Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 7, 2023 8:24:16 GMT -5
Think I have discovered the answer to VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. Anne was months behind in updating Charlie's baby journal due to the Orient flight and her father's death. After Charlie was kidnapped, she tried to update it, but needed information and turned to her mother and mother inlaw for help. Dr. VanIngen's letter was written to help fill out the missing information. Also, CAL's rule of not disturbing Charlie from 8-10 at night was from an "expert in child care" book...nothing nefarious. All from Anne's diaries. Until the Kennedy Assassination, O.J. Simpson Murders and 9/11, there may be no other criminal case in history more investigated, written and talked about than the Lindbergh Kidnapping. As a result, it too is bloated with coincidental events and innocent associations that for the most part, do little more than validate the same kind of predictable statistical relationship, while also establishing choice breeding grounds for multiple conspiracy theories to arise. The valid and incontrovertible evidence points only to Richard Hauptmann.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on May 7, 2023 10:09:18 GMT -5
There's much evidence that was never properly investigated, either ignored and deliberately withheld. I will not propose any theory on this post, but there are certainly other individuals connected to this case who had an opportunity and a motive to kidnap the child and obtain the ransom money. The puzzle has a number of pieces, but no picture on the box gives us a guide. The puzzle has missing pieces and too many pieces that do not fit. The evidence for Hauptmann's defense, and some did exist at the time, were not presented at the trial, either through the inability of Reilly to pay good attention to the case, or through the lack of follow-through by an investigation that was bungled over and over again.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 7, 2023 10:50:16 GMT -5
There's much evidence that was never properly investigated, either ignored and deliberately withheld. I will not propose any theory on this post, but there are certainly other individuals connected to this case who had an opportunity and a motive to kidnap the child and obtain the ransom money. The puzzle has a number of pieces, but no picture on the box gives us a guide. The puzzle has missing pieces and too many pieces that do not fit. The evidence for Hauptmann's defense, and some did exist at the time, were not presented at the trial, either through the inability of Reilly to pay good attention to the case, or through the lack of follow-through by an investigation that was bungled over and over again. Hauptmann's clear guilt on many accounts notwithstanding, much of what you say about the quality of the investigation and information not divulged to the defense before the trial, is true. At the same time, I can't think of a better way to clarify any questioned puzzle piece than to explore each one in depth and isolation, objectively and without bias. The ability and means to do that in some cases, remains strong today. Too often it seems, those puzzle pieces with the blurred images are considered at face, preferred value only and then rounded up together as a neat laundry list grouping for presentation of proof of conspiracy a, b, c... x, y, z, ie. whichever one is best supported by any given list.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on May 7, 2023 12:58:12 GMT -5
Think I have discovered the answer to VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. Anne was months behind in updating Charlie's baby journal due to the Orient flight and her father's death. After Charlie was kidnapped, she tried to update it, but needed information and turned to her mother and mother inlaw for help. Dr. VanIngen's letter was written to help fill out the missing information. This is an interesting idea as to the "why" of the Dr. Van Ingen letter to Mrs. Morrow.Also, CAL's rule of not disturbing Charlie from 8-10 at night was from an "expert in child care" book...nothing nefarious. I have never seen any criminal intent on CAL's part with him instituting this rule when Charles Jr. was so very young. I always thought it appealed to his need to start toughing up his son. Is the book you are referring to the one by Dr. John B. Watson, Psychological Care of Infant and Child? Have you seen this book to know that the 8 to 10 p.m. rule comes from it?
Unfortunately for Charles Jr., this rule that CAL implemented would prove to be a useful tool in the kidnapping of his son in 1932.All from Anne's diaries.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on May 7, 2023 13:06:06 GMT -5
The evidence for Hauptmann's defense, and some did exist at the time, were not presented at the trial, either through the inability of Reilly to pay good attention to the case, or through the lack of follow-through by an investigation that was bungled over and over again. There was evidence that would have been helpful to Hauptmann's defense but was not shared by the prosecution. Michael covers this well in V3, chapter 6, starting on page 467. There were no rules of discovery in 1934/35 so Wilentz did not have to provide anything. Reilly is to blame also sense he failed on numerous fronts to protect and provide a proper defense of his client.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 7, 2023 14:16:47 GMT -5
Think I have discovered the answer to VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. Anne was months behind in updating Charlie's baby journal due to the Orient flight and her father's death. After Charlie was kidnapped, she tried to update it, but needed information and turned to her mother and mother inlaw for help. Dr. VanIngen's letter was written to help fill out the missing information. This is an interesting idea as to the "why" of the Dr. Van Ingen letter to Mrs. Morrow.Also, CAL's rule of not disturbing Charlie from 8-10 at night was from an "expert in child care" book...nothing nefarious. I have never seen any criminal intent on CAL's part with him instituting this rule when Charles Jr. was so very young. I always thought it appealed to his need to start toughing up his son. Is the book you are referring to the one by Dr. John B. Watson, Psychological Care of Infant and Child? Have you seen this book to know that the 8 to 10 p.m. rule comes from it?
Unfortunately for Charles Jr., this rule that CAL implemented would prove to be a useful tool in the kidnapping of his son in 1932.All from Anne's diaries. And the practice proved tragically unfortunate as Anne had actually checked up on Charlie throughout the night before he was kidnapped, due to his cold. Had she not left the doors between her bedroom and the nursery open? A mother's concern for her child that could well have been aided by the fact her husband was not home that particular night. Charlie was essentially over his cold by Tuesday though, so the "no-check" practice between and 8 and 10 pm, was apparently upheld on the Tuesday evening.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2023 21:31:37 GMT -5
Think I have discovered the answer to VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. Anne was months behind in updating Charlie's baby journal due to the Orient flight and her father's death. After Charlie was kidnapped, she tried to update it, but needed information and turned to her mother and mother inlaw for help. Dr. VanIngen's letter was written to help fill out the missing information. Also, CAL's rule of not disturbing Charlie from 8-10 at night was from an "expert in child care" book...nothing nefarious. All from Anne's diaries. On the letter, still think it's odd that it doesn't include viosterol or any mention of a sun lamp. It looks like these things were being done independently. On the reason for the child not to be disturbed. I am sure Lindbergh had given everyone an explanation - even if it was to say that's how he was raised or to toughen up the kid in case he cried, etc. That in and of itself isn't "nefarious." I remember Berg mentioning something about Anne reading books that advised " against the display of affection" (p219). However, he did some cruel things that I don't believe would be advised by any books. Like the time the baby fell into the bath and Lindbergh stood there laughing. Everyone thought he had dunked the child to " test his courage." According to Berg, Gow claimed Lindbergh had a " touch of sadism" in him (p234). Or the time he threw pillows at him, knocking him over as he toddled. Not a good idea to do something like that to a child with a "bone disease" yet he did it anyway. Or when he put the kid outside in a chicken wired pen that Lindbergh built especially for the child. He was placed out there alone for hours so that he could, as Lindbergh put it, " fend for himself." (p234) Anyway, its not the value of the rule in and of itself, but the fact the kidnappers obviously knew about it. Furthermore, it's like that fact Lindbergh was responsible for leaving Skean behind. Not a big deal until we see that even Anne believed if Skean had been there, the kidnapping most likely doesn't happen. We see this, and wonder how the Kidnappers could have known that he wasn't there or, in the very least, could have possibly prepared for him if he was there. Then we have the warped shutter. Again, Lindbergh was responsible for not having it fixed, and his testimony proves this - along with an extremely absurd reason for not doing it. On and on it goes.... And so, once an UNBIASED researcher starts to pile up all of these things Lindbergh was responsible for, it would be crazy not to consider they all might not be monumental coincidences. Some shrug it off, make silly excuses, invent magic items like they're playing Dungeons & Dragons, or pretend to be mind readers then tell us what Lindbergh was thinking. None of that works for me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 8, 2023 12:57:11 GMT -5
Yes...Watson's book and The Montessori Mother book. By the way, Anne also referred to Charlie as "It" quite a few times in her diary. "Fat Lamb" and "(little) It" were pet names. That doesn't seem to stop some individuals from taking umbrage and then projecting their biased feelings onto someone else. Hard to fathom really when one considers they had nothing to do with or were part of the true relationship that existed between the parents and child.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 8, 2023 16:14:36 GMT -5
All first-time parents make mistakes in child-rearing as they go through a steep learning curve. Layered on top of this we have Lindbergh’s determination to have Charlie challenged at every turn to “toughen him up.”: knocked over with cushions, kept in a chicken wire enclosure, and the “do not disturb” 8-10 rule. The Lindberghs left Charlie with his nurse for months while they flew to the Orient. None of Lindbergh’s subsequent children whether in the USA or Germany saw much of him in their formative years. All this raises 21st century eyebrows but Lindbergh had a Teutonic (kinder, kuchen, kirche) (children, cooking, church) view of a woman’s role in life. Anne’s aviation activities were curtailed once she started to have more children. He didn’t see himself as a bad parent, or a bad anything for that matter, and I’m pretty sure he loved Charlie in his unique way. Quite rightly, Lindbergh’s eugenics beliefs have been cited as a motive for his potential involvement in Charlie’s abduction. But this does not mean that he did not love his son. He had weird ways of showing it but if he had a private and dire prognosis of his son’s condition or even a firmly-held opinion of his own, it may have been the love of his son and the prevention of his inevitable deterioration which drove him to take drastic action.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2023 16:38:49 GMT -5
By the way, Anne also referred to Charlie as "It" quite a few times in her diary. Hi Mary. Could you save me some time and give me the page numbers where she refers to the child as "It" ? I'm not talking pronouns but actually calling him "It" instead of Charles. I know in her letters she often referred to him as "the baby" but never actually addressed him as "Baby" but I want to review what you've just read to better understand it because as I sit here its been a while since I read that book. "Fat Lamb" and "(little) It" were pet names. That doesn't seem to stop some individuals from taking umbrage and then projecting their biased feelings onto someone else. Hard to fathom really when one considers they had nothing to do with or were part of the true relationship that existed between the parents and child. Lindbergh called his son "Fat Lamb?" Although I've asked for sources from you in the past on several occasions for other curious assertions you've made, you still haven't provided them so I'll have to assume you don't have any. But despite that, I am going to have to ask for a source that proves Lindbergh called his son "Fat Lamb." The only sources I have say he called him " It." I didn't write about him building a chicken-wired coup for the baby to sit alone and wail for hours without anyone being allowed to comfort him. That wasn't me but I understand why you didn't address it because it harms your narrative. I also couldn't imagine laughing in a situation where my child fell in a tub and standing accused of dunking my own baby there to " test his courage." Or having " a touch of sadism" in relationship with my child. Now imagine if the child had rickets - or what the family believed was rickets. Who among us would be accused of such a thing? We already know what he did to Anne. True relationships.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2023 16:45:13 GMT -5
All first-time parents make mistakes in child-rearing as they go through a steep learning curve. Layered on top of this we have Lindbergh’s determination to have Charlie challenged at every turn to “toughen him up.”: knocked over with cushions, kept in a chicken wire enclosure, and the “do not disturb” 8-10 rule. The Lindberghs left Charlie with his nurse for months while they flew to the Orient. None of Lindbergh’s subsequent children whether in the USA or Germany saw much of him in their formative years. All this raises 21st century eyebrows but Lindbergh had a Teutonic (kinder, kuchen, kirche) (children, cooking, church) view of a woman’s role in life. Anne’s aviation activities were curtailed once she started to have more children. He didn’t see himself as a bad parent, or a bad anything for that matter, and I’m pretty sure he loved Charlie in his unique way. Quite rightly, Lindbergh’s eugenics beliefs have been cited as a motive for his potential involvement in Charlie’s abduction. But this does not mean that he did not love his son. He had weird ways of showing it but if he had a private and dire prognosis of his son’s condition or even a firmly-held opinion of his own, it may have been the love of his son and the prevention of his inevitable deterioration which drove him to take drastic action. All valid points and it shows how it can be looked at from a different perspective.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2023 8:00:22 GMT -5
"Fat Lamb" and "(little) It" were pet names. That doesn't seem to stop some individuals from taking umbrage and then projecting their biased feelings onto someone else. Hard to fathom really when one considers they had nothing to do with or were part of the true relationship that existed between the parents and child. Lindbergh called his son "Fat Lamb?" Although I've asked for sources from you in the past on several occasions for other curious assertions you've made, you still haven't provided them so I'll have to assume you don't have any. But despite that, I am going to have to ask for a source that proves Lindbergh called his son "Fat Lamb." The only sources I have say he called him " It." I didn't write about him building a chicken-wired coup for the baby to sit alone and wail for hours without anyone being allowed to comfort him. That wasn't me but I understand why you didn't address it because it harms your narrative. I also couldn't imagine laughing in a situation where my child fell in a tub and standing accused of dunking my own baby there to " test his courage." Or having " a touch of sadism" in relationship with my child. Now imagine if the child had rickets - or what the family believed was rickets. Who among us would be accused of such a thing? We already know what he did to Anne. True relationships. If I had said that Lindbergh called his son "Fat Lamb," I'd give you my sources. But as I didn't say that, I obviously can't. I do know that Anne called Charlie her "Fat Lamb," as references are in her diary. I was referring to both "Fat Lamb" and "It" as pet names, given to Charlie by his parents. I can think of one good reason Lindbergh might have used the name "It" towards Charlie based upon the collective sense of humour shared by both Charles and Anne and the general use of the term "it" being used to describe a small child a century ago. Let me ask you this. Why do you take such seemingly moral offense to the name "It", used by Charles towards Charlie? Regarding your list of grievances towards Lindbergh and some of the things he did based upon his limited view of parenting skills towards Charlie, no one is excusing his level of immaturity or desire to "toughen up" his son. Or his authoritarian attitude and treatment of Anne in general, despite the many positive experiences each brought into the other's life until this time. What is your point here? Are you lobbying again here for Lindbergh, by virtue of the above, demonstrating that he was capable of having engineered the kidnapping and elimination of his son? If so, I think you're about 12 short of a dozen here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2023 12:54:13 GMT -5
If I had said that Lindbergh called his son "Fat Lamb," I'd give you my sources. But as I didn't say that, I obviously can't. I do know that Anne called Charlie her "Fat Lamb," as references are in her diary. I was referring to both "Fat Lamb" and "It" as pet names, given to Charlie by his parents. I can think of one good reason Lindbergh might have used the name "It" towards Charlie based upon the collective sense of humour shared by both Charles and Anne and the general use of the term "it" being used to describe a small child a century ago. Let me ask you this. Why do you take such seemingly moral offense to the name "It", used by Charles towards Charlie? Fair enough, but it sure as hell sounded like you were saying the two of them called him both names as an attempt to emphasize the point that it was somehow normal to call one's child "It." Regarding your list of grievances towards Lindbergh and some of the things he did based upon his limited view of parenting skills towards Charlie, no one is excusing his level of immaturity or desire to "toughen up" his son. Or his authoritarian attitude and treatment of Anne in general, despite the many positive experiences each brought into the other's life until this time. What is your point here? Are you lobbying again here for Lindbergh, by virtue of the above, demonstrating that he was capable of having engineered the kidnapping and elimination of his son? If so, I think you're about 12 short of a dozen here. Not "grievances" at all, rather, merely pointing out only about 2% of what you chose to ignore. I'd suggest you consider everything but I know its impossible for you at this point. Not trying to be mean or anything but its obvious its too late for that. Attempting to neutralize facts that harm your position often reveals they cannot be. But instead of embracing what's true, you wait then bring them back up again even after being proven incorrect. Skean, as an example, and the warped shutter as another. It's like you have no other choice because the alternatives lead you to a place you do not want to go - or could be viewed as supporting anything you happen to think I believe. The footprints are another perfect example. You've said yourself that the scenario can only prove the mud did not yield prints because the kidnapper(s) would have had to tread there if its outsiders doing this. But instead of accepting the fact that there ARE prints there, you refuse to let it go. Why? Because if you do, it brings you to a place that threatens your position, so its unacceptable to allow that to happen. Anyway, we both agree that Anne did call him by the nickname "Fat Lamb" in her book, and that Lindbergh called him "It." I've been trying to find a place where Anne calls him "It" but haven't found it yet - but I'm trying since Mary's post. Sorry, Michael, but not rereading it to bookmark each time. That's okay. I was hoping it was still fresh in your mind where you saw it. I've been searching but not having any luck. I see "the baby" everywhere. I found a couple of "it"s but in one she's not calling the baby that and the others are just typical pronouns: And I'm so anxious to see you and have you see the baby. Now I'll have to add (indiscreetly) something about the baby. 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. Please come and see it. As I remembered, I found "Fat Lamb" but also "Charlie," "C. Jr.," and "Jr." I could be missing it, especially since I'm dealing with a dramatic change in my eyesight recently. If anyone sees an example, please point it out to me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2023 13:30:23 GMT -5
If I had said that Lindbergh called his son "Fat Lamb," I'd give you my sources. But as I didn't say that, I obviously can't. I do know that Anne called Charlie her "Fat Lamb," as references are in her diary. I was referring to both "Fat Lamb" and "It" as pet names, given to Charlie by his parents. I can think of one good reason Lindbergh might have used the name "It" towards Charlie based upon the collective sense of humour shared by both Charles and Anne and the general use of the term "it" being used to describe a small child a century ago. Let me ask you this. Why do you take such seemingly moral offense to the name "It", used by Charles towards Charlie? Fair enough, but it sure as hell sounded like you were saying the two of them called him both names as an attempt to emphasize the point that it was somehow normal to call one's child "It." This may be a bit of an understatement, but perhaps you need to be more discerning. I was pointing out that both Lindberghs had pet names for Charlie. You appear to believe Charles was implying something highly derogatory by his use of the moniker "It" for Charlie. What is your basis for this? After all, if you're intent on making such hay about something that might be more benign than your present understanding, I assume you can back it up with more than just innuendo.Regarding your list of grievances towards Lindbergh and some of the things he did based upon his limited view of parenting skills towards Charlie, no one is excusing his level of immaturity or desire to "toughen up" his son. Or his authoritarian attitude and treatment of Anne in general, despite the many positive experiences each brought into the other's life until this time. What is your point here? Are you lobbying again here for Lindbergh, by virtue of the above, demonstrating that he was capable of having engineered the kidnapping and elimination of his son? If so, I think you're about 12 short of a dozen here. Not "grievances" at all, rather, merely pointing out only about 2% of what you chose to ignore. I'd suggest you consider everything but I know its impossible for you at this point. Not trying to be mean or anything but its obvious its too late for that. Attempting to neutralize facts that harm your position often reveals they cannot be. But instead of embracing what's true, you wait then bring them back up again even after being proven incorrect. Skean, as an example, and the warped shutter as another. It's like you have no other choice because the alternatives lead you to a place you do not want to go - or could be viewed as supporting anything you happen to think I believe. The footprints are another perfect example. You've said yourself that the scenario can only prove the mud did not yield prints because the kidnapper(s) would have had to tread there if its outsiders doing this. But instead of accepting the fact that there ARE prints there, you refuse to let it go. Why? Because if you do, it brings you to a place that threatens your position, so its unacceptable to allow that to happen. Anyway, we both agree that Anne did call him by the nickname "Fat Lamb" in her book, and that Lindbergh called him "It." I've been trying to find a place where Anne calls him "It" but haven't found it yet - but I'm trying since Mary's post. I'm not going to re-immerse myself in "Skean's Absence" or "The Footprints" here and now, but rest assured you haven't heard the last from me on both. Or our friend, Finn Henrik. And I'm not being mean, but truthful when I say you're essentially looking in the mirror and reflecting what you've clearly done yourself to first generate, and then maintain a very decided conspiracy theory state of mind with respect to these and other points.
I believe Anne only used the term "it" to refer to the child in personal pronoun form. There is a reference to Charlie being referred to as "Little It" in one of the many video presentations featuring the LKC, but I can't recall which one. I only know the narrator suddenly exclaims, "Little It is gone!" when the child is discovered missing. Perhaps someone else can pinpoint it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2023 14:42:36 GMT -5
This may be a bit of an understatement, but perhaps you need to be more discerning. I was pointing out that both Lindberghs had pet names for Charlie. You appear to believe Charles was implying something highly derogatory by his use of the moniker "It" for Charlie. What is your basis for this? After all, if you're intent on making such hay about something that might be more benign than your present understanding, I assume you can back it up with more than just innuendo. I appear to be doing what? What is my basis? Please read my books. Everything is footnoted. There's a mountain of facts compiled. Like I wrote earlier, which you apparently did not read either, is that each piece isn't necessarily damaging by itself. Your strategy has been to try to chip away at any individual fact that exist which you deem as a "threat" to your position. You do this by attacking one at a time by making ridiculous claims. To date, you haven't even been successful in knocking away any. So there they are and the mountain remains. And they don't rely on the type of bogus information that you put forth. Anyway, it's good that you have because it can now be eliminated so that you will be reminded of this fact once you try to reintroduce it again. I'm not going to re-immerse myself in "Skean's Absence" or "The Footprints" here and now, but rest assured you haven't heard the last from me on both. Or our friend, Finn Henrik. And I'm not being mean, but truthful when I say you're essentially looking in the mirror and reflecting what you've clearly done yourself to first generate, and then maintain a very decided conspiracy theory state of mind with respect to these and other points.
I believe Anne only used the term "it" to refer to the child in personal pronoun form. There is a reference to Charlie being referred to as "Little It" in one of the many video presentations featuring the LKC, but I can't recall which one. I only know the narrator suddenly exclaims, "Little It is gone!" when the child is discovered missing. Perhaps someone else can pinpoint it. There can be no doubt that you will reject the facts and reintroduce your disproven information. Like I wrote, you have no choice. Otherwise you would have to accept something that you obviously thinks hurts your overall position - and for good reason. And here I thought you had a legitimate source. Jeeze, after your mention above about innuendo and all you tell me this? If Mary saw it in HGHL then it should be there - right? Why aren't you trying to find it there and help us all out? But no - your ASSERTION comes from hearing a random commentator mention "Little IT." And you lecture me? Give me the source the commentator relied on. There's stuff on TV about the Zorn theory. Should I quote what they said and assert that it is true because I heard it from the commentator? For God's sake man! Anyway, I believe your belief arose from watching the Newman piece that was recently posted here.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on May 9, 2023 17:19:54 GMT -5
Sorry I even posted. The bickering and loooooooooooooooooooooooooong repetitive crap is too much. I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on May 10, 2023 17:40:36 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel this way, Mary. I think your point is a good one and worthy of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 11, 2023 5:48:01 GMT -5
Hi IloveDFW, I agree totally that this repetitive bickering is a vexation to the spirit. Once again, as in the previous “Skean’s absence” duel, the debate is more about the participants’ motivation and thought processes. This tends to override and obscure the factual evidence which gets lost in the mix. In an old case where the pool of data is finite it is unlikely that a “golden bullet” of new information will be uncovered. So re-examination and re-interpretation of existing familiar facts is inevitable and necessary. Consequently repetition, tedious though it may sometimes be, is inevitable. I am surely not alone in urging you to reconsider dropping out of the forum. I have very much appreciated your serious reasoned contributions. You will have noticed that a number former regular contributors have been silent recently and I suspect they may agree with the reason you have given. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2023 8:28:12 GMT -5
I look at this way...
There's a ton to discuss, and despite all of the archival research I've done, I continue to learn new things - sometimes because of what's discussed on this board. I've stated as much in each of my books and it was as true then as it is now. New challenges to old positions are vitally important to getting to the actual truths that have stayed hidden all of these years. As an example, the counter argument about Skean being left behind made by Joe, to his credit, was absolutely necessary. It was a good thing because, after comparing the research, it revealed that it was no longer an obstacle to the fact that Lindbergh left him behind. So that needed to be worked through. Opinions are important, but the Facts are even more important because that's what the opinions should be based on.
The biggest problem we can run into, as I've mentioned repeatedly, is that many sources contradict to various degrees. Here we must personally choose which source is the more reliable and that's where things can get sticky. Our discussions may not solve this issue, but they help (or at least they help me) understand why some may choose one over all the others. In the end we may all agree or disagree, but we do have a better overall understanding.
Here, in this instance, what Mary posted about Anne was new to me. Although I sometimes forget things, this would have come back to me after seeing it. And so, finding this as potentially important, I sought out the information so I could evaluate it myself. That's what I do, and its in my nature to seek out all information regardless of whether it may or may not contradict other research I have revealed. My first step was to ask Mary, but she had finished the book and did not remember exactly where it was. Next, I spent hours searching for it myself to no avail. In the meantime, Joe jumped on this information, and made it sound as though I was an idiot or something. Honestly, that's fine, and he certainly has a right to his opinion because he's earned it by reading and researching for as many years as he has. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a legitimate source - and clearly he had none. And so, if we are debating, this must be pointed out as an incentive to find a legitimate source. That source would be Mary's.
So why am I the only one searching for it?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 11, 2023 10:04:45 GMT -5
Michael,
See Volume 3 (2019) of Dark Corners. "It" is covered in Chapter 2 called "The Perfect Child," but look under the sub heading: "The Living Child."
You say George Waller's book and the Brant and Renaud book tackle the name "It."
I'll see if I can find where, and provide page numbers from those two books.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 11, 2023 10:12:11 GMT -5
See page 12 in the Brant/Renaud book, and pages 23-24 in the Waller book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2023 10:39:49 GMT -5
See page 12 in the Brant/Renaud book, and pages 23-24 in the Waller book. Thanks Sue. This is exactly right. Reading the Waller and B&R sources, they not only say it was Lindbergh, they specifically excluded Anne as having ever used this nickname for the child. That's what makes Mary's claim so important. I can't find her post now, but I believed she was talking about HGHL. This would obviously upset the other sources above, having come from Anne herself, but I cannot find the reference(s) in HGHL outside of what I've already posted which clearly do not apply. I miss stuff sometimes, and it doesn't help that my eyes are screwed up right now, so it could be there but I'm not finding it myself.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on May 11, 2023 11:28:23 GMT -5
In the 1930s many adults referred to a baby as "it." That was not unusual. Methods and ideas for rearing children at that time were quite different from the advice and directions given today. At that time the aim was not to spoil the child and "let them cry it out." You can check the books of pediatricians at that time, which bears this out. My own parents were strict with their children and were determined not to spoil us (1930s and 11940s) Lindbergh admittedly had a sadistic sense of humor and sometimes tried to fool his wife or played nasty tricks on her, but his treatment of Charlie was not for fun but to toughen him up. Does anyone know how Lindbergh was treated by his parents when he was a child?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 11, 2023 12:07:51 GMT -5
This may be a bit of an understatement, but perhaps you need to be more discerning. I was pointing out that both Lindberghs had pet names for Charlie. You appear to believe Charles was implying something highly derogatory by his use of the moniker "It" for Charlie. What is your basis for this? After all, if you're intent on making such hay about something that might be more benign than your present understanding, I assume you can back it up with more than just innuendo. I appear to be doing what? What is my basis? Please read my books. Everything is footnoted. There's a mountain of facts compiled. Like I wrote earlier, which you apparently did not read either, is that each piece isn't necessarily damaging by itself. Your strategy has been to try to chip away at any individual fact that exist which you deem as a "threat" to your position. You do this by attacking one at a time by making ridiculous claims. To date, you haven't even been successful in knocking away any. So there they are and the mountain remains. And they don't rely on the type of bogus information that you put forth. Anyway, it's good that you have because it can now be eliminated so that you will be reminded of this fact once you try to reintroduce it again. I offer no intent to "chip away at any individual fact that exists which you (I) deem as a "threat" to your (my) position." What am I trying to "knock away" here, in your words? If you feel this is what I'm attempting to do, it would seem you must be coming from some kind of entrenched position, defined by your own understanding of any "individual facts." You say you want the truth? Then just let it speak for what it is, and at more than just apparent face value to support untenable positions that seek in large part to eliminate what is deemed undesirable to their survival. I'm not going to re-immerse myself in "Skean's Absence" or "The Footprints" here and now, but rest assured you haven't heard the last from me on both. Or our friend, Finn Henrik. And I'm not being mean, but truthful when I say you're essentially looking in the mirror and reflecting what you've clearly done yourself to first generate, and then maintain a very decided conspiracy theory state of mind with respect to these and other points.
I believe Anne only used the term "it" to refer to the child in personal pronoun form. There is a reference to Charlie being referred to as "Little It" in one of the many video presentations featuring the LKC, but I can't recall which one. I only know the narrator suddenly exclaims, "Little It is gone!" when the child is discovered missing. Perhaps someone else can pinpoint it. There can be no doubt that you will reject the facts and reintroduce your disproven information. Like I wrote, you have no choice. Otherwise you would have to accept something that you obviously thinks hurts your overall position - and for good reason. I've carefully presented my thoughts on those subjects and will continue to do so in good faith and understanding. Calling anything disproven here is your opinion. Anyone can gather sources of their choosing, put them in a book and then proudly point to the result as gospel. Backing them up without feeling threatened though is another thing when they're called into question for good reason. You've been calling accepted understandings, misunderstandings and outright mistruths within this case into question for as long as I have, so I'm pretty sure you understand the need for objectivity and consistency here.
And here I thought you had a legitimate source. Jeeze, after your mention above about innuendo and all you tell me this? If Mary saw it in HGHL then it should be there - right? Why aren't you trying to find it there and help us all out? But no - your ASSERTION comes from hearing a random commentator mention "Little IT." And you lecture me? Give me the source the commentator relied on. There's stuff on TV about the Zorn theory. Should I quote what they said and assert that it is true because I heard it from the commentator? For God's sake man! Anyway, I believe your belief arose from watching the Newman piece that was recently posted here. I believe there is something quite reasonable and generally understandable to the Newman video presentation source, ("Little It") which by the way, was the first I viewed when I began studying this case. To repeat myself here, I know of no source where Anne refers to Charlie as "It". She does refer to Charlie in the personal pronoun form "it" though and this was a common association parents had for their children at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 12, 2023 13:12:05 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
As to Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead --
Anne's last journal entry before the kidnapping is February 7, 1932. See page 224. The baby's nickname for his father, Charles, was "Hi."
"It" and "Hi" -- two-letter names. Could this have been some sort of running joke between father and son?
And on page 24 in the Waller book, the baby called his father "It." The baby was just repeating the name that his father was calling him?
Waller also says that the family would joke about the baby calling Betty, "Gow," and that he spoke Betty's name before the name of his own mother.
I guess we would have to understand the intimate family dynamics?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2023 19:33:28 GMT -5
"It" and "Hi" -- two-letter names. Could this have been some sort of running joke between father and son? Perhaps. Anyone who read V3 knows what I think as Joe alluded to earlier. I just don't see it as anything positive. I was thinking about this last night, and I've never even known a pet called "It." I met a "Nugget" once but never an "It." Even strays nobody liked retained their dignity by being referred to as a "Mutt" or merely "Dog." In the 1930s many adults referred to a baby as "it." That was not unusual. I'm not sure where you grew up Bernardt, but aside from one year in Montana, I was raised in NJ. And I heard the word "It" applied to a variety of people to include children and it was never an endearing term. Absolutely never. I'm not going to say what it meant but I'm quite sure everyone already knows. Other words that weren't good were "Thing" and "Creature" but for different reasons. And it was those around my grandparents ages who used these ugly terms the most. In fact, I once heard my great-grandmother call her neighbor a "Creature" which, I must admit, my cousin and I thought was kinda funny at the time. Anyway, I have a hard time believing I'm the only one with this experience but if I am then I don't know what to say. I know the Addams family was from the 1960s but look at " Cousin It" as an example. I mean, they weren't calling Marilyn "It" were they? But take a good look at what they were. So that is exactly what I'm talking about. So I see Lindbergh, an Eugenicist, referring to his own son as "It," and it's cause for concern. Eliminate it and we're still left with about fifty more to contend with. There's just too many to ignore in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 12, 2023 21:35:31 GMT -5
Actually, beautiful, blond Marilyn Munster was cast in the role of the family weirdo on that show. Marilyn is considered to be the ugly duckling, as many scenes bear this out. The rest of the Munsters see themselves as the normal ones.
There's nothing like watching an episode of the Munsters to "lighten up."
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on May 12, 2023 23:50:39 GMT -5
I just checked online the propriety of referring to a baby as "it." Historically it was quite common and not considered to be inappropriate or offensive. Girl and boy babies tended to be treated alike, dressed the same way, and boys often did not have their first haircut until the age of three or four. Distinguishing gender was not that important, and often an observer would not be able to tell whether a baby was a boy or a girl. The German and the Dutch also referred to a baby in a neutral way.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on May 13, 2023 0:05:13 GMT -5
As an example, I will attach a photo of Theodore Roosevelt with his family. Can you tell which are the boys and which are the girls?
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on May 13, 2023 0:31:21 GMT -5
And here's one of the family of King George V and Queen Mary of England. They had only one daughter. The last son to be born, Prince John, sits in front of his sister, dressed like a girl in a skirt. The sex of a child that young was not considered all that important for a long time.
|
|