|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 19, 2012 17:28:52 GMT -5
Kevkon, this raises a couple of questions/thoughts in my mind: 1—Why do you think BRH first started building the ladder? With the kidnap in mind, or for ease of access to the attic? 2—If it was used for accessing the attic, one would think Anna would have probably seen it--especially if it was stored in the closet--and therefore would have recognized it in the courtroom. But she didn’t, and Anna is generally acknowledged (by most people, anyway) as a woman of honesty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 17:53:06 GMT -5
Thanks Kevkon for such a great answer. I can understand why Zorn used you as one of his experts. You know about all there is to know about that ladder. So section one and section two of the kidnap ladder were actually Hauptmann's attic ladder. He built section three for the kidnapping. So many different woods in section three too. Perhaps he was keeping the leftover wood from the various jobs National Millwork sent him out on. I wonder if Anna ever wondered where the attic ladder went.
I completely agree with your earlier post. No matter who is involved with this crime, it will link back to Hauptmann. No matter how one considers the ladder, either as a means of access to the nursery or just as a prop to mislead, finding that link is necessary to understanding this crime.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 19, 2012 18:28:36 GMT -5
amy, to get to hauptmanns attic then, you had to take shelves out of a linen closet, and use the wood rails that held the shelves, and climb into the attic. it had a hatch also. it wasnt a easy climb to me as far as when i was in the house and looked
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2012 19:30:16 GMT -5
I agree that errors in a book doesn't invalidate it. There are so many facts that its almost impossible to get everything right 100% of the time.
There is no line from Hauptmann to anyone. So does this mean he acted alone? No. It just explains why the Case has gone unsolved for so long because we all know more then one person was involved here. I've got a ton of new information that I am assembling which I think points to someone other then Hauptmann being involved. And so, if someone else is involved, and Hauptmann is involved - does that mean they are directly linked to one another? I will go back to the man giving Perrone the note. Did they know one another prior to that? After that? It looks like Condon and Hauptmann may have known each other too. We cannot prove it conclusively, yet the possibility remains strong. And if they did, would that mean Condon knew everyone involved - or just Hauptmann?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 19, 2012 22:06:41 GMT -5
Kevin, I realize you are not insisting that BRH originally used the ladder as an attic access, but you seem to be raising that possibility. I just reread the court testimony of Gustave Miller, the plumber who fixed the Hauptmanns' leak in August 1934. He said he was greeted by the Hauptmanns; he said accessed the attic by standing on a chair, and mentions seeing two shelves in the closet. There was no ladder. It seems to me that, if Hauptmann did think a ladder was needed to access the attic, he would have built another one by then. This was well over two years after the kidnapping.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 20, 2012 6:22:56 GMT -5
BR, you are correct in that I am not saying the ladder was ever actually used in that apartment. I do believe that it has a relationship to that attic, though. Hauptmann did store things up there, perhaps he planned to use it more, I don't know. What I know is the physical size of the ladder which is unique for a ladder conforms to the closet door opening which is also unique.
Michael, I just can't agree about the lack of lines from Hauptmann to anyone else. There would be evidence, there always is. It might not be a smoking gun but it would be something. You just can't orchestrate a major crime with a group of people who have no interaction or relationship. There has to be a structure in order to convey information, directions, money, etc. Just think of the recruitment process and what that entails, it's not like Strangers On A Train.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 20, 2012 9:32:44 GMT -5
Kevin, stop dissing my connection of the LKC to Strangers on a Train. The girl got bumped off in an amusement park, didn’t she? Obviously a reference to Zorn’s Palisades Park. And I bet if you took an overhead shot of that merry-go-round at the end, it would bear a perfect resemblance to those circles in the ransom note. Hm, I wonder if Hitchcock made a cameo during the Lindbergh kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2012 18:14:12 GMT -5
Very interesting potential connection between the ladder and the attic that Kevin raises, although I would think if this was the case, the finish would be a bit more refined. Still, perhaps this is where the spark for the actual, but strictly more utilitarian kidnap ladder was generated. I do know that one of Hauptmann’s favorite boyhood playtime activities was climbing up and down the folding ladder that accessed the attic of his mother’s house at 64 Bautzenerstrasse in Kamenz. I would love to know what that ladder looked like and if it provided any inspiration for a later design..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2012 18:35:10 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying there's none in the source material. There are however possibilities. My secondary point was made by the questions I posed.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 20, 2012 19:09:15 GMT -5
the linen closet is next to hauptmanns bedroom. i dont think he used this ladder to go up and down the attic. he wouldnt need 3 rails probably one. and when i was in the attic i thought to myself i dont think he built the ladder up there like people think. its a very bad and unconfortible place to work
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2012 9:08:29 GMT -5
Michael, there is certainly an intriguing motive within a scenario that finds Lindbergh dissatisfied with a son he felt did not measure up. What I cannot understand within this scenario, besides some of the other issues raised, is the fact he immediately contacted the police and in doing so, set into motion the gears he knew would surely bring the press of the world to his front doorstep. Lindbergh was a very methodical thinker. If he truly was the architect of this plan, would he not have at least opened the envelope he knew would be there? In this way, the whole affair could be dealt with in “discretion,” an action that surely would have been understood universally, as part of a reasonable desire to ensure the safe return of his son, unhindered by the police and countless scores of reporters. I don't feel this is just a good question, as much an outright showstopper.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 21, 2012 14:39:32 GMT -5
It occurs to me that there’s another issue with the “Lindbergh did it because his son was defective” theory. Anne was pregnant with their second son at the time of the kidnapping. If the first son really had some sort of serious genetic birth defect, how could Lindbergh be sure the SECOND son wouldn’t be born with the same defect? What would he do THEN? Stage ANOTHER kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2012 19:34:20 GMT -5
I think its interesting for two people to see things completely different. I would believe, if Lindbergh wasn't the architect, an argument could be made that he would have immediately opened the note. I would also think his son, not fingerprints, would be the first thing that came to his mind as he was opening it. I think it could be argued that it makes no sense for him to call the Police then run the investigation. If that was his intention then why not just keep it quiet then try to get his son back himself?
So you see, if this was my theory, I would use your argument exactly as you are for the other side of it.
This assumes he did not know what caused the problems in the first pregnancy.
However, lets say someone, who would do this with his first, is faced with a similar problem with the 2nd. I would expect to see some other like situation occur. Probably not a kidnapping this time though.... Maybe an accidental poisoning, a fall out of the Nursery window, or ... well, you get the picture.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 22, 2012 6:05:17 GMT -5
This is exactly what I said earlier on the board. If Lindbergh wanted to get rid of the FIRST son, he could have simply let it die in an “accident” too. There would be no need to stage an elaborate kidnapping. Staging a kidnapping would require accomplices, and that would entail all kinds of risks: the accomplices might mess up, might eventually “talk,” or might blackmail him.
As Kevkon has pointed out—and I think there is a general consensus on this—Lindbergh was a person who liked to control events. But the moment hired abductors took the child away, events would have been beyond his control.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 22, 2012 6:59:08 GMT -5
Lindbergh didn't just like to control things, he had a compulsive need to control and oversee every detail. That's why you can count him out of any endeavor where he was not in the pilot's seat. The very thought of him handing off a plan to kidnap murder his son to a bunch of Bronx krauts is beyond ludicrous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 7:44:28 GMT -5
When you read about Lindbergh his need to be in control of things really stands out. Would Lindbergh trust a group of people from the bronx to assist with Charlie's disappearance? I say no he wouldn't. The person that Lindbergh trusted is the person who would work out the details and make the necessary contacts. This person would be someone close to him that he had complete trust in. This is the link person that eludes us. Just my thoughts.
I was reading over the police reports from the crime scene. I started thinking about Charlie being taken from the nursery. Does anyone know when and how it became accepted fact that Charlie was taken out of the nursery in a burlap sack?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2012 8:23:25 GMT -5
Certainly the choice to open the envelope or not would have been there and again, I think most people would have empathized with Lindbergh’s actions either way, as those of a man intent on the safe return of his son. The essential point here is what he chose to do upon discovering the note itself, and that was to notify the police right away. I feel it’s a clear indication he immediately grasped the urgency of the situation and that any thoughts of a detailed and painstaking investigation that was sure to follow, reporters for whom he had a clear aversion and truly worldwide publicity, had not even crossed his mind or were secondary in nature.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2012 8:37:45 GMT -5
Planning a departure for his son by this means would equate to Lindbergh attempting to fly the Atlantic in a Fokker tri-motor, with a co-pilot, navigator and someone to record the trip. This is just not the way he operated.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 22, 2012 10:46:40 GMT -5
In terms of the baby being developmentally (or in some other way) impaired, I remember seeing a photo of the Lindberghs in these huge high-altitude eskimo-type flying suits, the caption reading that Anne was seven months pregnant with CALjr at the time. That always struck me. They may not have been as aware of this as we are now, but going to high altitudes, breathing gas fumes in planes, etc. is obviously no good for a fetus. At the same time, in home movies taken of him, the baby's behavior and general appearance look perfectly average for a child that age, and, as has been said, I don't see a control freak like Lindbergh staging a kidnapping, something which would require accomplices and would be very difficult to control all aspects of.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2012 16:13:26 GMT -5
This thread is really getting good despite we are all over the map with it. It's indicative of the Case itself. Mystery on top of mystery. Differing opinions and beliefs. I love it!
Depends on the objective. It made sense that he was kidnapped regardless of who was behind it.
If we're arguing against Lindbergh being behind it then it doesn't make sense to assume he's stupid in order to bolster that opinion.
Control freak yes. Risk taker yes. Stupid no.
He controlled things to a point then had faith that certain things would occur based upon his actions. Look at his Fathering children in order to help out the "Master Race" which was devasted by War. He had no way to know one of these woman wouldn't talk. He created the situation, did the best he could, the assumed it would all work out. At any time something could have changed. He wasn't there on top of that situation to make sure it wouldn't.
Exactly. He wouldn't have been the one to hand it off to Krauts, or Sailors. Insulated and alibi all wrapped up into one. However, this "control" we keep hearing about would have to had to get the better of him because he suddenly forgets about his engagement and "unexpectedly" shows up at home.
Regardless of my personal belief concerning this theory, I do not agree. Upon learning his son was missing he acted like a normal Father. He raced up, grabbed a gun, then flew out to find him, and presumably shoot the Criminals. But this sense of urgency eludes him once the note is seen? His main concern is to safeguard the crime scene? Protect the integrity of fingerprint evidence (of which there coincidentally is none)? No Parent in a state of panic thinks that far ahead. Wait? A control freak opens that letter faster then anyone else to gain whatever knowledge they can in order to solve this problem. For me, the argument could be made that he just might know what's in that note.
Control freak or not, regardless, his actions were not consistent.
Very good observation.
I don't expect for any that show otherwise would have ever seen the light of day. Those clips may look cause him to look healthy but from other evidence we know he wasn't.
Again, this is all for arguments sake.....
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 22, 2012 20:12:37 GMT -5
I’d like to further answer the theory “Lindbergh hired the abductors because there was some problem with his son’s health.”
First of all, according to Anne, Betty, and Elsie, on the day of the kidnapping, CAL Jr., despite his cold, was chasing the dog, eating, talking and playing. So unless all three ladies were lying, the kid exhibits signs of being a normal child right up to the day of the snatch. He was NOT autistic, vegetative, deformed, disabled. I cannot see Lindbergh going to extremes to KILL a kid who’s essentially normal.
But let’s say that, unknown to us, the kid’s doctor has told the parents he has some abnormality that will worsen over time. Even if that was so, I can’t see how that threatens Lindbergh. When CAL Jr. was very young, Charles and Anne were charting a new air route to China. They were gone for months while Betty Gow cared for the child. So even if the kid had some worsening defect, Charles and Anne had plenty of money for caregivers. Charles would have gone right on with his career, making developments in aviation.
Now let’s take the argument, “Charles would have been embarrassed in public by having an abnormal child.” But the Lindberghs, being very private people, never exposed their children publicly anyway, even though Jon and the rest were NORMAL kids. I can’t see Lindbergh killing his child because he frets about a public embarrassment.
I know that Ahlgren and Monier paint a rather dark portrait of Lindbergh by focusing on cruel pranks that he played. But any one of us would look bad if someone edited out the good of our lives, and focused on our worst moments. We need balance, like this quote from Anne Morrow’s Hour of Gold, describing their return after that long journey:
Notice that Anne did NOT say “And the boy was wheezing and hobbling…and Charles looked at him with murder in his eyes, cursing under his breath, until the glass in his hand shattered from the tension.”
Yes, I know, there were some cruel pranks by Lindbergh. But we have to have a balanced picture of the man.
OK, now let’s take this “Lindbergh hired the abductors” theory to some logical (I hope) conclusions.
If Lindbergh hired the abductors, what were they supposed to do with CAL Jr. after the abduction?
Well, I don’t think they could have been hired to humanely RAISE the boy. CAL Jr. was perhaps the most recognizable baby in America. How long could they keep him before somebody recognized him? BRH and some Bronx friends raising CAL Jr.? That’s OUT!
So if Lindy didn’t hire them to raise the boy, what alternative does that leave? It sounds like he hired them to kill the boy. To put it bluntly, he put a contract out on his own son. Now I’ve heard of parents killing their babies, and I’ve heard of people hiring hit men, but I don’t think I’ve heard of anyone hiring a hit man to bump off his own baby.
So how does that work? Lindy sits down with a gang in the Bronx and says: “Boys, I want you to do me a favor.”
GANG: Sure, “Lone Eagle,” anything for you. What do you want us to do?
LINDBERGH: I want you to bump off my son. He’s got a slight case of rickets, and I can’t stand imperfection.
GANG: Murder the most famous baby in America? Why, that’ll be no problem at all, Lindy. Do you want us to do it right there in the house?
LINDBERGH: Nah, make it look like kidnapping—THEN kill him.
OK, I’m being satirical here. And what happened to CAL Jr. was anything but funny. But if Lindbergh didn’t hire the abductors to RAISE the baby, he presumably hired them to KILL the baby. And to kill the most famous baby in America, and all the risks that entailed, he would have had to pay them a fabulous sum of money.
It doesn’t work, Michael. Hiring abductors is way too complicated. If Lindy really wanted to get rid of his son, he could have simply (as we’ve already said) dropped him from a second-floor window and said it was an accident.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2012 20:48:54 GMT -5
So let's see, we ignore everything else because they were guarding against a personal family matter they didn't want anyone to exploit? That's like saying there wasn't anything wrong with Dwight Morrow Jr. or that Elisabeth was healthy all the while she was really dying. Oh wait - that did happen didn't it? So they were all lying?
Well, if someone wants to advance it as a theory I think it would be a hard one to discount. Each and every argument against it is just as equally supportive of one. Saying Lindbergh personally hired Hauptmann doesn't mean that would be the theory - it only undermines that theory. I would wholeheartedly disagree with that myself. The idea of an accident would raise the specter of a mercy killing, or that he died of his illness - because you see, that child wasn't well and word had been leaked out. But a kidnapping was believable from any angle.
Hiring someone to set this up would be rather easy for a rich man and even easier for Lindbergh. Quite simpler back in '32 then it is today, yet, we still see it happen today. But we don't see it by people who would be allowed to control the investigation and approach the President about getting the FBI thrown off the case because, of all things, they were conducting successful investigations while those Agencies he was controlling were failing miserably.
I think some here are getting caught up in the death. Well, if you want to ignore that Lindbergh not only believed in Eugenics, and would later become a leader in that movement, then consider it may have been an accident. Or perhaps, if you like A&M's theory, you could assume outsiders were brought in to make this 3rd time more believable.
Take your pick.
But of course Lindy would never hide his infant in a closet pretending that he was kidnapped - would he? Maybe Wahgoosh put him there?
It's not the theory I am so passionate about, its the advancement that Lindbergh "could never do this, or wasn't capable of doing that" when there is evidence all over the place that he was.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 22, 2012 22:51:54 GMT -5
Michael, there is a world of difference between the Morrows maintaining discretion about some conditions Dwight and Elisabeth had (or may have had), and a murder case, where people are questioned and re-questioned, by police and prosecutors, often under oath. Anne, Betty, and Elsie gave very consistent stories about the baby’s condition and behavior on the day of the kidnapping. Even Red Johnsen described the baby as very healthy and normal, based on a recent visit. Were they all in on a conspiracy about CAL Jr’s health? And were Anne and Betty still in on that conspiracy when they were interviewed some 50 years later, after CAL’s death? Why should we discount their testimony in favor of rumors about the baby’s health? Do you have actual proof that the baby had a serious condition? If so, present it.
Michael, I didn’t say Lindbergh “could never.” Theoretically, I suppose, just about anyone is capable of a serious crime. Yes, Lindbergh was capable of a crime too. The question isn’t whether Lindbergh was capable of a crime, but whether the hire-abductors-to-kill-baby scenario is what really happened. To me, the theory’s probability is very low, for the reasons I gave in my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2012 6:59:08 GMT -5
I am not sure if this could be called an accepted fact, however, after the Squibb Report came to Schwarzkopf on May 23, 1932, it was then an accepted fact he had been in that bag.
I think what you mean is there should be a difference.
The equivalent of (1) bottle of cod liver oil instead of 3 tsp? Sound normal? In addition to a sunlamp being used to the point of causing dryness over his entire body? Sound normal? How many people did this to their normal children?
Like I said, Fawcett was going to call VanIngen to the stand as well as other Experts along this line.
I've gone over this as far as I am willing to. Bottom line is that he was not well. His exact condition isn't known and probably never will be - but there was one. It was acknowledged in certain places but was shrugged off by saying it had "nothing" to do with the case. When it came up they changed the subject. No one wanted to "embarass" Lindbergh.
So if you want to believe he was perfectly healthy there isn't much more I can do at this point. I respect your belief but it would be unconscionable for me to agree knowing what I do.
How about the fact Schlosser had posed as a Defense Witness for the Prosecution so that he could provide to them their strategies? He spied on the Defense, then let them know they were going to bring up the child's health. And so, a Prosecutors Officer who engaged in this unethical and illegal practice would never "prep" their Witnesses against that angle after learning about it - would they?
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I think the more you research the more you will find that Lindbergh did some things that say.....raised an eyebrow or two would be an understatement. You've got to remember that I have certain notes, reports, memos which reveal thoughts, and ideas that I don't think anyone who researched the Case took the time to look into.
It's like the Schenk/Devine angle for example. People would say: "Schenk had nothing to do with it so why waste my time?" I understand. But after about 6 months of research on that angle I can tell you there are things to be found that are important. And so is 6 months worth 2 or 3 good points?
I say yes because they bring out information no one knows about. There is a cumulative effect. If you start taking away this point, that point, and this point - then you're left to invent certain things in order to support what we've come to know as the actual history of this crime. I'd rather take the time necessary to get to the bottom of it all. If that meant to "waste" my time on an angle then so be it.
Trust me - it was all worth it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 23, 2012 8:25:25 GMT -5
You’re making it sound like Lindbergh first panicked by running for his gun, charged out into the night to raise hell and then suddenly regained his composure enough not to disturb the scene of the crime; therefore these seemingly behavioural opposites are suspicious. What the facts seem to support are that upon learning the baby was gone, he rushed past Anne, took a rifle from the closet and immediately went out into the night, realizing his son may have still been on the property and that some force might have been necessary to get him back.
I’d think there was a definite sense of urgency here but can we assume from this that Lindbergh was in a state of panic? In reality, he was well versed in dealing with life and death situations from his countless flying experiences. Lindbergh’s return to the nursery once he realizes his son is gone and there is nothing more he can do to outside and then attempting to preserve the scene of the crime seem consistent enough to me for someone whose thought process was known to be both orderly and methodical.
As a general comment and personally speaking, I hesitate to judge any situation in which another person may seem to react differently from what might universally be perceived as normal in an adverse situation and I think most profilers will agree with this in the absence of far more detail.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2012 8:38:36 GMT -5
I know that we disagree about most things and this can be added to the list. It's a good thing for people to see things differently so that those differences can be worked out if possible then realize the truth - which may actually lie in the middle.
So what I see you doing is making a double argument. Certainly everyone may react differently. However, you cannot solidly type cast someone then deviate from it when and where it is needed.
We're talking about the same night. Either he's emotionally reacting or he isn't. Either he appears to care or it appears he doesn't. He is either thinking about evidence or he is thinking about his son. Either he wants to control and be in possession of all the facts or he defers. I don't accept the half of one and half of the other as making any sense no matter how hard anyone tries to explain it away.
It does not happen anywhere else.
Think about it. He doesn't tell Condon not to open that note and to safeguard it for fingerprints. He tells him to open it immediately against the orders of the Kidnappers.
Look, I am not saying this makes him guilty of anything, but my problem that I have is I see some ignoring this stuff in order to reject Lindbergh being a possible suspect. No matter what the man does some people try to protect him.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 23, 2012 11:44:04 GMT -5
Michael, I despise the tactics Wilentz used. However, I was talking about the statements that Anne, Betty, and Elsie made about how the baby was behaving on the day of the kidnapping. According to Falzini’s timeline, the statements they made about the baby’s behavior and condition, to the police in 1932, were virtually the same as the ones they made in Flemington. Wilentz wasn’t on the case in 1932, and he certainly didn’t prep Red Johnsen, who was long gone by the trial. So we can’t say the picture of the baby’s condition was invented by Wilentz. The problem is, unless you reveal what you’ve found, we can’t respond to it. It’s like swinging at an invisible fastball. OK, let’s look at this. The kid had rickets, which is caused by vitamin D deficiency. Now to remedy rickets, one takes vitamin D through (1) vitamin supplements, and (2) sunlight. The kid was on a supplement. Just so no one is confused here, CAL Jr. was NOT taking a bottle of cod liver oil every day. He was taking 14 drops of viosterol, which is a VITAMIN D SUPPLEMENT. As far as the sunlamp goes, here’s an interesting book I just found on Amazon, a reprint of a book published in 1932: The Curative Value of Light: Sunlight and Sun Lamp in Health and Disease 1932www.amazon.com/The-Curative-Value-Light-Sunlight/dp/1417980478/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1340466349&sr=1-2-catcorr&keywords=viosterolSo it sounds like sunlamps were a popular approach in 1932. What I see here looks like the kid was getting treated for rickets--which was nothing to kill him over. I also want to say, Michael, that even if you proved that CAL Jr. had a much more serious undisclosed disorder, there’s an ocean between that and proving the parent wanted to murder him over it. This cuts both ways. It seems to me that some people are determined to have him be guilty. What we need is a balanced and accurate picture of the man. I don’t rule him out as a suspect, but for several reasons which I’ve very recently given in this thread (and that I therefore won’t repeat here) I consider the “Lindbergh hired abductors to kill his baby” theory very unlikely. I’m not familiar with the angle. The FBI Files devote only one sentence to Schenk. Do you care to expand? Do you think Schenk was one of the abductors?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 23, 2012 13:14:20 GMT -5
OK, I now find that the 1932 book The Curative Value of Light: Sunlight and Sun Lamp in Health and Disease is available online books.google.com/books/about/The_Curative_Value_of_Light.html?id=N_IidU6xREACHere’s what it says on page 68: “It has been clearly shown that exposures to sunlight and sun-lamps have proved to be preventative, as well as curative, of rickets….This vitamin D may also be administered by feeding cod-liver oil, or egg yolks, or by the administration of a preparation sold in the market under various trade names.” OK, there you have it. Cal Jr. had rickets. Sunlamps and viosterol were being used, in combination, to treat rickets in 1932. There was nothing strange or mysterious going on.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2012 14:35:34 GMT -5
Even if the child simply had rickets - he wasn't healthy because a healthy child does not have rickets. Red Johnson saying the child was healthy means what? That the child did not have rickets? Ok, but he did - if not rickets then something. So Red could not have been right if he was being honest. No we cannot say the health of the child was invented by Wilentz and I don't know who did. We CAN say the true nature of his health was concealed/downplayed, and that he prepped his Witnesses to ensure this continued at trial. I don't think its necessary. There's enough here to see whether or not someone is going to take a serious look at it or not. You just said the child was normal and healthy. Ask any Doctor whether or not its rare for a child to have this in a developed country and coming from a rich family. If he had a poor diet he certainly didn't after he was diagnosed. Next, did he really have rickets or did his symptoms appear to be rickets? Was he responding to treatment? I am not getting your point. You seem to be saying that I said something I did not. Then you are saying something that is misleading yourself. 14 drops of viosterol equal 1 bottle of cod liver oil. Again, how does one explain this ultra mega dose along with the sunlamp which was going full blast enough to dry out his skin? I don't get this. Firstly, with Lindbergh's beliefs concerning the weak, both mentally and physically, how ironic would it be that his own son may never be a normal developing child? So its not just any parent. Next, read the world's expectations of this child before he was even born. As to your other point - there's an ocean between kidnapping and murdering a child for a mere 50K too. Certainly not me. I am determined to correct the record concerning many facts then let the chips fall where they may. If people here want to assign a personality or character to someone so that its not possible to consider them a Suspect I won't agree if my research contradicts that. There's nothing about Lindbergh which would eliminate him as one. In fact, just the opposite is true. Doesn't make him guilty of anything (well maybe obstruction) but we have to call a spade a spade. One excuse after another for his outrages conduct and interference during this investigation.... Look closely at him. What he did. What he said. And how he acted. In my opinion its impossible to rule him out. And that opinion isn't based upon my belief that because he flew an airplane across the Atlantic he couldn't do such a thing, or was incapable. Look at his beliefs and his values. Read Anne's book the Wave of the Future. That is Lindbergh talking through his wife. You can't tell me this would have been her position if she didn't live with the man. I was using it to exemplify the point I was trying to make. As a result of researching this angle I did pull out a couple of new things that aren't anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 24, 2012 0:59:50 GMT -5
Rickets is rare today, Michael, but it was a very common disease then, EVEN in America and among well-fed families. Check the statistics in A History of Rickets in the United States: www.ajcn.org/content/20/11/1234.full.pdfNote the statistics for the 1920s. In a study of 400 Boston babies, 95 percent developed rickets. In New Orleans, of 197 babies studied, 100 percent developed rickets. In other studies, the percentages were lower, but still striking. You cannot judge people in 1932 by using the health standards of today. Just for comparison, yellow fever and small pox were wiping people out in the 19th century. Today we don’t think twice about those diseases. Suppose Teddy Roosevelt had a child with Yellow Fever. Should we consider that strange? We can’t just look at that and say “Ask any doctor if it’s rare to have yellow fever in a developed country.” Sure it’s rare TODAY. We have to look at people in the context of their own time. Dr. Van Ingen, CAL Jr’s pediatrician, said the baby had rickets. Sunlamps and viosterol were very common treatments for rickets then, as noted in the 1932 book I quoted. So there is no mystery here. If you think the Lindberghs were using Vitamin D and a sunlamp to treat some OTHER disease besides rickets, tell us what disease that would be. As to whether he was responding to treatment—his death makes that hard to answer. But even if he wasn’t responding well, it doesn’t mean he didn’t have rickets. As the article I cite above makes clear, many children with rickets didn’t respond to the treatments being prescribed in that era. Rickets was quite common in 1932. And I never heard of parents killing their children over it. Is it possible that the explanation of the LKC is that Lindbergh hired abductors to kill his baby because he had rickets? OK, sure it’s possible. But John Knoll, Al Capone, Elisabeth Morrow, Dwight Morrow, and endless other proposed explanations for the LKC are also “possible.”
|
|