|
Post by elyssa on Apr 20, 2006 10:28:24 GMT -5
I was wondering if Anne kept photos of Charlie locked away, stored or hidden, wouldn't Reeve have these photos now? Why wouldn't the Lindberghs have any photos of Charlie, that have been found since Annes death, published to show the world that there was nothing wrong with him if it would take away the question that he was deformed. These photos could have been turned over to a museum or at least copies of them. I find it very hard to believe that Anne didn't keep photos of her first born.She must have been a little sentimental when it came to Charlie, if not she would have never discussed him with Reeve when her child died of crib death. I think the Lindbergh grand children, (at least one) have questions about their familys history, if not he would have never agreed to DNA test when the German siblings came into question. This grandchild is probably the one in the family who wants to know everything, and could probably do alot more than giving DNA if given the chance. Does anyone know what the familys reaction was toward him when he agreed to the DNA test? Which grandchild was it or was it a great grand child? Sure wish he'd get on the board.
|
|
|
Post by rick62country Pi on Apr 20, 2006 16:04:27 GMT -5
Hi elyssa/ sometimes I think that all the activities surrounding Charlie are slightly off or odd and this is just another to add to a list. First, Anne and CAL take off for the Orient for 90 days. How does Charlie feel about that? Abandoned? Then when they get back Betty still gets the weeknightes and Miss Alva Root , step Breckenridge gets the weekends. Now if they did take any photos after his 1st birthday that would helped find him in his moment of need....then noone has said so or published them? Maybe its the adults are disabled?
|
|
|
Post by hermansstuff on Aug 12, 2006 22:02:22 GMT -5
This topic appears not to be dealt with too much. The Lindbergh family requested and were granted a return of bone fragments and hair samples from the baby's corpse in May 2003, plus other items that may have yielded DNA samples. In August 2003, three Germans claimed to be Lindbergh's children by a German mother. In October, a grandson underwent DNA testing which essentially proved they were fathered by CAL. Obviously, this testing could have also been useful in verifying the few remains available. The timing of the request to NJ and its approval are at least interesting. Herman
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 13, 2006 0:12:54 GMT -5
Hi Hermansstuff~The DNA connection is very interesting to me, as well and I do agree with the point you make. The Lindbergh family is allowed to remove items. Yet it has been disallowed to do any DNA testing on the ransom note envelopes. Strikes me as odd, odd! Who is afraid of what it may reveal and why?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2006 9:32:56 GMT -5
Well, I for one don't buy (and never will) this move was made because of "Anne's last wish" or some other such nonsense.
There was definitely an ulterior motive.
The AG's office made it very easy. The family simply made the request and the AG's office allowed them to take whatever they wanted. Even the dirt.
|
|
|
Post by hermansstuff on Aug 13, 2006 13:38:05 GMT -5
Michael, as you know I raised this issue on the "other" forum and it elicited no response. I'm not familiar with the however many Lindbergh discussion forums there are and their orientation. Has anyone summarized the persuasions of the forums, so that I might know when I'm about to step in some excrement when I ask a Question? Thanks, Herman
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2006 16:43:13 GMT -5
The best way to find out is by using the search feature: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?action=searchHonestly, we go over a myriad of different topics many times. No one will have any problems with someone bringing up points and/or asking questions concerning material that was previously discussed. The board pretty much runs itself and there aren't really any rules to speak of. We seem to be a very diverse bunch - no two people appear to have the exact same position and chances are you will agree and disagree at times with just about everyone who posts here. Please feel free to not only ask questions but to throw in your ideas and thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Sept 26, 2006 1:31:17 GMT -5
Contrary to popular belief of justice for all, states very often favor the more influential family members over and above any consideration of justice. I have brought up the issue before that New Jersey allowed destruction of evidence (Charley's Body) in a murder case, and that it seems to have been done to protect someone. Whats even worse, because they got away with disposal of the body evidence without challenge, they decided to go one step further and dispose of remaining evidence in light of newer science (DNA) that could have used that evidence to possibly solve the case
|
|
|
Post by rita on Sept 26, 2006 1:57:18 GMT -5
I agree with Elyssa in that not having Christmas or Holiday pictures of Charley is hard to believe, and is why I believe there is still evidence in one of the other residences that changes the story completely. It may also tie into Charley's visit to John Hopkins Hospital in 1931, and caused by either Elizabeth or Dwight Jr. or both, and that pictures after the first birthday would be hard to explain.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 1, 2007 11:01:33 GMT -5
Anybody have any information on the Long Island child L. Fisher claimed was the Lindbergh baby after the trial? Fisher accused Lindbergh was hiding something because he would not give him time of day about his prospective find. Schwarzkopf refused to evaluate the prints as well. This event was briefly mentioned in Milton's book.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 1, 2007 20:49:52 GMT -5
Even if the child Fisher found was not Charley, you bring up a good issue, Lindbergh refused to cooperate with any civilized world known method of investigation that Schwatzkopf and Wilentz seemed to follow. Below is an issue from Berg's book where Reily's questioning of CAL in court infuriated CAL and brought Wilentz into action to rescue him in court.
In Gardners Book Case that Never Dies pg.277 Reilly caught Lindbergh in a lie asking if he checked the backgrounds of employees caring for his children? Lindbergh answered he followed police suggestions in every way, which was not true. On page 278 Riley again caught Lindbergh off guard asking the weight of ladder Lindbergh agreed 35-40 pounds but Reilly come back He was holding the child in one hand and disassemble the three piece ladder to carry under the other arm 75 feet without leaving a mark in the mud?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 1, 2007 22:05:11 GMT -5
During the summer of '35 Fisher was contacted by Mrs. Cora Day concerning a child in Coxsackie, NY. The NYSP conducted an investigation which resulted in prints being sent to Fisher. Fisher then contacted Schwarzkopf. Coxsackie isn't on Long Island so I have a feeling this isn't the reference in Milton's book.
I am also aware of a child named Dolfen who they were looking at closely in '36 but he was from Ohio AND his prints didn't match those Hudson had found.
I do remember seeing something else in one of the newspaper reports so I'll search - if I can find that then maybe it will reveal a name which I could then look up elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 1, 2007 23:06:02 GMT -5
Hi Michael I remember reading long ago about someone perhaps named I thought Dolsen, just recalling, I may have recalled wrong, but from my school. This brings up the fact that Lindbergh was Looking, and the body found was only to end the deluge of con and crackpot mail. One such trip brought Lindbergh to Clevland and meeting with a Mayor from a suburb which still posts the Lindbergh missing child poster photograph each March till this day. Remembering can be tricky the name could be some slight different spelling Dolson or Dollsen with first name Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2007 20:10:34 GMT -5
Gary & Rita... It looks like the Mrs. Cora Day - Coxsackie, NY connection is indeed the baby in question. Hauptmann's sister, Emma Gloeckner, hired an Attorney from Hollywood named Vincent A. Marco who began "investigating" the case. This lead may or may not have originated from him. He would definitely claim he had information concerning this crime being an "inside job" to the newspapers. Here is a link to a newspaper article about this. Fisher actually went out to California during this time period (you may have to manually cut & paste this link into your browser): fultonhistory.com/Process%20small/Newspapers/Oswego%20Palladium/Oswego%20Palladium%20July-Aug%201935%20pdf/Newspaper%20%20Oswego%20Palladium%20July-Aug%201935%20-%200780.pdfIf anyone is interested in the New York State Police Report on this matter just let me know. Note: When the link above is pasted into the browser there will be a gap between New spaper exactly where the hyper-link ends... You will need to manually connect this word for the link to work - Newspaper - Sorry about this - I've tried everything and can't fix it myself.
|
|