|
Post by Sue on May 22, 2023 10:15:03 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 7:25:48 GMT -5
For his entire life, Lindbergh had a highly clinical and scientifically-inspired nature. He was someone who wanted to know how things worked, and if they didn’t, how he might be able to fix them. This is an excellent backdrop for the set of circumstances which drove his actions at the morgue. Despite the general shock and disgust, speculatively registered here that seeks to connect Lindbergh with some form of distaste and rejection of his first-born son even after death as concluded by him cutting into what remained of the corpse’s lips, he would not have felt this way. Quite simply, he would have wanted to know for certain if what he was viewing was in fact, the corpse of his son. He probably thought very little about the overall reaction his actions might have generated in the autopsy room. And just as importantly, from a spiritual understanding, he would have understood that Charlie’s spirit and true life force had long departed the stinking, blackened and decaying mass on the autopsy table.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 7, 2023 21:02:18 GMT -5
For his entire life, Lindbergh had a highly clinical and scientifically-inspired nature. He was someone who wanted to know how things worked, and if they didn’t, how he might be able to fix them. This is an excellent backdrop for the set of circumstances which drove his actions at the morgue. Despite the general shock and disgust, speculatively registered here that seeks to connect Lindbergh with some form of distaste and rejection of his first-born son even after death as concluded by him cutting into what remained of the corpse’s lips, he would not have felt this way. Quite simply, he would have wanted to know for certain if what he was viewing was in fact, the corpse of his son. He probably thought very little about the overall reaction his actions might have generated in the autopsy room. And just as importantly, from a spiritual understanding, he would have understood that Charlie’s spirit and true life force had long departed the stinking, blackened and decaying mass on the autopsy table. While I agree that Lindbergh had a clinical and scientifically inspired nature, was it really necessary for Lindbergh to use that instrument on his deceased son the way he did just to examine his teeth? I think not. Betty Gow was able to see the teeth without the aid of any such instrument and use those teeth as a point of identification of the corpse as Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. imgur.com/Ht9sNrV
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 8, 2023 15:04:37 GMT -5
For his entire life, Lindbergh had a highly clinical and scientifically-inspired nature. He was someone who wanted to know how things worked, and if they didn’t, how he might be able to fix them. This is an excellent backdrop for the set of circumstances which drove his actions at the morgue. Despite the general shock and disgust, speculatively registered here that seeks to connect Lindbergh with some form of distaste and rejection of his first-born son even after death as concluded by him cutting into what remained of the corpse’s lips, he would not have felt this way. Quite simply, he would have wanted to know for certain if what he was viewing was in fact, the corpse of his son. He probably thought very little about the overall reaction his actions might have generated in the autopsy room. And just as importantly, from a spiritual understanding, he would have understood that Charlie’s spirit and true life force had long departed the stinking, blackened and decaying mass on the autopsy table. While I agree that Lindbergh had a clinical and scientifically inspired nature, was it really necessary for Lindbergh to use that instrument on his deceased son the way he did just to examine his teeth? I think not. Betty Gow was able to see the teeth without the aid of any such instrument and use those teeth as a point of identification of the corpse as Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. imgur.com/Ht9sNrVI agree that Betty Gow had previously examined the corpse for the presence of Charlie's sixteen teeth and claimed to have counted them. Now, if Lindbergh seriously felt he had to used a meat skewer or similar device to verify the number of teeth, and ostensibly the physical characteristics of the teeth, then how would Betty have been able to see all of the teeth to satisfactorily identify them, as the report appears to claim? Especially with those eye teeth barely visible above the gum line? Would she have had some assistance from Walter Swayze or one of his staff to peel back the lips? The report does not indicate this.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 9, 2023 15:42:45 GMT -5
Now, if Lindbergh seriously felt he had to used a meat skewer or similar device to verify the number of teeth, and ostensibly the physical characteristics of the teeth, then how would Betty have been able to see all of the teeth to satisfactorily identify them, as the report appears to claim? Especially with those eye teeth barely visible above the gum line? Would she have had some assistance from Walter Swayze or one of his staff to peel back the lips? The report does not indicate this. (Joe)
I am thinking that when Swayze and Mitchell did the autopsy and noted those teeth, they did not use a meat skewer to accomplish this. Their gloved fingers would have made it possible to look at the teeth which they did. Perhaps Betty Gow did have someone assist with her being able to view the teeth in order to make that point of identification. I cannot understand why Lindbergh would have needed to use a meat skewer when it was possible for him to do it another way without causing damage to his deceased son's face. The meat skewer is an over-the-top cruel way for him to check those teeth. There is nothing scientific about a meat skewer!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2023 16:44:59 GMT -5
I am thinking that when Swayze and Mitchell did the autopsy and noted those teeth, they did not use a meat skewer to accomplish this. Their gloved fingers would have made it possible to look at the teeth which they did. Perhaps Betty Gow did have someone assist with her being able to view the teeth in order to make that point of identification. I cannot understand why Lindbergh would have needed to use a meat skewer when it was possible for him to do it another way without causing damage to his deceased son's face. The meat skewer is an over-the-top cruel way for him to check those teeth. There is nothing scientific about a meat skewer! I just wanted to jump in to remind everyone that Detective Kirkham was the source for this. I seem to remember him mention it in a couple of sources. But I've always been under the impression that it was an autopsy tool on the try and whatever it was he best described, or it appeared to Kirkham, as a meat skewer. My take from this event was that Lindbergh was trying to impress the men by demonstrating his "skill" and lack of emotion - which he believed exemplified "strength."
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 9, 2023 19:15:34 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this with your impression. You do say in V1 Chapter 15, page 317, that Lindbergh "sliced open the lips, peeled back the skin, then looked at the teeth." Wow! Again, I am wondering why he would need to go to this extreme to see the teeth. I have not seen where it was necessary for Swayze, Mitchell, or Gow to slice and peel the deceased Charlie to see those teeth. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2023 19:51:17 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this with your impression. You do say in V1 Chapter 15, page 317, that Lindbergh "sliced open the lips, peeled back the skin, then looked at the teeth." Wow! Again, I am wondering why he would need to go to this extreme to see the teeth. I have not seen where it was necessary for Swayze, Mitchell, or Gow to slice and peel the deceased Charlie to see those teeth. Just saying. I remember there being a couple of sources for this all attributed to Kirkham. I remember footnoting the Grand Jury testimony that I think wasn't as specific - I honestly can't remember. Anyway, of course I could be wrong, perhaps there was a meat skewer there, but it seems more logical that is was something normally in the morgue and Kirkham, not being familiar, just called it what it looked like to him. And my guess is that everyone is right supposing Swayze assisted in allowing Gow to see the front teeth. I am positive Gow didn't touch the corpse since she was all dressed up and wearing makeup like a celebrity so that hardly fits the scenario. Anyway, it seems to me that Lindbergh could have done the same thing but went overboard for the reasons I stated above. I don't think a normal father would treat their child's corpse like a dead animal to impress others. I know everyone deals with grief differently but this was a little much.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2023 9:03:17 GMT -5
While I am thinking about it, I wanted to make a point about this specific situation to shed light on tunnel vision.... We can see the police report above and how the police chose to describe the event. For most Authors who even bothered to search for this report - that's it. They were either pressed for time or found no reason to find out more because it satisfied their positions about how it occurred. So if one only has this document, how do we think everything occurred that isn't described? Well, whatever "normalcy" could be attached to it - right? But it was the McLean interview with old man Swayze where I found out it wasn't normal at all. Gow's dress and demeanor are quite a shocking revelation in my opinion. And so, for me, its a double "whammy" all of which should be considered as a whole with all of these other "whammies." So I guess my point is to never stop searching for information. A lot of people read Fisher's books and call it a day. After having drawn such conclusions then anything new gets shrugged off, ignored, or called BS.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 10, 2023 11:12:29 GMT -5
Agree! This is why your books are so important. There is a lot more to know and learn if one takes the time to do it. You will get to see the bigger picture surrounding the people and events in this case. You have four volumes out already and there is still more for you to share. Its amazing!!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 10, 2023 11:39:20 GMT -5
While I am thinking about it, I wanted to make a point about this specific situation to shed light on tunnel vision.... We can see the police report above and how the police chose to describe the event. For most Authors who even bothered to search for this report - that's it. They were either pressed for time or found no reason to find out more because it satisfied their positions about how it occurred. So if one only has this document, how do we think everything occurred that isn't described? Well, whatever "normalcy" could be attached to it - right? But it was the McLean interview with old man Swayze where I found out it wasn't normal at all. Gow's dress and demeanor are quite a shocking revelation in my opinion. And so, for me, its a double "whammy" all of which should be considered as a whole with all of these other "whammies." So I guess my point is to never stop searching for information. A lot of people read Fisher's books and call it a day. After having drawn such conclusions then anything new gets shrugged off, ignored, or called BS. Yes, a lot of people read Fisher and call it a day, as they do with many other books on this case. And if they do, they place limitations on their own conclusions, even though truthful elements can be found in all of them. Likewise, to restrict oneself to personally-inspired, tabloid editorial style interpretations and judgments, accomplishes no better. I trust that anyone serious in discovering truth without this kind of bias, would not even think about limiting themselves accordingly, and would therefore make every attempt to seek beyond the intoxicatingly sensational, before 'calling it a day.'
|
|