonder why I ask board members, including yourself, to try and focus on and bring to ground, one aspect or consideration of this case at a time, as opposed to mind-numbing recitations of a 10 or 20-item laundry list of highly-debatable points? Yes, I’d love to be able to bore in on each point raised one at a time, relentlessly if need be, with all the facts, abilities and insights of an entire group.
Rather than engage in your 20 questions routine, can anyone simply and accurately identify Charles Lindbergh’s movements between Englewood and Highfields on Saturday, February 27, 1932? And yes Michael, I've read the three reports you quoted in your previous reply, along with Aida Breckinridge's statement.
From these additional considerations which have never been included in any previous LKC author’s works including your own, would Lindbergh have even had the opportunity or desire to bring Skean with him for this specific trip? Would he have considered it of enough importance, based on the reasonable understanding that Skean was not a “watchdog” but more Charlie’s bedtime companion? Would he have have wanted to, or even been allowed to bring Skean into the Breckinridge apartment? Would he have wanted to leave Skean in his car unattended, while visiting the Breckinridges for what might well be a considerable period of time? How was Skean in the company of strangers in a car over a relatively long drive? Could Lindbergh simply have gone back to Englewood for Skean before he and the Breckinridges departed for Highfields, and would he have even thought it important enough? Could Anne have asked Ellerson or Betty to bring Skean with them when the latter was requested to come to Highfields on the Tuesday afternoon? Does Anne's "omission" here now make her or even Betty and Ellerson, potentially complicit within some untoward scheme? Okay, so here comes the questions. Unfortunately, you are framing them from the position that my questions above were somehow answered to your satisfaction. Now comes the idea that Lindbergh wouldn't do what he wanted. If he wanted Skean with him Skean would have been with him. That was who he was and to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Next, what "considerable amount of time" are you talking about? We generally seem to agree it was Lindbergh’s original intention to bring Skean with him to Highfields on the Saturday, otherwise the implication that it was Lindbergh’s decision not to wait for him to return from his walk, would not be considered.
Does not the very fact that Lindbergh communicated this intention to others, imply in itself that Lindbergh had entered an avenue that he essentially had little or no control over here? What if Skean had not gone for a walk that morning, or was already back and was happily waiting for Lindbergh to pull into Next Day Hill? There are many unexplored potential scenarios behind this very important consideration within the events that led up to Charlie’s kidnapping.
Can we please identify for the record, Lindbergh’s movements on that day relative to his original intention to take Skean with him to Highfields?These and a few more perhaps, are questions I don’t have answers for at this point in order to conclude one way of another. As you can can probably tell, I’m very curious to know all there is to know about this account, which for now seems to have been largely and otherwise consigned here, to something along the lines of Lindbergh simply choosing not to wait for Skean to return from his walk at Englewood, therefore yada, yada, yada and wink wink, nudge nudge.. Instead of all of this nonsense, do you find Jung's version unreliable and why? Did bother to consult Anne's statements? Her March 11th said she arrived at Highfields between 5:30PM and 6:00PM and that Lindbergh arrived later that night. What time did Alva say they left again??? Did you consult Anne's March 13 statement? You know, that one that says Lindbergh didn't arrive until the time she was washing dishes in the baby's bathroom around 7:30PM. For those keeping track, that's 3-1/2 hours after Alva said they left for Hopewell. Hang on a minute here.. one step at a time please. And please try to see all this as more than just nonsense. First of all, when you mention Alva (Root I presume), do you mean to say Aida Breckinridge? I don’t believe an Alva Root statement for that weekend even exists at this point. Please clarify this!
Another thing you may want to tuck away here for later consideration, and that is the actual times that Lindbergh would have been in his laneway on the nights of February 27th and 28th. Perhaps close enough to the time that Millard Whited claimed later in mid-March to have seen what he believed was Lindbergh’s brown Lincoln arriving home on the night of March 1st. Could Whited have confused evenings here?I'd venture that if this account were to be explored enough with all the facts and a little insight, it might well yield a lot more of value than what can be concluded through the many pages covered trying to track down something like the origin of the grey blanket discovered in the Schindler Buick. Are you still of that opinion? Next, the information surrounding the blanket investigation is chuck full of important information. I'm sorry you weren't able to see or consider any of it. I just might have to demote you to the B-League Joe. Oh, I’ve considered it alright and applaud your tireless efforts here, but I still believe the whole Skean saga is worthy of much more than a cursory review and evaluation, as you've presented. So I truly hope the discussion on it continues here.
BTW, I’ll see you at the Awards Ceremony as I’m accepting my B-League certificate (gee, thanks..) and you’re receiving your Smart A.. Wise Guy of-the-Month Award.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 8, 2022 14:53:44 GMT -5
First - yes, I clearly meant Aida not her daughter Alva.
Next, I think its crystal clear that you are guilty of what you've accused me of. What you do is ignore and/or attempt to minimize what you do not like. Just look at how you reacted when you thought you found ONE thing that could be used to counter the facts. Your failure to properly research it is on full display. You grabbed onto it with both hands and pretended it neutralized something it does not. That's not research. You claim to have read both of Anne's statements? Okay, so how did you miss what I pointed out? It seems impossible to me yet there it is. Unless, of course, you decided not to mention it and hope I didn't. Pick your poison I suppose.
Now, instead of a word search, you should probably just read the books. For example, while Skean isn't mentioned by name in V2, he is referred to on page 6. The bottom line is that you are accusing me of certain weaknesses, then expect me to spoon feed you research that you should have already done yourself. I mean, reading the books isn't asking too much - is it? You are acting like it is, then seem distressed when I refer you to the books - most of the time with volume AND page numbers!
Please look at your responses. Are these serious rebuttals? Honestly? You are so worried about the "Lindbergh Did It" implications, not the facts or the possibilities. It's the theory that guides what you decide - not the facts. You can say that Skean never missed the trip but on this one, Lindbergh never intended to bring him. Or he did. I have no idea what your position is because you play games instead of having a real discussion. I think Mrs. Jung's version wasn't written with the intent to implicate him in any way. So he left because he didn't feel like waiting for him. That means, yes, he was supposed to bring him down, just like the family always did. But he did not. No song and dance Joe, he did not and left him behind. Had he not, Skean would have presented a serious obstacle to the successful abduction of this child, if it was an actual abduction. Again, another fact. So he was either a victim of circumstance or it was part of a more sinister plan. You try to create a third option as a way to eliminate this decision.
The fact that Lindbergh IGNORED the advice of his father-in-law is a "Lame Duck" position? That's absurd. Once again, had a Security Guard been employed that night, it would have presented a serious problem for a real kidnapping attempt. Then to act like the fact the Security Guard for the Construction Company asked to stay on in that role for Lindbergh and he said "No" is yet another "Lame Duck" position? What is research good for if one doesn't possess common sense? In this short reply here are THREE very important elements, TWO of which could have, if not would have, prevented the kidnapping. And who was directly responsible for them not existing that night? What's worse is that there are MORE examples of even more elements. Again, one might have some counterarguments to consider, sure, but to pretend they are meaningless cannot be taken seriously. At some point "bad luck" and being a "victim of circumstance" starts to defy the odds.
Getting to my questions that surround the Aida source. Are you really criticizing that I ask them? Seriously? Is that your rebuttal? Considering Anne's statements, YOU were the one who claimed Lindbergh could make it to Highfields in less than an hour and a half in a discussion a couple of years ago as a way to sweep his call on the night of the kidnapping under the rug. How do you explain it here? Avoidance. Now you want to know exactly where he was every step of the way. Who doesn't? Demanding the answer to this question doesn't help your position Joe. Anne's statements destroy your "smoking gun" and now you are grasping a straws. Why not just admit the flaws and discuss in good faith?
In the end, there's nothing "cursory" about what I wrote in my books. I offered a scenario with sources to provide for further discussion. You offered a source that you did not adequately research and got caught with your pants down. Now you must deal with the situation that it potentially allows for the fact that Lindbergh left Skean behind because this idea that he picked up the Breckinridges at 4PM then drove to Hopewell and didn't get there by 7:30PM just ain't gonna fly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2022 8:12:24 GMT -5
I would venture to say that most people on this board are more serious researchers than I am, so thank-you for all that you share with us casual participants. You might consider yourself a "casual" participant, but your input is quite valuable. There have been times when your posts have caused me to do more research on a topic. Several times in fact. Everyone's input is valuable to me. I don't know everything, and sometimes there are things I miss or can't see from my particular perspective. It's important to consider all sides & angles of things in order to get to the truth. Not just here but in everything. Joe and I have been going back and forth for years and years, so I hope that's not off-putting to anyone else who has a comment, observation, idea, fact, or question. Everyone should always feel free to jump in or start a new discussion. There's plenty to talk about.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Nov 13, 2022 8:52:42 GMT -5
Each and every piece of information posted here by board members and guests, is valuable and keeps the discussion/debate fired, interesting and moving forward. The information base for this site is pretty immense, thanks to Michael's tireless research efforts and the input of countless others here over the past twenty-two years. Although the discussion can tend to weave back and forth across multiple threads, it's often easy to 'index' a particular topic, even one many years old, by simply 'Googling' a number of key words.
Yes, the content can get animated and passionate at times, but I'd venture within this case, that’s been pretty much the norm over the past ninety-plus years!
Just as importantly, you never know when any contribution, big or small, can suddenly represent the critical missing link helping to significantly advance a theory or insight for another researcher, which then carries forward and back into the discussion mill. I remember well this personal example.
I've long held the belief that Richard Hauptmann used a small finishing nail held in an inverted position, or something very similar, which he then ‘punched’ with a hammer into corresponding stacks of linen writing paper to create the various hole shapes for the infamous ransom note symbol. I tested many devices and reasoned that the recessed head of the finishing style of nail, held against a piece of softwood substrate with the writing paper between, effects the momentary, sudden impact perimeter ‘punch cut’ and also allows for the resultant paper chad cutouts to accumulate within the nail’s recessed head. This process reproduces well, the actual holes from the ransom notes.
It was my fascination with this kind of nail from my childhood, selectively using it to make little things out of wood that first inspired this thought, but it wasn’t until I had an important conversation with researcher Kevin Kline a few years after the above experimentation, that it all seemed to fit into place. He mentioned that carpenters often ‘blunt’ their nails by first inverting them on a hard surface and then tapping the points with a hammer. This allows for the nail's point to be driven into wood with less likelihood of it splitting. Kevin also mentioned at the time that a cigar box which had been found in Hauptmann’s apartment, contained a number of finishing nails, however he couldn’t confirm whether or not their points had been blunted. If the above theory is correct, Hauptmann would also have been doing something here that within the scope of his professional work, was second nature to him.
My apologies for rambling here but I just wanted to point out an important example, for myself at least of how lightning can strike at any time. In any case, I hope and trust the contributions will keep coming from everyone!
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Mar 16, 2023 14:04:52 GMT -5
I haven't quoted one newspaper article to date when attempting to convey a truthful picture of Charlie's health picture. You're just full of this kind of misinformation. Next, you'll be segueing into your catacombs and ossuaries of Paris.. All accounts relating to Charlie that I've referenced, come from family, friends, acquaintances and the child's own doctor, people who would have had no reason to lie ahead of the critical date. There is nothing within the autopsy report which conclusively proves that "all was not well" (beyond perhaps Charlie's known condition of a "moderate rickety condition," for which he was being treated, and his crossed toes) whatever that loaded, nebulous statement means in your personal universe. If you find my response immature and insulting, and perhaps really don't feel in your heart that this child was loved as he was, based on balanced and objective evidence, perhaps you'd do well to have a much closer look at what inspires you to so easily find such fault and imperfection within humanity. Must I link to everytime you have cited the Will Rogers story as Charlie was in great health? Do most fathers refer to their son as “it”? Spend the entire time playing cards and pranks instead of actually searching for their son? Upon seeing their son’s head body not show a glimmer of emotion, rather abject disdain and ask for a “meat slicer”? His behavior was repugnant, but just like Condon, gut trumps fact with you. Regarding what Will Roger's said...can you imagine how many fans he would have lost and how the public would have turned against him if he told what Charlie was really like? CHARLIE COULD NOT NAME HIS TOY ANIMALS. CHARLIE COULD NOT TALK THE WAY PEOPLE SAID HE DID. THE WOMAN WHO CUT HIS CHAIR TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE "KIDNAPPING" SAID HE JUST POINTED AND MADE NOISES. imgur.com/tsB2g8Zimgur.com/QJzbG2n
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 18, 2023 9:52:41 GMT -5
A good point IloveDFW. When Anne Lindbergh was asked at the trial about Charlie's speaking ability it was an opportunity for her to dispel any doubts by making it clear that there were no problems. Instead she gave only a two word reply: "He talked." Even allowing for the emotion of testifying I have always found this to be strange.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 18, 2023 13:21:12 GMT -5
It seems to me a lot of people would have had to have lied about Charlie's apparently normal carryings on and existence as a baby, then a toddler. There are probably no less than a dozen or so well-known examples of these accounts over the course of his short life readily available. Is it really necessary for them to be repeated here, or are one or two cherry-picked and negatively-interpreted outliers sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 18, 2023 14:53:06 GMT -5
Right. Many children at that time had rickets. I was given cod liver oil when I was a kid to prevent the disease. Some 20 months-old talk a lot and others just say a few words. Many babies have big heads. Hauptmann's son had a big head, but no one is claiming abnormality. The current Prince of Wales has a son (Prince George) who was born with a big head. Sounds as if a lot of people are going fishing these days in order to prove a point with little evidence.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 18, 2023 17:11:58 GMT -5
Right. Many children at that time had rickets. I was given cod liver oil when I was a kid to prevent the disease. Some 20 months-old talk a lot and others just say a few words. Many babies have big heads. Hauptmann's son had a big head, but no one is claiming abnormality. The current Prince of Wales has a son (Prince George) who was born with a big head. Sounds as if a lot of people are going fishing these days in order to prove a point with little evidence. Right, and proof they wish it was. Most relatives on my mother's side had "large hat sizes" which was just a nice British way of saying they had big heads, as I do. And as toddlers, I'll just bet they would have done plenty of grunting and refusing to stand up in unfamiliar surroundings. Many here would like to bring truth to their illusions when the more practical and linear approach would be bringing their illusions to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 18, 2023 20:49:10 GMT -5
Right. Many children at that time had rickets. I was given cod liver oil when I was a kid to prevent the disease. Some 20 months-old talk a lot and others just say a few words. Many babies have big heads. Hauptmann's son had a big head, but no one is claiming abnormality. The current Prince of Wales has a son (Prince George) who was born with a big head. Sounds as if a lot of people are going fishing these days in order to prove a point with little evidence. This ignores many other oddities (overlapping toes, an exceptionally brittle skull, bizarre dentition issues).
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 19, 2023 3:35:06 GMT -5
Reeve Lindbergh, Charlie's sibling, said that she also has overlapping toes, so this characteristic must be genetic. A pronounced case of rickets can lead to a brittle skull. The previous post indicated that Charlie did not want to speak to the hairdresser. He was shy and did not relate well to strangers, a characteristic of many children that age. He may have been a late walker because of the rickets, or may not have walked well even at the age of 20 months. We should not ignore the observations of his mother, anne Lindbergh, who described him in her letters to her mother. She had the best opportunity to observe her own child.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2023 9:01:58 GMT -5
Right. Many children at that time had rickets. I was given cod liver oil when I was a kid to prevent the disease. Some 20 months-old talk a lot and others just say a few words. Many babies have big heads. Hauptmann's son had a big head, but no one is claiming abnormality. The current Prince of Wales has a son (Prince George) who was born with a big head. Sounds as if a lot of people are going fishing these days in order to prove a point with little evidence. Dr. Hawkes turned "It" over to a Dr. Van Ingen very shortly after birth. (See V3, Pages 41-3 on the possiblity of him telling the Taxi Driver the child wouldn't " last long.") Van Ingen was among the very best, if not the best, Pediatrician in the country. Judging from your post above, he should have turned him over to your mother instead. I was an "accident." My parents, only teenagers at the time, brought me to a regular doctor on occasions. At some point, I think at a year old, we all drank regular milk which was fortified with Vit D. No one I ever knew or played with as a kid, or in fact in my entire life, ever had rickets. So yes, children who didn't get the proper nutrition got Rickets, but those who did or took Cod Liver Oil almost always did not, as your very own example seems to prove. As far as "big head" I believe you are framing it in the way you'd like. If one takes all the sources, and presents them to Professionals, like I have, there are some interesting possibilities. But for some, its just easier to sweep it under the rug and act like its all very normal. Reeve Lindbergh, Charlie's sibling, said that she also has overlapping toes, so this characteristic must be genetic. A pronounced case of rickets can lead to a brittle skull. The previous post indicated that Charlie did not want to speak to the hairdresser. He was shy and did not relate well to strangers, a characteristic of many children that age. He may have been a late walker because of the rickets, or may not have walked well even at the age of 20 months. We should not ignore the observations of his mother, anne Lindbergh, who described him in her letters to her mother. She had the best opportunity to observe her own child. Overlapping toes and deformed toes are different. Could it have been a genetic defect? Certainly. As far as being "shy" I don't know about that. What we do know is he screamed out whenever someone other than Betty picked him up out of the crib. This article doesn't say anything about him screaming - just not talking like we were all led to believe he did. So was he screaming or was he calmly listening to the story? Was this article legit? Seems to me the woman telling the story wasn't trying to make the child look bad, rather, just the opposite is true. But to us, knowing how Betty said he'd point to pictures and identify the animals out loud, it does give us some information to consider. But again, its a newspaper article so there's that to consider as well.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 19, 2023 12:09:53 GMT -5
Thanks for replying, Michael. As I recall, Reeve Lindbergh used the word "overlapping" to describe her toes. Rickets occur because of the lack of Vitamin D, as readers of the Board must already know. Vitamin D can be obtained naturally in sunlight, but children who do not venture outside often or who live in northern cities do not obtain the necessary amount of sunlight. Vitamin D was added to purchased milk in the 1930s. I was brought up on a farm and drank unpasteurized cow's milk without anything added; hence I was made to take cod liver oil. (I was born in 1936 in a northern state.)
Children who live in areas near rivers or the ocean may obtain Vitamin D in eating fish, etc. Rickets affects the bones of the child (if we are discussing ordinary rickets). All bones can be affected by the problem, not just the legs although the parents may become aware of the disease when the child is expected to walk. It would seem that a severe case of rickets would have been caught by such a famous pediatrician. I find this reputation suspect under the circumstances. When was the diagnosis made?
In regard to Charlie's speaking, one source says that he called Ms. Gow "Betty." Another source indicates that the Lindbergh estate in Hopewell was called "Highfields" after the kidnapping occurred because Charlie said "high" to his father when he wanted to be lifted up high in the air as his father liked to do to amuse him. Lindbergh called his son "Buster."
Small children are often shy and will sometimes bury their face in the mother's shoulders when a stranger approaches them. Charlie was said to be shy and did not relate to strangers. There are sources for this observation as there are for others mentioned. Perhaps other members will recall them also.
|
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 19, 2023 12:28:37 GMT -5
The first photo is one of Richard Hauptmann holding his son Manfred. The second is a photo of Prince George.
Thanks for creating the space, Michael
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 19, 2023 22:25:06 GMT -5
I could try to post photos of Manfred Haupt man and Prince George of Cambridge (Wales) as babies if the site will allow it so readers can view their large heads as infants and judge for themselves. If the attempt to attach the photos fails, they can be found on-line on the Google.
View AttachmentView AttachmentThe Lindbergh child had a "toaster" head, which was far too big. There's a reason they used old photos of the baby on the posters when he looked nothing like that anymore.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Mar 20, 2023 4:55:16 GMT -5
Reeve Lindbergh, Charlie's sibling, said that she also has overlapping toes, so this characteristic must be genetic. A pronounced case of rickets can lead to a brittle skull. The previous post indicated that Charlie did not want to speak to the hairdresser. He was shy and did not relate well to strangers, a characteristic of many children that age. He may have been a late walker because of the rickets, or may not have walked well even at the age of 20 months. We should not ignore the observations of his mother, anne Lindbergh, who described him in her letters to her mother. She had the best opportunity to observe her own child. The previous post did NOT indicate the hair dresser was trying to get Charlie to talk to her. She stated Anne was asking him about the animals in the book and he could not talk like it was alleged after the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 20, 2023 15:46:45 GMT -5
Hi Hiram, Great photos of Manfred Hauptmann and Prince George. Just based on these I wouldn't say that Manfred had a large head when seen in proportion to his body; his toes are visible so this is easy to judge. This photo of George shows only his top half so we don't get a sense of the head's relation to the rest of his body. I would describe George as a chubby toddler rather than having a large head. The photo of Charlie's body taken in the woods does allow us to see his skull in approximate proportion to the rest of his body. It is hard to avoid concluding, based on this, that his head is abnormally large and disproportionate to the rest of his body. If this reflects Charlie's appearance when removed from his crib it may explain why no recent photos of him were released at the time. Or even now. Sherlock
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 20, 2023 19:46:18 GMT -5
Hello, Sjerlock: Thanks for responding! Here's another photo of Manfred Hauptmann, this one with his mother Anna that might give a better impression of the head in reference to the rest of the body. I do recall other photos of Prince George but will have to search for it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 20, 2023 21:17:55 GMT -5
Hello, Sjerlock: Thanks for responding! Here's another photo of Manfred Hauptmann, this one with his mother Anna that might give a better impression of the head in reference to the rest of the body. I do recall other photos of Prince George but will have to search for it. View AttachmentManfred Hauptmann (who is still alive) looks chubby, as many babies are. However the Lindbergh child had an unusually large prominent head with exceptionally brittle skull bones. It's clear that the rickets treatment was proving ineffective, which meant the ailments were likely caused by something else. Many believe that the high altitude flight CAL forced Anne to endure led to a condition like hydrocephalus or something similar. Anne herself was basically rushed to get medical attention upon landing.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 21, 2023 6:49:59 GMT -5
Hiram, Trojanusc, In this new photo Manfred looks no more than chubby; his head is not remarkably large. As he is now in his nineties we can assume there wasn't much wrong with him! In contrast, Charlie's head in the corpse photo is disproportionately large. The only diagnosis made public was mild rickets. The corpse photo suggests more than that but this is supposition. If a more serious condition had been found which might be traced back to the reckless high altitude flight, then Lindbergh would be sure to keep it under wraps. Those reporting that Charlie was developing normally were the Lindbergh family, staff, and friends. There are some contrary remarks/opinions from outsiders e.g. his hairdresser and Dr Van Inghen, although the latter may have been leaned on to moderate his words. Charlie did attend the Montessori school briefly but there are no adverse comments from that source. So facing facts there is little solid independent evidence of Charlie being severely handicapped at the time of his abduction other than our inferences from the large head/brittle skull etc. However, if Lindbergh had been given a confidential prognosis of a more serious condition e.g hydrocephalus it may have been this, rather than his son's current state which prompted drastic measures. There's no evidence for this but that doesn't prove it didn't happen.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2023 9:10:10 GMT -5
Hiram, Trojanusc, In this new photo Manfred looks no more than chubby; his head is not remarkably large. As he is now in his nineties we can assume there wasn't much wrong with him! In contrast, Charlie's head in the corpse photo is disproportionately large. The only diagnosis made public was mild rickets. The corpse photo suggests more than that but this is supposition. If a more serious condition had been found which might be traced back to the reckless high altitude flight, then Lindbergh would be sure to keep it under wraps. Those reporting that Charlie was developing normally were the Lindbergh family, staff, and friends. There are some contrary remarks/opinions from outsiders e.g. his hairdresser and Dr Van Inghen, although the latter may have been leaned on to moderate his words. Charlie did attend the Montessori school briefly but there are no adverse comments from that source. So facing facts there is little solid independent evidence of Charlie being severely handicapped at the time of his abduction other than our inferences from the large head/brittle skull etc. However, if Lindbergh had been given a confidential prognosis of a more serious condition e.g hydrocephalus it may have been this, rather than his son's current state which prompted drastic measures. There's no evidence for this but that doesn't prove it didn't happen. Clinically speaking, could hydrocephalus ever have been medically diagnosed in Charlie's case? Only if you ignore all of its other accepted symptoms and limit the diagnosis to include his enlarged head only, a condition also known to develop in the presence of rickets and for which it appears he was being medically treated for. Parents of children suffering from hydrocephalus would thank God if their children were as apparently healthy and normal as Charlie was.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 25, 2023 10:13:38 GMT -5
We are not doctors and however tempting it may be we should not try to second guess such eminent professionals as Dr Van Inghen with his diagnosis of rickets. But in examining this case it is inevitable that our amateur opinions will intrude and as long as we remember that's what they are I think they should be considered. Nobody at the time diagnosed or even mentioned hydrocephalus in connection with Charlie's health.
As the Mayo Clinic lists changes in the head, an unusually large head, a rapid increase in the size of the head, and a bulging or tense soft spot (fontanel) on the top of the head as symptoms of hydrocephalus the parallels with rickets are clear. It does not respond to Vitamin D supplements or UV radiation treatment. These were used to treat the child's rickets but we do not know if the condition was in decline or stable/worsening.
There are many indications that apart from the symptoms mentioned above, Charlie was I agree an active toddler and it is hard to imagine even a staunch eugenicist taking drastic action based on his then current condition. However if he wasn't improving and hydrocephalus was suspected with its predictably dire prognosis this may have prompted the events which followed. There is no evidence that this was the case; it is pure speculation but still worthy of consideration.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2023 10:56:36 GMT -5
We are not doctors and however tempting it may be we should not try to second guess such eminent professionals as Dr Van Inghen with his diagnosis of rickets. But in examining this case it is inevitable that our amateur opinions will intrude and as long as we remember that's what they are I think they should be considered. Nobody at the time diagnosed or even mentioned hydrocephalus in connection with Charlie's health. As the Mayo Clinic lists changes in the head, an unusually large head, a rapid increase in the size of the head, and a bulging or tense soft spot (fontanel) on the top of the head as symptoms of hydrocephalus the parallels with rickets are clear. It does not respond to Vitamin D supplements or UV radiation treatment. These were used to treat the child's rickets but we do not know if the condition was in decline or stable/worsening. There are many indications that apart from the symptoms mentioned above, Charlie was I agree an active toddler and it is hard to imagine even a staunch eugenicist taking drastic action based on his then current condition. However if he wasn't improving and hydrocephalus was suspected with its predictably dire prognosis this may have prompted the events which followed. There is no evidence that this was the case; it is pure speculation but still worthy of consideration. There is no evidence I'm aware of that Charlie had a bulging large fontanelle, which is why I didn't include it within any potential symptoms he may have exhibited. The fact that his fontanelle had remained unclosed at 20 months is entirely consistent with his larger than normal head size, both of which are consistent with the Viosterol treatment he was receiving for his "moderate rickety condition." For what reasons do you consider Charles Lindbergh to have been a "staunch Eugenicist" during Charlie's lifetime?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 25, 2023 11:25:02 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I suggest that even if CAL had been a staunch eugenicist at the time of the abduction, there was little clinical justification for him taking extreme measures to solve the problem. He was at the time in liaison with Dr Carrel whose views are known and with whom he discussed measures to "perfect" the human race: the Institute of Man project for example. So his eugenics sympathies are clear. How extreme or otherwise they were at the time of the crime is not. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2023 13:41:05 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I suggest that even if CAL had been a staunch eugenicist at the time of the abduction, there was little clinical justification for him taking extreme measures to solve the problem. He was at the time in liaison with Dr Carrel whose views are known and with whom he discussed measures to "perfect" the human race: the Institute of Man project for example. So his eugenics sympathies are clear. How extreme or otherwise they were at the time of the crime is not. Regards, Sherlock Regardless of what one might believe either man later became, from the time of Charlie's early development until his death, Charles Lindbergh devoted his research efforts to the development of a medical device which might aid his sister-in-law's congenital heart condition through any future required surgery. Given this collaborative endeavour with Alexis Carrel, it's very difficult for me to imagine Lindbergh having been willing to simultaneously cast aside this interest in helping humanity in favor of essentially considering the son he loved to be an albatross around his neck. What health condition would possibly have warranted such a hideous and mindless scheme as a faked kidnapping from which Charlie would not be returning?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 26, 2023 8:10:15 GMT -5
Some light reading for the weekend: My wife and I having seen many summers now have a cleaning lady, Francesca from Ghana, to help with household chores once a week. She told us of her nephew Kevin, age 3, who had a problem which his doctor had been unable to solve. A foul odour seemed to be coming from his nose. Antiseptic nose drops had no effect despite weeks of treatment. My wife consulted Doctor Internet and asked "Is only one nostril affected?" "Yes" so a solution was suggested. On the next visit to the doctor he prescribed a different type of nose drops. "No," said Kev's Mum," you must try "Auntie" Irene's idea." Dealing with amateur diagnoses by patients must be the bane of every doctor's life but he eventually agreed. Out came the long fine tweezers and with Kevin's head in the iron grip of his mother the tweezers slowly withdrew a small piece of polyurethane foam now rancid and foul-smelling (possibly from a toy) which the kid had pushed up his nostril (as you do.) Problem solved. So while we should respect the diagnoses of professionals regarding Charlie's condition it is undeniable that sometimes, just sometimes, the amateur gets it right and the professional doesn't.
|
|