|
Rickets
Jun 17, 2007 11:36:32 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2007 11:36:32 GMT -5
Much has been made of the fact Charles Jr. was "rumored" to have been anything but "normal." There were several rumors as well that the child suffered from Epilepsy. It's important to consider and wade through all of the evidence in order to determine what may have been the true situation. We have proof that he had been diagnosed with "moderate rickets" and that he was receiving treatment (both very high doses of Vitamin D and Sun Lamp treatment). We have a condition of the toe curling or overlapping. Was this supposed to be a condition associated with his diagnosis? We know his head was "over sized" and this was associated with the diagnosis as well as the quarter sized unclosed fontanel. And so, what's the big deal? It's just "Rickets." Just Rickets? Well, Rickets was a common diagnosis back during this era due to the fact many children were under nourished and lacked calcium and/or Vitamin D in their diets. It occurred mostly in poorer families as it does to this day in poorer countries around the world. And so the easiest explanation seems to be that CJr. simply wasn't eating the proper foods in order to get the appropriate vitamins and minerals his developing body needed to properly grow and develop. In other words - he suffered from Malnutrition. So again, what's the big deal? Well, today much more is known about this condition then was known back then. In fact, much more is known about "other" conditions that weren't known then. "Rickets" is actually an underlying cause of something else. It can also be a misdiagnosis for a different problem. For example, sometimes a child develops the symptoms associated with Rickets because their body cannot properly absorb Vitamin D. This is called Malabsorption and it has several possible causes. Kidney problems can lead to Rickets, as can liver problems. Genetic disorder can lead to a form of Vitamin D "resistant" form of Rickets. Even Vitamin D deficiency itself can aggravate the.... .....expression of a pre-existing metabolic defect in phosphate transport. (Bronner, Am J Clin Nutr. 1976 Nov;29(11):1307-14) Any disturbance in the metabolism of phosphate can lead to the prevention of calcium absorption. When one begins to investigate the causes of all the potential reasons for symptoms that are associated with Rickets then you can see many possible solutions can be found which rival the explanation that CJr. did not eat enough green vegetables, get enough sunlight, or simply have a poor diet.... (Malnourished) Factor in what's been termed as "unusual nodes" on the child's hair. We also know this for a fact. I have pictures and the reports on it. I have also consulted many real Doctors and Experts (since I am not one) and have discovered some interesting possibilities as this dove-tails in with everything else. This condition too can be attributed to lack of vitamins/minerals and a poor diet - but not Vitamin D. It's underlying cause can be a metabolic disorder or a host of other disease and/or problems. Obviously, I have done a lot of research on this angle and I happen to believe CJr. had something other then the simple "Rickets" caused by a poor diet and lack of sun. I am not a Doctor, but I encourage everyone who shrugs off this question to do a little research themselves in order to make an informed decision.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Rickets
Jun 17, 2007 12:25:29 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Jun 17, 2007 12:25:29 GMT -5
Michael~ Really good and insightful post! From what you see can you R/O autism? I made a previous post on that possibility. Also, from your research, can you see verification of Swarty's source of the hair samples he turned over? The one thing I saw didn't say much beyond that he turned hair sample over.
|
|
|
Rickets
Jun 18, 2007 5:48:08 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2007 5:48:08 GMT -5
Here is a list of source hair from which Sr. Forensic Chemist Alan Lane made several examinations: - Hairs from envelope labeled "Charlie's hair"
- Hairs from envelope labeled "Wisp of hair Col. Schwarzkopf"
- Hairs from Woolen band
- Hairs from baby's shirt
- Hairs from Burlap Bag
- Hairs removed from largest bone in glass vial labeled "Taken from 3 basket of leaves"
Realizing my writing ability is somewhat limited....To try to re-state what I say above in clearer terms - The "nodes" on the hair can be caused by lack of vitamins/minerals, but of those, Vitamin D and Calcium are not among them. So my point is that "Rickets" is not the cause of the condition existing in the hair.
|
|
|
Rickets
Jun 18, 2007 20:12:59 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2007 20:12:59 GMT -5
Mairi - There's a couple of different things I believe he could have had that fall within all the various facts concerning his health. One has to figure a child with a Trained Nurse is not going to lack both the vitamins which bring about the hair defect and the vitamins which would bring about a diagnosis of "rickets."
Even today children are misdiagnosed with "rickets" and/or the underlying cause is something more then a lack of Vitamin D/Calcium in the diet as I mention above.....
Like I said, I have spent a good amount of time on this and think his problems were much more then a simple case merely associated with a lack of Vitamin D. His dosage itself is a tell-tale sign that he wasn't responding to it AND the dry skin was probably due to the over-exposure to the sun lamp.
Go over what's known and research to formulate a personal theory. It could also be that you believe CJr. (despite his wealthy family) was simply a malnourished child, and they were slamming him with treatment in order to quickly cure him.
Anyway, there's a lot more then what I've decided to post and I think most Researchers are aware of his health. However, some people don't like to bring it up because they believe it distracts from the case feeling it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Rickets
Jun 20, 2007 15:51:47 GMT -5
Post by Watcher on Jun 20, 2007 15:51:47 GMT -5
I read Allen Koenigsberg's review of Lloyd Gardner's book on Amazon.Com and wondered who this guy was. I did a little research and found that some of his former students back when he was still teaching (Part-Timer) had rated him as a teacher: www2.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=208471
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Rickets
Jun 20, 2007 16:51:25 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Jun 20, 2007 16:51:25 GMT -5
The ferocity of that review ultimately negates the intent.
|
|
|
Rickets
Jun 20, 2007 20:02:35 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2007 20:02:35 GMT -5
His review of the book is downright silly... Here's a guy who isn't even qualified to make such a review blasting a book based upon sources and material that most he's never, and probably never will - see. The link above is something I would expect and frankly I'm quite glad it exists. I've come home tonight to several emails and a couple include some nonsense coming from "Allen" on his bored. Since they relate to this thread I decided to post a little intel in order to debunk his assertions (for lack of a better word). First, let me set up this post by posting a little something from "Allen" which he's made in the past: I believe that the Archivist of the NJSPM was among the first to notice the FBI Report that quoted Whateley's admission - that he had given unauthorized "tours" of the Lindbergh house and grounds during the weekdays when the Lindberghs were in Englewood, NJ. This accurate claim also appeared in a recent biography of Anne Morrow Lindbergh. (Allen - posted January 01, 2006 12:50 PM) This oft repeated nonsense by "Allen" drew this response from me: We have two sources and none cited. We have an incorrect reference to an "FBI Report" when it was known it was the Summary. We have an incorrect reference to this report as "quoting" someone. We have a position of the point being "accurate" without it being backed up. And we have these un-cited references supposedly independently supporting this supposition. All of this coming after its Author was aware of everything I just noted.
Mark Falzini is credited in The Cases That Haunt Us by John Douglas (p184) for bringing attention to this reference in the FBI Summary Report. Now this reference doesn't quote Whatley so Allen is mistaken by pointing to this as a quoted reference.
Next Allen seems to be attempting to back this up with Hertog's book, Anne Morrow Lindbergh - Her Life. You'll see on page 160 this claim is made but if one checks the footnote you'll see its the same exact source. ( Michael - posted January 02, 2006 03:58 PM)[/blockquote] This is a perfect example of failing to properly research the case and then attempting to act as if one knows what they are talking about. It's basic reading comprehension for God's sake! Now notice how I end this post which was made as a direct result of Allen's constant deluge of misinformation: When researching this case we must be sure not to rely on the one document we have - totally. We can not omit those others simply because we don't have them. All things must be considered, checked, and cross-referenced to ensure its something solid. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1144709898And so isn't it interesting to see "Allen" end his latest post with this little tid-bit? So, in a short excerpt from 'Cases That Haunt Us,' a needed reminder that what really "haunts" any investigation is inaccurate (and second hand) reporting at every level and too frequent copying from one book to another, without checking out the basic facts. We are still paying the price for that approach today, even in fields far removed from kidnapping. (Allen Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:01 pm) Unfortunately, although basically restating what I have been saying all along in years prior to this post, he doesn't follow what he has learned from me. It's bad enough he has (in his recent posts which were emailed to me by a Member of his board) attacked Dr. Gardner, now he is attacking Berg & Douglas. I believe that if you are going to attack someone and/or their position as a matter of fact - then you had better have your own facts in order. Take Dr. Gardner's proving where Fisher made mistakes in his books. He does this with at least one piece of source material but most of the time with several. I've done it myself on several occasions and POSTED the documents for all to see that Fisher was wrong. Just as a quick example: The files of the New Jersey State Police show no contact with Hammond after May 1933.(Fisher GOH pg 90) Fisher didn't spend enough time at the Archives where I found this: img343.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blk087iy2.jpgSo when "Allen" calls Dr. Gardner's question on page 410 "wrong" and "weird" I think one should compare Allen to Dr. Gardner. Who did the research and who did not? And on top of that he is attacking a question not an assertion (apparently). But is it possible to see where Douglas failed to understand English, and how this "story" got wings, and set a snare for the credulous? [mixed metaphor alert] (Allen -Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:14 pm) Here's "Allen" saying Douglas can't understand English (Pot calling the Kettle Black) Is this guy for real? What's the basis? It appears to be that since he read through some of the major newspaper archives for those specific dates and didn't find reference to a "defective" baby or "news conference then: To set the facts straight here, there was NO press conference whatsoever. Nor was there any claim by Lindbergh as to his son's lack of defects. What a bizarre (imagined) topic for a news conference, especially considering CAL's feelings about the regular invasion of his privacy. (Allen - Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:14 pm) Look, I could go through piece by piece and clearly demonstrate each and every error this man has made. Seriously though - its not worth the effort. First and foremost we'd have to assume he did as he says he did - that is read through these articles. Next, we'd have to believe he understood what he read, and/or accurately retold what he saw. His track record is dubious at best when it comes to this and cannot be trusted. However, it still doesn't mean anything even if what he says is true about what's in those papers he supposedly read. Here's why: I view this case as if looking through a prism. Each side/position is a medium that misrepresents whatever is seen through it. We must look through ALL possible sides then cross-reference what we've seen in order to eliminate or collaborate facts/evidence. Don't get me wrong, newspapers are a valuable source and I do not suggest overlooking them. But we must consider that much goes on behind the scenes. I have plenty of material involving Reporters that never made the papers. You can look and look but you won't see it. In fact, just prior to Hauptmann being picked up, certain Reporters knew someone was about to be brought in but were asked not to break the story until after the arrest - That's kind of what happened here too. To suggest without any proof other then reading old newspapers that Douglas "cribbed" or that Berg was "wrong" and needed a "proof-reader" is utterly absurd. Need I remind anyone that Berg had access to material most will never have access to? I have been lucky enough to have someone who did research there to send me material but I know I will never have that opportunity myself. Lindbergh did call a conference. He invited certain papers and did not invite others. It was done this way to reward/punish therefore sending a clear message (actually a very intelligent move in order to control the media). He called each Representative in one by one to speak privately with them, swore them to secrecy concerning the conversation, then issued them a picture of CJr. and made them promise not to give it to any other publication. For "Allen" to claim he knows what was said in those private conferences but that Berg does not - is quite frankly insane. Additionally, there were rumors to the effect that CJr. was "deformed", "deaf," etc. prior to the Kidnapping and originated from multiple sources. Anyway, we should all be very careful that if we disagree then we say things like "I think" or "I believe" or "it seems to me" rather then embarrassing oneself like "Allen" has done, just recently did, and will continue to do....
|
|
|
Rickets
Jun 21, 2007 5:35:22 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2007 5:35:22 GMT -5
Here's a nice link concerning Berg's book: The work is a result of Berg's careful research, masterful writing and the fact that he scored a biographer's coup: Lindbergh's widow, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, now 92, allowed Berg to be the first writer given total access to Lindbergh's personal papers, letters, history -- an estimated 2,000 boxes worth of information. www.cnn.com/books/news/9809/25/lindbergh/It still shows though, that information can be hidden even outside of all the personal files and/or information (e.g. German Families).
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Rickets
Dec 6, 2007 14:25:32 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Dec 6, 2007 14:25:32 GMT -5
I may have mentioned this before and I can leave it's relevance open to question. Have studied all the photos and film clips I can find of the baby. Am convinced there are bald spots on his head. Look above both sides of his forehead. The 1st b'day photo reaching for the cake is one of the examples. Then look at Time magazine's cover-artist repro of same picture. See a vertical part down the side of his head with hair front of it combed forward (odd). In many of the photos one can also see an extra long hank of hair coming from the crown of his head. but combed forward ---was this covering another bald area(?) Am reminded of someone's saying that friends and acquaintances never saw the baby. Am reminded also of Anne's dream that the child was alive, but her anguish that she didn't know how to comb (or brush ) the baby's hair. Poor dear little child. How anyone could have harmed him is beyond knowing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2007 8:43:37 GMT -5
I think this thought leads us into several possibilities.....
Was it an accident?
Was it Evil? Greed perhaps? Attempt at fame in some way?
Was it insanity?
Or was it religion? Or something to do with strong personal beliefs?
What was the reason for this child's death?
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 0:43:05 GMT -5
Post by dena on Mar 21, 2008 0:43:05 GMT -5
I'm further researching the co-morbidity of this disease with others such as rickets. But in almost every picture taken of the baby, weren't his eyes cast downward? From what I understand, this disease also would have became more apparent as the baby became older. Which might have explained why there were no pictures of him taken in the last months of his life.
hydrocephalus Signs and symptoms The signs and symptoms of hydrocephalus vary by age group and disease progression. In infants, common signs and symptoms of hydrocephalus include:
An unusually large head A rapid increase in the size of the head A bulging "soft spot" on the top of the head Vomiting Sleepiness Irritability Seizures Eyes fixed downward (sunsetting of the eyes) Developmental delay
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 6:42:13 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 21, 2008 6:42:13 GMT -5
Hey Dena, you can find out first hand about the disease of Rickets since Charlie is alive and well and can be found at the Hoax site. A soft enlarged head sounds about right.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 9:26:10 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2008 9:26:10 GMT -5
From the film footage available to anyone on the internet, especially that taken while he was in his crib near the window, he certainly looks like a normal, bouncing and inquisitve toddler. What is it in these types of scenes where he's not captured in freeze-frame that makes him so unusual to inquiring minds?
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 10:53:27 GMT -5
Post by dena on Mar 21, 2008 10:53:27 GMT -5
Kev, yes, I have read the info on Ronelles site. She has such great info on there. That may indeed be what this baby had. Esp since that hole poked so easily & readily through the skull with a simple stick. . I was just looking for an alternative, plausible theory that would have been so noticeable that it caused there to have been no current photos taken of the baby. Joe said: "What is it in these types of scenes where he's not captured in freeze-frame that makes him so unusual to inquiring minds?" lol Joe, I just can't explain it. I'm sure not to your satisfaction. But he just seems..."different" than other baby's. I am not sure why. He just DOES. Hows that for "evidence"? Pretty lame, I know. I wish I could articulate why he seems different, but I can't. But I have tried before & I can't do it. All we really have to go on are rickets (not normal for baby from wealthy family) & pictures of him that seem kind of..off. He was an absolutely beautiful baby, Im not inferring that he wasn't. But why do you think these rumors existed even BEFORE his disappearance? Do you think it was just because the Lindberghs didnt name him?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 11:19:04 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2008 11:19:04 GMT -5
Primarily because Lindbergh didn't play ball with the Press during a time when yellow journalism was at its worst. So they tried to smoke out information through outrageous speculation. I don't think you'd see that today. Thank God for evolution! ;D
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 13:04:28 GMT -5
Post by dena on Mar 21, 2008 13:04:28 GMT -5
Okay. He didn't play ball.
So why do you suppose they didn't name him? That first kid is usually pretty special. Precisely because he is first. And after waiting to name him, they just name him CAL jr anyway. He doesn't end up with some exotic well thought out name with obvious special meaning.
Why would they have done this?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 13:39:07 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2008 13:39:07 GMT -5
Dena, I think the Lindberghs also delayed announcement with at least one other child. I've often thought the seventeen day delay before the announcement of CALjr's birth for hoaxies would be tailor-made and conclusive proof the child was substituted at birth. I really don't know what to make of it all but the withholding from the press certainly doesn't seem to be out of synch with Lindbergh's general character.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 13:57:48 GMT -5
Post by dena on Mar 21, 2008 13:57:48 GMT -5
Oh Good Lord, I dont think he was suibstituted at birth. I may questions CAL's motives more than you but give me a little credit! LOL
I am speculating that perhaps if something was wrong with the baby at birth, that was apparent, perhaps they held off in naming him because it was feared he might not live. This would have been a way of not getting too attached perhaps. Just a thought. Im not saying it is FACT.
I dont think wondering this is particularly indicative of me being a "hoaxie" though.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 14:05:02 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2008 14:05:02 GMT -5
Sorry Dena, there was no personal slight intended. I was thinking in general terms when I said that and it wasn't aimed at you.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 14:06:42 GMT -5
Post by dena on Mar 21, 2008 14:06:42 GMT -5
Oh, I know. I was just joshin' with ya. I wasn't offended at all.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Rickets
Mar 21, 2008 15:48:04 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 21, 2008 15:48:04 GMT -5
Hey Dena, I was referring to the actual Charlie who seems to be alive and kicking Did you check out the George Weyerhaeuser kidnapping? I thought you would be interested in since it took place in Tacoma.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Rickets
Mar 24, 2008 9:35:03 GMT -5
Post by dena on Mar 24, 2008 9:35:03 GMT -5
No, I was not aware of the Geo Weyerhauser kidnapping at all. But I will definitely check it out as I immediately recognized the name "Weyerhauser". Very big name out here in the Pacific Northwest. Lumber. Still a very big name out here today.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Rickets
Jul 28, 2009 12:47:35 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Jul 28, 2009 12:47:35 GMT -5
http//www.angelfire.com/va/karlmay/rickets.html
compare to some of the baby's photos. Also Time mag cover. Note where hair on sides of head is (oddly?) combed forward.
|
|
|
Rickets
Aug 9, 2011 16:49:27 GMT -5
Post by dschwalie11 on Aug 9, 2011 16:49:27 GMT -5
I agree that the child must have had some sort of sickness. 1. Pictures of him after his first birthday are hard to find, and a first birthday picture was distributed to the public at the time of the kidnapping. 2. When someone said that "Charlie was gone" the night he was kidnapped, one of the household staff thought he had died in his sleep. A bit over the top for a child with a cold. 3. The ransom notes state that "they" are sticking to "the diet" for the baby. What diet, and how would they know about it? Even though Charlie was dead, the kidnappers knew that Charlie was eating a special diet. 4. The last picture of Charlie that I have seen shows him with much darker hair and his face looks much different, almost like a person who has to take steroids and their face swells.
At that time there would surely have been a stigma attached to having a baby who had developmental delays or some other abnormality, especially for the famous couple. I am sure they were trying the best they could to try and hide Charlies problems while still trying to get him back. I am new here and probably not nearly as well researched as some of you but the abnormality of the baby was one of the first things that struck me. It was there in the books, but no one did anything more than just mention it.
|
|
|
Rickets
Aug 10, 2011 18:49:22 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2011 18:49:22 GMT -5
I am not sure if I mentioned this above or elsewhere but the Police took the attitude that it was a private matter and had nothing to do with the kidnapping. It came up again at Trial because the Prosecution was attempting to pre-empt something they knew the Defense might raise by way of either Large, Schlosser (a spy they sent over to pretend to be a Defense Witness).
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 8, 2017 14:51:01 GMT -5
Post by rebekah on Nov 8, 2017 14:51:01 GMT -5
Has anyone noticed the baby never smiles? In pictures and videos. He grimaces a lot or just stares and almost looks scared a lot. I've always wondered about the photos taken in Maine in the summer of 1931. He does not look well in those pictures. Also, he must have 'shot up' a lot between then and March, 1932 to be as tall as 2' 9". The baby in Maine was quite short.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 8, 2017 18:41:12 GMT -5
Post by stella7 on Nov 8, 2017 18:41:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 9, 2017 15:04:28 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Nov 9, 2017 15:04:28 GMT -5
I know - he was half as tall as I am (I am 5'-2") at 20 months! In any standard pediatrics textbook, you can find a chart (or graph, to be more precise) which shows a child's age on the x-axis and the height on the y-axis. By using that chart, you can tell approximately what percentile a child's height or length computes to at his specific age. CAL Jr.'s last height, as per to Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow, placed him slightly over the 90th percentile among 20 month old boys. (BTW, there are separate graphs for girls.) So he would be kind of tall for a boy his age, but not abnormally so. He was NOT headed toward being a pituitary giant. And his tallness for his age could be readily explained by the fact that his father was 6' 3". Height at any specific age is mostly a genetically determined trait.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 9, 2017 15:15:16 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Nov 9, 2017 15:15:16 GMT -5
What you showed there, Stella, in a photo of Hauptmann holding his baby son, Manfred. This is the first time I've seen that photo, and at first glance, he seems to have an abnormally wide head. We know, however, that Manfried lived to at least his 80s, so whatever probbem he may have had with his head either resolved on its own or was treated successfully
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 9, 2017 19:13:15 GMT -5
Post by stella7 on Nov 9, 2017 19:13:15 GMT -5
What you showed there, Stella, in a photo of Hauptmann holding his baby son, Manfried. This is the first time I've seen that photo, and at first glance, he seems to have an abnormally wide head. We know, however, that Manfried lived to at least his 80s, so whatever probbem he may have had with his head either resolved on its own or was treated successfully
That's why I showed it, many babies have large heads that they grow into. I had never seen it either and it popped up when I was looking at photos of Lindbergh's other children. While I do think Charlie had some health issues he does not look abnormal in those photos and movies we have of him up to a year, in my eyes. I think whatever may have been wrong presented itself after his first birthday.
|
|