|
Post by A Guest on Mar 1, 2023 22:52:28 GMT -5
Chapter 2 of Volume #3 of The Dark Corners book series talks about Charles, Jr. and his health. I have a question that I haven't been able to find being addressed in any book I have read on this case, so I thought I would ask it here and see if anyone might have an opinion or thought to share about it.
It was generally believed by the public that Charles and Anne had a healthy baby boy. They were the perfect couple with the perfect child. My question is this:
Why did Charles Lindbergh allow Anne to put Charlie's diet in the newspapers? This diet was seen around the world. This diet was not one for a normal, healthy, 20 month old. This diet included the administration of 14 drops of Viosterol daily. The normal dosage for a healthy child using this supplement is 5 drops daily. Any parent who used this product could easily see that Charlie was being treated for rickets! Doctors, nurses, etc. when reading this would know that Charlie had a problem. He certainly wasn't the "perfect" child after all. If Lindbergh didn't want it known to the world that he had fathered a less than perfect child, why allow the publication of this diet?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 2, 2023 18:10:24 GMT -5
He had to pretend that the child was coming back, for the sake of his wife, who thought he was.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2023 20:38:46 GMT -5
Chapter 2 of Volume #3 of The Dark Corners book series talks about Charles, Jr. and his health. I have a question that I haven't been able to find being addressed in any book I have read on this case, so I thought I would ask it here and see if anyone might have an opinion or thought to share about it. It was generally believed by the public that Charles and Anne had a healthy baby boy. They were the perfect couple with the perfect child. My question is this: Why did Charles Lindbergh allow Anne to put Charlie's diet in the newspapers? This diet was seen around the world. This diet was not one for a normal, healthy, 20 month old. This diet included the administration of 14 drops of Viosterol daily. The normal dosage for a healthy child using this supplement is 5 drops daily. Any parent who used this product could easily see that Charlie was being treated for rickets! Doctors, nurses, etc. when reading this would know that Charlie had a problem. He certainly wasn't the "perfect" child after all. If Lindbergh didn't want it known to the world that he had fathered a less than perfect child, why allow the publication of this diet? It's a great question that I honestly gave thought to some years ago. Probably over ten years by now if not more. Most people will consider whatever explanation that will assist their theory, because after all, that's human nature. But what I always try to do is consider it from all possible theories. It's a time consuming process but worth it. First and foremost, there are "givens" we need to apply. Things like Lindbergh wouldn't want the public to know this information. Next, he controlled his wife, a percentage that neared 99%. Finally, he controlled the investigation. In short, if he didn't want this release on March 2nd, it wouldn't have happened. Some among us may not agree with these so here is another possible pitfall but I'm certainly comfortable with them. You may want to add or subtract to this list. So now we must work our way thru everything.... For example, a first scenario: Everyone in the house told the truth that is recorded in the source documentation (avoiding the contradictions), had no idea what had happened, and were just as baffled as the police. Here one could argue Lindbergh's positions on the release of certain information wouldn't matter because he wanted his son back. Right? Now we must work our way thru every other possibility and the variations within each. Like, let's say, Lindbergh was the Mastermind but no one else in the house had a clue. So we have Gow who claimed to have asked Lindbergh if he had the child followed by " don't fool me" which later led to the fact that Lindbergh had hidden the child at least twice and pretended he was kidnapped. Anne also admitted this, and it was Lanphier who claimed her first reaction to the news the night of the kidnapping was annoyance, thinking Lindbergh was playing a prank with a sick child. If Lindbergh denies this diet from being released, the child, if alive, would suffer further health consequences. That is something Lindbergh would never want under any circumstance either. So if he forbids the diet from being publicized it doesn't happen but he just admitted to his wife... he was behind it, or he doesn't want the kid back, or that he's already dead. We must also consider that he knew Van Ingen would eventually be interviewed. Why he wasn't immediately is another question to work thru but anyway, although he'd get away with it like he did with everything else if he refused its release, it would be highly suspicious once police learned his child was in need of medicine and that fact was never made known to the supposed "kidnappers." Continuing on this path, one could turn up a hundred or so options - or none at all. It all depends on the individual who is considering everything as they run down the list.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 3, 2023 17:57:08 GMT -5
He had to pretend that the child was coming back, for the sake of his wife, who thought he was. Thank you lightningjew for your response. I gather from it that you believe that Lindbergh was involved in some way with the kidnapping of his son and this pretense is his movitation for allowing the release of the diet. Interesting!
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 3, 2023 18:34:49 GMT -5
Chapter 2 of Volume #3 of The Dark Corners book series talks about Charles, Jr. and his health. I have a question that I haven't been able to find being addressed in any book I have read on this case, so I thought I would ask it here and see if anyone might have an opinion or thought to share about it. It was generally believed by the public that Charles and Anne had a healthy baby boy. They were the perfect couple with the perfect child. My question is this: Why did Charles Lindbergh allow Anne to put Charlie's diet in the newspapers? This diet was seen around the world. This diet was not one for a normal, healthy, 20 month old. This diet included the administration of 14 drops of Viosterol daily. The normal dosage for a healthy child using this supplement is 5 drops daily. Any parent who used this product could easily see that Charlie was being treated for rickets! Doctors, nurses, etc. when reading this would know that Charlie had a problem. He certainly wasn't the "perfect" child after all. If Lindbergh didn't want it known to the world that he had fathered a less than perfect child, why allow the publication of this diet? It's a great question that I honestly gave thought to some years ago. Probably over ten years by now if not more. Most people will consider whatever explanation that will assist their theory, because after all, that's human nature. But what I always try to do is consider it from all possible theories. It's a time consuming process but worth it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts concerning my question. First and foremost, there are "givens" we need to apply. Things like Lindbergh wouldn't want the public to know this information. Next, he controlled his wife, a percentage that neared 99%. Finally, he controlled the investigation. In short, if he didn't want this release on March 2nd, it wouldn't have happened. Some among us may not agree with these so here is another possible pitfall but I'm certainly comfortable with them. You may want to add or subtract to this list. Lindbergh not wanting this type of information made public is what prompted my question.So now we must work our way thru everything.... For example, a first scenario: Everyone in the house told the truth that is recorded in the source documentation (avoiding the contradictions), had no idea what had happened, and were just as baffled as the police. Here one could argue Lindbergh's positions on the release of certain information wouldn't matter because he wanted his son back. Right? This scenario would mean that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the kidnapping and that he felt compelled to reveal the truth that his son had a medical issue in order to help protect his son's life. Now we must work our way thru every other possibility and the variations within each. Like, let's say, Lindbergh was the Mastermind but no one else in the house had a clue. So we have Gow who claimed to have asked Lindbergh if he had the child followed by " don't fool me" which later led to the fact that Lindbergh had hidden the child at least twice and pretended he was kidnapped. Anne also admitted this, and it was Lanphier who claimed her first reaction to the news the night of the kidnapping was annoyance, thinking Lindbergh was playing a prank with a sick child. If Lindbergh denies this diet from being released, the child, if alive, would suffer further health consequences. That is something Lindbergh would never want under any circumstance either. So if he forbids the diet from being publicized it doesn't happen but he just admitted to his wife... he was behind it, or he doesn't want the kid back, or that he's already dead. We must also consider that he knew Van Ingen would eventually be interviewed. Why he wasn't immediately is another question to work thru but anyway, although he'd get away with it like he did with everything else if he refused its release, it would be highly suspicious once police learned his child was in need of medicine and that fact was never made known to the supposed "kidnappers." In this scenario, Lindbergh is the creator of this kidnap event and chose to allow the publishing of this revealing diet to protect himself. I hope I am getting this right! Does this really protect him though? I recently read on this board that Scotland Yard thought that a health issue could be a motivation factor by a wealthy family who wants to "remove" an unwanted family member from among them.Continuing on this path, one could turn up a hundred or so options - or none at all. It all depends on the individual who is considering everything as they run down the list. Well, I think it will be easier for me to just read this board and think about the options other posters bring up!
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 4, 2023 12:08:35 GMT -5
Rickets, although more common among the less advantaged, could affect any child. It is not a congenital condition which might be seen as a weakness in the Lindbergh genes. Publication of the diet with the Viosterol dosage would evoke sympathy from any parent, especially those with a child similarly afflicted. The illusion of a genuine kidnap of a living child had to be maintained. Scotland Yard's first reaction was to suggest the possibility of an inside job related to Charlie's state of health. Of course with Lindbergh in charge this was never given the attention it deserved. For me, it was not so much Charlie's current "rickety condition" which prompted the drama; this was treatable. It was the prognosis for his other problems including possible hydrocephalus, the outlook for which was dire indeed. An effective treatment (Silicone shunts to drain excess fluid from the brain) was introduced only in the 1960's.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 4, 2023 14:32:41 GMT -5
Rickets, although more common among the less advantaged, could affect any child. It is not a congenital condition which might be seen as a weakness in the Lindbergh genes. Publication of the diet with the Viosterol dosage would evoke sympathy from any parent, especially those with a child similarly afflicted. The illusion of a genuine kidnap of a living child had to be maintained. Scotland Yard's first reaction was to suggest the possibility of an inside job related to Charlie's state of health. Of course with Lindbergh in charge this was never given the attention it deserved. For me, it was not so much Charlie's current "rickety condition" which prompted the drama; this was treatable. It was the prognosis for his other problems including possible hydrocephalus, the outlook for which was dire indeed. An effective treatment (Silicone shunts to drain excess fluid from the brain) was introduced only in the 1960's. Thank you for sharing this Sherlock. It is clear from what I have read on this board that Charles Jr was being treated using methods consistent with rickets. I was not aware that Charles Jr had been diagnosed with hydrocephalus which would have resulted in such a bleak prognosis for sure. I can't understand why Dr. Van Ingen, who was an outstanding pediatric doctor (Michael describes him in this chapter of V3) makes no mention of this condition. I don't see how he could have missed this when he saw Charles Jr. in February of 1932. You have given me more to think about.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 4, 2023 15:00:50 GMT -5
A Guest, to be clear, Charlie was never diagnosed with hydrocephalus. That is speculation on the part of researchers based on the size, shape, and condition of Charles Jr's skull when found in the woods and from the autopsy. The only diagnosis that we know of is from Dr. Van Ingen of a "mild rickety condition".
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 4, 2023 16:09:55 GMT -5
stella 7, A Guest, Charlie was, as you both indicate, never diagnosed with hydrocephalus which has several characteristics in common with rickets. It is unthinkable that Dr Van Inghen would not have considered this possibility. So what follows is pure speculation. With Lindbergh's understandable concern about privacy, anyone familiar with any aspect of the Lindberghs' family life was sworn to secrecy. This would particularly apply to medical and health matters. Whereas rickets, likes measles or flu, is something that could happen to any child, hydrocephalus is more complex and even today its origins and cause are unclear. It is certainly more serious than rickets. If Dr Van Inghen who diagnosed a "mild rickety condition" (note the cautious words) also suspected hydrocephalus is it likely that Lindbergh would give the green light for this information being made public? I don't think so. There were also rumours that Charlie had been examined at prestigious clinics but data is sketchy at best. The main cause of rickets is a lack of Vitamin D which can be rectified by treatment. I had rickets at the age of 5-6; it was treated successfully with Cod Liver Oil (horrible stuff!) and "Sun ray lamps" (UV radiation.) As the cause of hydrocephalus is unclear, publication of the diagnosis would lead to speculation and possible reference to the trans continental high altitude flight which Anne Lindbergh made in her 7th month of pregnancy. She went unconscious and had to be carried from the plane. Two months of bed rest followed. So in addition to any wild speculation about "weak Lindbergh genes," a link (justified or not) might be made to Lindbergh's irresponsible decision that his wife, in her first pregnancy, accompany him on this mad venture. He had every reason to keep it quiet. To repeat: Charlie was never in the public record diagnosed with anything other than rickets. However, and particularly in this case, the public record may be the jungle canopy which conceals as much as it reveals.
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 4, 2023 16:32:17 GMT -5
A Guest, to be clear, Charlie was never diagnosed with hydrocephalus. That is speculation on the part of researchers based on the size, shape, and condition of Charles Jr's skull when found in the woods and from the autopsy. The only diagnosis that we know of is from Dr. Van Ingen of a "mild rickety condition". Thank you stella 7 for giving this clarification. I went through The Perfect Child chapter again and only rickets is mentioned there.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 4, 2023 16:54:40 GMT -5
stella 7, A Guest, Charlie was, as you both indicate, never diagnosed with hydrocephalus which has several characteristics in common with rickets. It is unthinkable that Dr Van Inghen would not have considered this possibility. So what follows is pure speculation. I appreciate you coming back and making that distinction.
With Lindbergh's understandable concern about privacy, anyone familiar with any aspect of the Lindberghs' family life was sworn to secrecy. This would particularly apply to medical and health matters. Whereas rickets, likes measles or flu, is something that could happen to any child, hydrocephalus is more complex and even today its origins and cause are unclear. It is certainly more serious than rickets. If Dr Van Inghen who diagnosed a "mild rickety condition" (note the cautious words) also suspected hydrocephalus is it likely that Lindbergh would give the green light for this information being made public? I don't think so. There were also rumours that Charlie had been examined at prestigious clinics but data is sketchy at best. I do understand and agree that privacy by both the Morrow family and Lindbergh was a priority. This was also greatly apparent when it involved Charles Jr. That is why I questioned Lindbergh being ok with putting Charles Jr's diet in the newspapers. The main cause of rickets is a lack of Vitamin D which can be rectified by treatment. I had rickets at the age of 5-6; it was treated successfully with Cod Liver Oil (horrible stuff!) and "Sun ray lamps" (UV radiation.) As the cause of hydrocephalus is unclear, publication of the diagnosis would lead to speculation and possible reference to the trans continental high altitude flight which Anne Lindbergh made in her 7th month of pregnancy. She went unconscious and had to be carried from the plane. Two months of bed rest followed. So in addition to any wild speculation about "weak Lindbergh genes," a link (justified or not) might be made to Lindbergh's irresponsible decision that his wife, in her first pregnancy, accompany him on this mad venture. He had every reason to keep it quiet. I don't want to make the same mistake here that I made earlier. You are speculating that Charles Jr could have been born with hydrocephalus because of the high altitude flight Lindbergh and Anne made in April of 1930 when she was pregnant with Charles Jr. I agree that was a dangerous flight for her to make in that condition.
To repeat: Charlie was never in the public record diagnosed with anything other than rickets. However, and particularly in this case, the public record may be the jungle canopy which conceals as much as it reveals. I am clear on this now. Thank you.Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2023 9:04:45 GMT -5
Thank you Guest, for opening this thread. I had actually intended to do the same on the heels of ‘Skean’s Absence From Charlie’s Nursery,’ but work and other interests had temporarily “pooched” that prospect, as well as suspending any further personal input within the 'Skean' thread. The subject of “Perfect Child” and its many potential implications, for some, often represents that seemingly significant set up, or shill piece within the assorted lists of conspiratorial leanings seeking to conclude this kidnapping was a Eugenics-motivated, planned kidnapping and potential murder. I understand though that here, it’s your objective to discover and present a balanced, informed and truthful picture, in a way that most encourages additional group insight and discussion. Bravo for that!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2023 10:37:50 GMT -5
Within the basis of this subject, I believe it’s important to establish whether those who actually brought Charlie into this world, and were responsible for his well being and development, ever put any real value within this perceived image of the “Perfect Child,” that one most actively portrayed by the tabloid press.
Realistically, would Charles and Anne Lindbergh have been affected by any of the hype and sensationalism around their first born child at all and if so, to what degree? Or is this more of an unrealistic and unrelated kind of fabrication that only served to fuel further speculation and most importantly for the newspapers, their sales? Would the Lindberghs have avoided this projection onto themselves and simply recognized Charlie as their “perfect child” alone, not the one “adopted” by the outside world?
In Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, and referencing her June 23/24, 1930 letter to Evangeline Lindbergh, Anne Lindbergh jokingly remarks, ""When I first saw it I thought, "Oh dear, it’s going to look like me – dark hair and a nose all over its face." But then I discovered what I think is Charles’ mouth, and the unmistakable cleft in the chin! So I went to sleep quite happy.”
Certainly, the media had put forth its own set of superlatives long before Charlie’s arrival, some even mapping out his future by inclining what line of work it would be best for him to pursue. During the press conference to announce Charlie’s birth, Lindbergh, when asked what career he might choose for his son, replied,
“I don’t want him to be anything or do anything that he himself has no taste or aptitude for. I believe that everybody should have complete freedom in the choice of his life’s work. One thing I do hope for him, and that is when he is old enough to go to school there will be no reporters dogging his footsteps.”
Is this expectation of a “perfect child” ever seriously discussed, stated or even implied by either Charles or Anne Lindbergh? I’m curious to know how you and others view this fundamental question.
Once he began gaining weight on milk formula, and until the time he was kidnapped, Charlie was medically diagnosed with two health-related issues:
The first was his crossed toes, a condition known as clinodactyly. This condition is capable of straightening itself out with some or no assistance as the child develops. Surgery is also an option, but Charlie would yet have been much too young for this. I’m not aware of any active medical treatment programs recommended to correct his crossed toes, such as taping, spacers, stretching, exercise or massage. From all accounts of Charlie’s normally developing mobility, this condition did not appear to have slowed him down at all.
Charlie’s “moderate rickety condition," as noted by his pediatrician Dr. Van Ingen, has been well documented to date. There seems little question that this condition had been well addressed by Charles and Anne Lindbergh, and that a medical treatment program involving plenty of outdoor activity, UV sunlamp exposure and Viosterol, was in place and being actively followed. Again, if Charlie had still been suffering from what we presume was a moderate case of rickets when he was killed, this condition appears to have been quite well managed and contained towards a high likelihood of its eventual elimination.
From everything we know, I believe it’s safe to conclude that neither one of Charlie’s health-related conditions warranted any real and ongoing level of concern on the part of either parent.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 5, 2023 14:36:16 GMT -5
Thank you Guest, for opening this thread. I had actually intended to do the same on the heels of ‘Skean’s Absence From Charlie’s Nursery,’ but work and other interests had temporarily “pooched” that prospect, as well as suspending any further personal input within the 'Skean' thread. The subject of “Perfect Child” and its many potential implications, for some, often represents that seemingly significant set up, or shill piece within the assorted lists of conspiratorial leanings seeking to conclude this kidnapping was a Eugenics-motivated, planned kidnapping and potential murder. I understand though that here, it’s your objective to discover and present a balanced, informed and truthful picture, in a way that most encourages additional group insight and discussion. Bravo for that! Oh my! I started this thread because I had a Lindbergh related question that revolved around Charles Jr. Charles Jr had a real medical condition that was not publicly known to a world that thought this child was "perfect" because of who his parents were. I was having difficulty understanding why Lindbergh, who did not like intrusion into his private life, would allow the world to see that his first born son was not perfect. I hadn't seen this discussed anywhere (that I am aware of). I really wasn't thinking about conspiratorial leanings when I asked this question. That's a whole other topic!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2023 16:04:02 GMT -5
Thank you Guest, for opening this thread. I had actually intended to do the same on the heels of ‘Skean’s Absence From Charlie’s Nursery,’ but work and other interests had temporarily “pooched” that prospect, as well as suspending any further personal input within the 'Skean' thread. The subject of “Perfect Child” and its many potential implications, for some, often represents that seemingly significant set up, or shill piece within the assorted lists of conspiratorial leanings seeking to conclude this kidnapping was a Eugenics-motivated, planned kidnapping and potential murder. I understand though that here, it’s your objective to discover and present a balanced, informed and truthful picture, in a way that most encourages additional group insight and discussion. Bravo for that! Oh my! I started this thread because I had a Lindbergh related question that revolved around Charles Jr. Charles Jr had a real medical condition that was not publicly known to a world that thought this child was "perfect" because of who his parents were. I was having difficulty understanding why Lindbergh, who did not like intrusion into his private life, would allow the world to see that his first born son was not perfect. I hadn't seen this discussed anywhere (that I am aware of). I really wasn't thinking about conspiratorial leanings when I asked this question. That's a whole other topic! Not to be a spoiler here, but I believe this discussion will very quickly lead to the subject of conspiratorial leanings. In fact, its already been done before my post. If I had to provide my own short answer to your question though as to why Charles Lindbergh appeared to have had no issues in revealing to the world that his son probably had rickets, it was because neither he nor Anne would have even considered this "public diagnosis" to have been of any consequence other than to most importantly, ensure their son was being properly cared for.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2023 19:20:29 GMT -5
Not to be a spoiler here, but I believe this discussion will very quickly lead to the subject of conspiratorial leanings. In fact, its already been done before my post. If I had to provide my own short answer to your question though as to why Charles Lindbergh appeared to have had no issues in revealing to the world that his son probably had rickets, it was because neither he nor Anne would have even considered this "public diagnosis" to have been of any consequence other than to most importantly, ensure their son was being properly cared for. This is a really odd strategy Joe - or should I say "Debbie Downer?" I think there's a good blend of diversity here, which of course you are a big part of. As you well know, anyone can freely rebut anything they do not agree with. Next, you yourself have stated that you believed Hauptmann "had help." Not to burst your bubble, but that IS a "conspiratorial leaning." Anyway, I'm not going to hijack the thread so if you want to respond please start a new one so this one can continue without further distraction.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 6, 2023 10:38:23 GMT -5
"Is this expectation of a “perfect child” ever seriously discussed, stated or even implied by either Charles or Anne Lindbergh?" Joe.
No. It didn't need to be discussed, stated, or implied; it is a "given." Every expectant parent prays that all will go well with the gestation and birth of their baby. The first question asked of a midwife attending the birth is : "Is the baby..alright?" All new parents expect a "perfect child."
The Lindberghs however may have had extra causes for concern: the genetic implications of the heart problems of Anne's sister and Dwight Jnr's mental problems. Plus the possible effects of Anne's ordeal during the infamous flight. Layered on top of this is Charles Lindbergh's interest in perfection and the perfectibility of the human race. After all, this is the guy who wanted, with Dr Carrel, to create an "Institute of Man" where selective breeding would be studied with the objective of creating a race of supermen who coincidentally would be be tall, blond, Nordic types just like you know who. So I do think that CAL would be hyper-sensitive any small perceived imperfection in his newborn. The crossed toes and the moderate rickets are both treatable and even allowing for CAL's sensitivity I cannot think that these alone prompted any drastic solution. CAL was a strange bird indeed but in expecting a "perfect baby" the Lindberghs were no different from any other expectant parents.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 6, 2023 16:19:03 GMT -5
Oh my! I started this thread because I had a Lindbergh related question that revolved around Charles Jr. Charles Jr had a real medical condition that was not publicly known to a world that thought this child was "perfect" because of who his parents were. I was having difficulty understanding why Lindbergh, who did not like intrusion into his private life, would allow the world to see that his first born son was not perfect. I hadn't seen this discussed anywhere (that I am aware of). I really wasn't thinking about conspiratorial leanings when I asked this question. That's a whole other topic! Not to be a spoiler here, but I believe this discussion will very quickly lead to the subject of conspiratorial leanings. In fact, its already been done before my post. I am not sure I understand what you mean by conspiratorial leanings. Can you explain this please? I have seen the sharing of poster's opinions and theories that differ from yours. Do you consider these posts conspiratorial leanings?
If I had to provide my own short answer to your question though as to why Charles Lindbergh appeared to have had no issues in revealing to the world that his son probably had rickets, it was because neither he nor Anne would have even considered this "public diagnosis" to have been of any consequence other than to most importantly, ensure their son was being properly cared for. Thank you for answering my question. Putting the diet in the newspapers was Anne's idea and the decision to allow this to be done was made very quickly since it appeared in the March 3rd editions of all the newspapers I believe. The kidnapers included a reference to the diet in their March 4 letter to Lindbergh.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2023 17:54:45 GMT -5
"Is this expectation of a “perfect child” ever seriously discussed, stated or even implied by either Charles or Anne Lindbergh?" Joe. No. It didn't need to be discussed, stated, or implied; it is a "given." Every expectant parent prays that all will go well with the gestation and birth of their baby. The first question asked of a midwife attending the birth is : "Is the baby..alright?" All new parents expect a "perfect child." The Lindberghs however may have had extra causes for concern: the genetic implications of the heart problems of Anne's sister and Dwight Jnr's mental problems. Plus the possible effects of Anne's ordeal during the infamous flight. Layered on top of this is Charles Lindbergh's interest in perfection and the perfectibility of the human race. After all, this is the guy who wanted, with Dr Carrel, to create an "Institute of Man" where selective breeding would be studied with the objective of creating a race of supermen who coincidentally would be be tall, blond, Nordic types just like you know who. So I do think that CAL would be hyper-sensitive any small perceived imperfection in his newborn. The crossed toes and the moderate rickets are both treatable and even allowing for CAL's sensitivity I cannot think that these alone prompted any drastic solution. CAL was a strange bird indeed but in expecting a "perfect baby" the Lindberghs were no different from any other expectant parents. I believe you missed my point Sherlock, and perhaps I didn’t state it in a way that you were able to understand my true meaning. I can’t think of why any parents would not want to know that their newborn, especially the first, was what they considered by their own standards and that of the medical community, to be healthy, normal and perhaps even exhibit a particular hereditary trait or two personally deemed to be physically attractive. As Charlie’s parents, they knew it was their job to care and provide for him in a way that gave him the best opportunity to succeed in following his life’s path, no matter what challenges had to be faced along the way. And both parents were not averse to facing and meeting challenges. Charles and Anne Lindbergh were in a unique position prior to the birth of Charlie, this primarily being due to the world’s gushing adoration and adulation for his father. This whole notion of Charlie having to be in anyone else’s mind a “Perfect Child” based upon him having been sired by Charles Lindbergh, is nothing short of fanciful construction, cooked up almost exclusively by countless news media platforms seeking to outsell their competitors. I believe it’s fair to state that both Charles and Anne Lindbergh would have felt or demonstrated very little genuine concern over what the media and public was expecting within their progeny. If the press reported something false, heartless or libelous, that would have been another matter. In any case, is there really anything out there to suggest they wanted anything other than for Charlie to be a normal and healthy child, who was then able to grow up to become a healthy and normal adult?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2023 18:09:19 GMT -5
Not to be a spoiler here, but I believe this discussion will very quickly lead to the subject of conspiratorial leanings. In fact, its already been done before my post. I am not sure I understand what you mean by conspiratorial leanings. Can you explain this please? I have seen the sharing of poster's opinions and theories that differ from yours. Do you consider these posts conspiratorial leanings?I’ll just repeat here what I said in my response to Michael: “Put simply and as it applies to this case, conspiratorial leanings are what I’d call something of an inconclusive but suggestive face-value nature, and often grouped together for greater impact, that is used to imply a conclusion.” The World Trade Center disaster is an absolute breeding ground for this effect. Perhaps there is a better term for it and I’ll certainly give it some thought in the interests of being as clear as I can going forward. And I’m certainly open to suggestions! (p.s. the pink is a bit of an eye strain!) If I had to provide my own short answer to your question though as to why Charles Lindbergh appeared to have had no issues in revealing to the world that his son probably had rickets, it was because neither he nor Anne would have even considered this "public diagnosis" to have been of any consequence other than to most importantly, ensure their son was being properly cared for. Thank you for answering my question. Putting the diet in the newspapers was Anne's idea and the decision to allow this to be done was made very quickly since it appeared in the March 3rd editions of all the newspapers I believe. The kidnapers included a reference to the diet in their March 4 letter to Lindbergh.I believe the message appeared in the March 3 editions of most papers that carried it, with a source date of March 2, 1932. From this, I’d have to believe Anne’s motherly instincts and apparent initiative here, inspired her to act almost immediately in the interests of ensuring Charlie’s good health was sustained.
BTW, I’ve always had an interest in the phrasing of the ransom note passage dealing with the extortionist’s acknowledgement of Anne’s diet request for Charlie:
“Don’t by (be) afraid about the baby two ladys (?) care of it day and night. The(y) also will fed him according to the diet.” Do you have any thoughts about the mystery word spelling after “ladys?” I believe this is one of the writer’s stranger German to English word and letter transpositions, to mean the English word “taking,” (which seems to be most accepted) but there is something else quite unusual within its construction.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2023 18:50:25 GMT -5
Not to be a spoiler here, but I believe this discussion will very quickly lead to the subject of conspiratorial leanings. In fact, its already been done before my post. If I had to provide my own short answer to your question though as to why Charles Lindbergh appeared to have had no issues in revealing to the world that his son probably had rickets, it was because neither he nor Anne would have even considered this "public diagnosis" to have been of any consequence other than to most importantly, ensure their son was being properly cared for. This is a really odd strategy Joe - or should I say "Debbie Downer?" I think there's a good blend of diversity here, which of course you are a big part of. As you well know, anyone can freely rebut anything they do not agree with. Next, you yourself have stated that you believed Hauptmann "had help." Not to burst your bubble, but that IS a "conspiratorial leaning." Anyway, I'm not going to hijack the thread so if you want to respond please start a new one so this one can continue without further distraction. Okay then, "Sam Semantic,” as one who often upbraids me for my descriptors, you might want to take a page out of your own book, so to speak. And I believe you know well what I’m referring to when using the term “conspiratorial leanings” here. As it applies to this case, it’s what I’d call something of an inconclusive but suggestive face-value nature, often assembled in a grouping for maximum impact, to then imply some conclusion. As an example, I've literally run out of coloured Post-It notes referencing the number of times you’ve used this approach when implying the criminal involvement of certain players within this case. And I’m sure you’re well aware of the identity of those two guys you continually “lean on conspiratorially” here. And while you mention distractions, your random tossing into the ring about what I think or don’t think about Hauptmann “accomplices” fits that description nicely, doesn’t it? If it’s really an issue for you though, then perhaps you might want to take your distraction and tack it on that particular thread, or open a new one. Regarding the subject matter and addressing Guest’s question, I did provide what I believe to have been the reason that Charles and Anne Lindbergh would have agreed to post Charlie’s diet in the newspapers, including his prescribed daily requirement of 14-drops of Viosterol. Being that they were both genuinely concerned about their son’s well being and wanted to ensure he was returned to them in good health. Although the writing out of Charlie’s daily diet appears to have been Anne’s specific initiative, and having an understanding of both parents’ caution in dealing with the media, it seems very unlikely she would have unilaterally provided this information to the press.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 8, 2023 12:16:58 GMT -5
Hi Joe, You are quite correct in highlighting the media's role in promoting the notion of the Lindberghs' "perfect child." Just as they were largely responsible for assigning qualities and characteristics to Charles Lindbergh which he did not possess. I believe its known as the "halo effect." But I do wonder to what extent the Lindberghs could ignore this gushing adulatory coverage of themselves and their child. This was a manufactured and largely false public perception of them, but non the less real. It was the story of the King's new clothes in real life. As a minimum, it probably made them hyper vigilant about privacy with careful screening of any information released to the press which might be blown up out of all proportion to sell more newspapers. I believe CAL had particular issues with the Hearst press in this regard. Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 8, 2023 16:53:39 GMT -5
Hi Joe, You are quite correct in highlighting the media's role in promoting the notion of the Lindberghs' "perfect child." Just as they were largely responsible for assigning qualities and characteristics to Charles Lindbergh which he did not possess. I believe its known as the "halo effect." But I do wonder to what extent the Lindberghs could ignore this gushing adulatory coverage of themselves and their child. This was a manufactured and largely false public perception of them, but non the less real. It was the story of the King's new clothes in real life. As a minimum, it probably made them hyper vigilant about privacy with careful screening of any information released to the press which might be blown up out of all proportion to sell more newspapers. I believe CAL had particular issues with the Hearst press in this regard. Sherlock Quite right about the Hearst press, Sherlock. The Lindbergh's collective and general distaste for the press and the adoring masses, seemed to loosen only when it came to coverage of their aviation initiatives and adventures, and this seems largely an extension of Charles's longtime promotion of what then was the burgeoning industry he believed in 100%. Anne certainly went along for the ride here. Everything around Charlie's introduction to the world was set and pre-measured, as it was for their five other children. It was not a happy and spontaneous event with give and take both ways. Certainly not what the press or public during the Depression at large wanted to see, and the resultant pushback on the Lindberghs only caused them to dig in even deeper and resolve to keep their private lives private as they possibly could. The die was pretty much cast here in spite of efforts from some of their closest and influential friends to do otherwise by accepting what they would not. Gradually, it seems their individual writings and public interests allowed them to break this tension, with Anne taking the lead here. But it was slow and arduous process that never really seemed to blossom for them together.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 5, 2023 20:21:05 GMT -5
Hi Michael, In this chapter of V3, on page 59, the section labeled E.R. Squibb & Sons (Again), you talk about Bornmann submitting an open pack of Herbert Tarrington cigarettes and three pieces of candy for examination by the lab. You mention that you don't know where the items came from but thought it might have been near the burial site. I have the report that explains how these items came to be in possession of the NJSP. I am linking the report here. The hard to read notes at the bottom of the page say where this report can be found at the NJSP archives. Notes say - Cabinet 4, Drawer 1, File 539 imgur.com/UNRwdtm
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2023 18:45:05 GMT -5
Hi Michael, In this chapter of V3, on page 59, the section labeled E.R. Squibb & Sons (Again), you talk about Bornmann submitting an open pack of Herbert Tarrington cigarettes and three pieces of candy for examination by the lab. You mention that you don't know where the items came from but thought it might have been near the burial site. I have the report that explains how these items came to be in possession of the NJSP. I am linking the report here. The hard to read notes at the bottom of the page say where this report can be found at the NJSP archives. Notes say - Cabinet 4, Drawer 1, File 539 imgur.com/UNRwdtmThanks. Looks like my hunch was incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 7, 2023 9:42:39 GMT -5
It was a good hunch! As you probably already know, Lindbergh had been receiving all kinds of packages in the mail. This happened to be one of them. Suspecting that poison might be connected to the kidnapping is very logical. From reports I have seen, Schwarzkopf had Keaton assign troopers to go over other mail and packages CAL had received prior to the kidnapping. They were checking from as far back as 1930-31 to see if the perpetrators might have sent something before the kidnapping ever occurred. All good police work. You were using your law enforcement training in your evaluation. It has made your research and books so very good. Thank you!
|
|