|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 6, 2012 22:19:41 GMT -5
Thanks for the photos, Michael. The last one is definitely Jon (and is labeled as such) and the first two are CALjr. The second one I know is him because it's one in a series of similar snapshots I've seen, and the first--well, that one is a little more ambiguous, but it looks like him. That first one though (in the swing) stands out to me for some reason. Maybe it's because I've never seen it before, but there's something else about it--something odd in the facial expression (and no, I am NOT suggesting, one way or the other, that any mysterious illness is manifested here; we've all had odd looks on our faces in photos). Either way, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the baby's hair was being cut shorter prior to his disappearance, and his hair does look pretty short here. Also, he's outside on what looks like a spring or summer day, so, since the picture is dated 1931, could this have been taken just after his 1st birthday (6/22/31; the latest known photos)? It doesn't look like it was the same day (different clothes, different hair, slightly different weight, etc.), so I'm wondering if that swing photo might actually be the most recent taken of CALjr. Though, of course, he could've grown his hair and put on weight leading up to his 1st birthday. Also, where would you suggest researching this issue of photograph scarcity?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2012 5:51:29 GMT -5
Well now you have me back to rethinking the whole situation. So let's work this puzzle through (if that's what it is). His hair is obviously shorter, which would fit in with the hair cut. But it looks darker. One thing that has always stood out for me was how blond his hair was. Van Ingen had said he had "very light flaxen hair" which is something all the known pictures reflect, and it was something the Prosecution was ready to use as an identifier because once the hair on the corpse was washed it matched up. We know he was out in the sun a lot, and in the summer I realize that can lighten up the hair even more. Do you (or anyone) think this is late summer, early summer, or spring? Do you think he's younger or older? Is everyone convinced this is CJr.? I am back to square one with this now.
My comment was directed at everything in that block quote. And I suggest you research this everywhere you possibly can. All Newspapers, and I say this in order to get the Articles from the Associated Press, United Press, and International News Service as well as the others. I keep finding more and more material by looking for those articles published on the same days from the different organizations. Sometimes they have similar information but other times one will have something important the rest do not. All the Books, all the magazines, all the journals, and all the Reports, Letters, and Memos you get get your hands on from any Archive or Library.
I realize most people cannot make it to NJ to the SP Archives. If you can then you most certainly should! But some Archives will post their Indexes online then you can pay to have items copied for you. That can get expensive, but if you can't make it there, and you feel it's important enough, then it might be worth getting some documents just to get a "feel" for what's in that box/collection. At the NJSP Archives, Mark Falzini is extremely helpful and it's worth giving him a call with ANY questions you might have on the Case - so here again, if you can't make it there calling Mark is the next best thing. I've also found that most Archivist are just like he is, and I've had a ton of help over the years from Archivists, and Experts who I've called or Emailed.
The bottom line is - don't be shy. I've had very few people blow me off over the years, and I've learned so much from so many just because they wanted to help with whatever questions I've had.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 7, 2012 9:54:48 GMT -5
Ok, I buy that. Then why not apply this to the only thing I can see so far that relates to the crime;
I didn't get any response to this question which is odd if we are all looking at the medical condition of Charlie objectively with regard to the crime. Afterall, it might be possible that Charlie's medical condition and /or may have been a factor in his death during the abduction. Obviously that may help clear up the question as to whether this was a kidnapping gone wrong or a planned murder. So, any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 7, 2012 11:12:14 GMT -5
Michael, personally, I think that first photo (in the swing) is CALjr. I think it stands out to me because it doesn't look quite like other photos of him, but... it still looks like him to me (if that makes any sense). Children's appearances, particularly when they're very young, can quickly change a lot with normal growth, so if he looks different from one photo to the next, there might not be anything mysterious about that (healthwise or in any other way). Anything else aside, I don't know who else it could be. I'm just trying to ascertain when it was taken and if it might be the last known photo of him. The date says 1931 and it looks warm out. There was only one spring/summer where the baby was that size (spring/summer of '30 he would've been a newborn), so this picture would have to have been taken around the first birthday photos, a matter of weeks either before or after. I'm just thinking that, given the slightly different appearance to other pictures of him, maybe, if this is the last known photo, Anne's Hour of Gold line about how "there are no pictures that look like him, none recent enough" might then make a little more sense (maybe she forgot about this one or didn't even know it had been taken, though, admittedly, spring/summer of '31 to February '32--a 6-7 month period--is still a pretty long time to not take any baby photos). And Kevin, you're asking if chloroform (or something similar) could've reacted with the viosterol the baby was on, causing some sort of complication? Not being a doctor, I have no idea what happens when you mix the two, but I agree the implications could be enormous.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 7, 2012 12:10:12 GMT -5
Thanks for the pictures. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always felt some of the photos were of a somewhat older child. It includes the poster pic, clip of riding in carriage and standing in playpen. Then there is one of him standing on that shelf/bench-like thing against the house. (Maybe at one of the Morrow summer homes.) I'm near certain it's one where he's wearing a sweater. At first birthday pics see little chubby infant legs. Certain pics seem to show sturdier legs and a more mature look all round. I just can't think the b'day photo was the last age we see.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 7, 2012 12:43:10 GMT -5
Kevin, I don’t think an anesthetic would have reacted with viosterol, since it was not a but a concentrated form of Vitamin D. I addressed the megadose issue a couple of posts ago. If he was truly in a state of Vitamin D toxicity, an anesthetic would probably have compounded problems—I would have to look at the specifics of that, but I actually came online to post on something else. I would like to contribute some suggestions to the matter of the lack of photos of Charlie following his first birthday. Let me be clear that I am NOT trying to start any arguments, just to offer some ideas. In looking at family photos from the Lindberghs’ early married life, the great majority are outdoor shots. And it occurs to me that one of the reasons for this is that indoor flash photography was not in a very advanced state. I am not a shutterbug at all, but googling the history of flash photography I come up with this inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Photography.htm“1927--General Electric invents the modern flash bulb.” And here www.darklightimagery.net/flashbulbs.html“On September 23, 1930, the first commercially available photoflash bulb was patented.” Prior to that they were using “flash powder.” I don’t know how quickly these bulbs got into wide use, but it looks like the early 1930s was a transitional time. It wasn’t like today, when we are so used to snapping indoor shots with digital cameras. Don’t get me wrong—I’m certainly not saying that there was no indoor photography prior to the introduction of the flash bulb. In particular, I’m sure professional photographers, newspaper photographers and police photographers had little difficulty meeting the challenges of lighting. In Lloyd’s book, the first picture is a nice indoor shot of Cal Jr. as a young baby, with Anne and his grandmothers. This looks like the work of a professional who would have brought his own lighting equipment. We can also see that the police took nice clear photos of the nursery. So the technology was absolutely around in 1932, included flash bulbs, and the Lindberghs could certainly have afforded the latest equipment if they wanted it. However, I’m going to guess that, for the amateur, taking indoor pictures, getting the lighting right and such, was still tricky at this point. Surely Lindbergh could have mastered it. However, we all know Lindy was not the most intimate person, and perhaps snapping family shots was not his thing. My point would be this. In 1932, it was still much easier to take pictures when outdoors. Charlie was kidnapped on March 1. Could the absence of pictures during the preceding months be partly due to the fact that it was winter, and the cold weather didn’t lend itself to going outside to snap a family photo of Charlie, bundled up in a winter jacket? Now the question could still be raised: Where are the photos from the summer of ’31, after his June 22 birthday? In regard to that, I think there’s a very important thing to consider. In July, Anne and Charles took off on their expedition to the Orient. They didn’t return until October after learning of Dwight Morrow’s death. Of course, nothing would have stopped Charlie’s grandmother from having him photographed, but it’s a factor to weigh. Perhaps, as Mairi says, some of those "sturdier legs" pictures are from that period. In any event, we can’t see pictures of Anne with the baby from that summer because she wasn’t around. When the Lindberghs returned from the Orient in October 1931, taking a baby photo was probably not the first thing on their minds. Like anyone who comes back from a long trip, they probably had “catching up” to do—Charles probably had reports to make, there was his work at the Institute, the overseeing of the construction at Hopewell, transitional life in Princeton, etc. So is it possible that the lack of photos of Charlie, after his birthday on June 22, 1931, was partly due to a combination of the parents being gone from July to October, followed by the winter months, which did not lend themselves to picture-taking? As I looked over this explanation, a question occurred to me: But why no Christmas 1931 photos from Next Day Hill? And I think one answer could be—Dwight Morrow had recently died. This was the family’s first Christmas without him, and perhaps people were feeling somber and not in a celebratory, picture-taking mood. If Elisabeth was having health issues at that time (I haven’t checked), it wouldn’t have helped matters either. Then another objection occurred to me. The Hauptmanns have a number of indoor photos of friends and family, so why not the far wealthier Lindberghs? But again, I think there is an answer. BRH wasn’t arrested until September 1934. Those pictures were probably taken in 1933-34, when home flashbulb photography was becoming easier and more popular. To be sure, the explanation for no late photos of Charlie COULD be that something about his appearance was being concealed. But I think the above points should also be considered. One last thought—and this doesn’t favor Lindbergh. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one picture of Lindy with the baby. This could be interpreted as Lindbergh wanting to disassociate himself from Cal Jr. On the other hand, even if Charlie had something wrong with him, this shouldn’t have been so apparent immediately at birth—so why no pictures of “proud Papa” and the baby? Maybe it just wasn’t Lindbergh’s style? And maybe in the society of those days, it wasn’t considered a manly sort of thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2012 15:48:16 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for posting the pictures from the Yale archives. I believe the first two are Charlie. The third is clearly Jon. To me the first picture of Charlie in the swing looks like it would be late May or early June. If you have a copy of Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead handy look at the set of pictures just after the intro to Hour of Lead section. On the third page of pictures you will see one of Charlie in the bottom left corner. This photo looks like it was taken the same day as the swing photo. His hair is shorter and the outfit he is wearing looks the same. There is a first birthday picture on the right. His hair looks longer and thicker in that picture. More like the hair you see in the second picture you posted. I think the second picture you posted of Charlie on the bench was taken at North Haven. Looks like the same bench in the Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead book. All pictures are labeled "summer of 1931". Nothing beyond that.
BR, I have wondered why no pictures of father and son also. Could be they just never published any???
In Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead Anne writes to her mother from New York on July 17th. She asks her mom to keep some kind of record of his actions and take a picture about once a month. This is just before the Lindberghs start their Orient flight. I wonder where those pictures of Charlie might be. They would have been taken after his first birthday had passed.
Even with the death of Dwight Morrow, I can't see why they would not have taken a few Christmas photos. I think that most of the family photos were kept private and not released to the public domain.
Considering everything though, Anne is going over private photos of Charlie and does make that statement of not having pictures of him as he looked before the kidnapping. It just makes you wonder why?
Kevkon, I did look at the 1930"s aerial map of NJ like you mentioned when I asked about the story of Hauptmann being in Trenton in 1931. I don't see the horseback riding in the Sourlands Mountains as very plausible at all. Highfields was more than 7 miles away. All those open fields. No way! The article says that Schumann was an Architect. Does that mean he designs houses both inside and out? I would think any drawings he had in his office would be the ones he had drawn and submitted. Not the ones that Lindbergh finally chose. Schumann is bitter because his drawings were rejected. Would Schumann have been able to get a copy of the house plans that were selected by Lindbergh for Highfields? Do architects submit construction bids? Aren't they different from home design drawings? Sorry about so many questions. You can tell I have never had a house built!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2012 11:25:05 GMT -5
I didn't answer because I don't know. I didn't want to waste anyone's time reading that type of reply.
What I normally do when I have a question like this is research who is qualified to answer that question. Then I would communicate with them to find out. It takes some time but it ends speculation about it immediately upon receiving an answer.
So what I think we've done is clearly establish this is Charles Jr. Next, I believe Amy's theory above attempts to properly date the photo. Anyone agree or disagree with her?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 8, 2012 15:01:55 GMT -5
I appreciate that, I just thought you or someone else might have looked into this and asked a medical professional. I do know that ether applied as an anesthesia can produce vomiting and should not be used with a bag. I think all of these questions regarding photos ( or lack of) Charlie can be answered if someone has the inclination to do research at the various Lindbergh-Morrow archives. I know St Louis has tons of material. Then there is the personal collections of both families. Not everything gets published or made public.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 12, 2012 12:17:39 GMT -5
There is something else that has occurred to me. It might fit into the discussion Michael and Kevkon have been having recently under “the Getaway,” but since it’s not germane to the getaway itself, I’m going to post it as a continuation of this thread, where it seems to fit better.
Let me be clear that in saying something favorable towards Lindbergh in this crime, I am not trying to halt discussion of Lindbergh as suspect, any more than Kevkon is when he says Lindbergh’s profile doesn’t fit. Lindbergh has long been discussed as a suspect, and I assume that discussing reasons why Lindbergh might NOT have been the perpetrator isn’t “off the table.” Obviously, anyone can disagree with what I say.
I have been trying to put myself in Lindbergh’s shoes if he was guilty of a eugenics-motivated murder.
There is a consensus that Lindbergh took command of the investigation in the days following the crime. This could certainly be interpreted as him to trying prevent discovery of his guilt.
However, looking it at from Lindbergh’s perspective, I wonder how he could be so confident that he’d be able to do that BEFORE THE FACT. Granted, his status in this country was enormous. But how he could be so sure that he wouldn’t run into some tough cop or detective who would brush his status aside?
Lindbergh was not completely off the table at the time of the crime. You might recall the episode when Murray Garrson came to the Lindbergh home, ordered everyone around, and demanded to be shown the furnace, as he apparently thought the baby had been disposed of there.
How could Lindbergh be sure—in advance—that there wouldn’t be somebody in law enforcement who would take a skeptical view like Garrson? How he could be sure the NJSP would be compliant?
Let’s say Lindbergh was behind this crime—that he hired abductors, and that the sound of a car on gravel, which Anne thought she heard, was actually Lindbergh arriving with the abduction team, that he gave them instructions, and maybe oversaw saw their setting up the crime, before he officially “came home” through the front door.
If something like that happened, it seems to me that Lindbergh was taking quite a chance having the NJSP headquartered at Highfields. How could he be certain that a smart detective wouldn’t notice some clue that would do him in—something that he’d overlooked? He’d have to be quite confident that he’d carried out the “perfect crime.”
For example, what if, unknown to Lindbergh, one of the household servants had noticed him arriving early? If this came out in a police interview, the truth might start to unravel.
Now it could be argued that Lindbergh bullied the household staff, that they were all “in on it,” and sworn to secrecy. Nevertheless, how could Lindbergh be positive that none of them would crack, or just slip up, during police questioning?
And here’s something else to consider. With the police making their investigation headquarters in his home, Lindbergh would have to—as Kevin has put it—“live a lie.” Every day, he’d have to keep conning the police. And at the same time, he’d have to keep conning Anne (assuming she wasn’t in on the crime). In other words, Lindbergh would have to be doing a “constant con.” This is not easy to sustain for weeks on end.
Now, are there people capable of running a constant con? Certainly. Gaston Means comes immediately to mind. He ran a “constant con” on Evalyn Walsh McLean. But this fits Means’ background—he’d been running swindles for many years. Lindbergh, on the other hand, while he may have been a eugenicist, and while he may have done cruel pranks, did not have a profile of craftiness like a man such as Means.
And there’s still another variable. While Lindbergh is juggling the police and Anne, he ALSO has to juggle the abduction team he’s hired. Whether the ransom note was a double-cross or not, he has to make sure the abductors aren’t caught, don’t talk, and oversee the tricky business of ransom payment.
For me, if I was Lindbergh, this is all just way too complicated. If Lindbergh had wanted to get rid of his son, he could have done it easily. While Anne was out, he could have drawn a bath for himself, drowned Charlie in the water, then told Anne that he found Charlie’s body floating in the bathwater. In fact, this sort of accident HAS happened to toddlers.
The police would still have been notified, but they probably would have accepted the Lindberghs’ explanation of accidental drowning, rubber-stamped their report, and that would have been the end of it. No police hanging around the house for weeks. No abduction team to worry about compromising you later. In fact, doing things by himself—like crossing the Atlantic alone—better fits the profile of the “Lone” Eagle. One reason he flew alone (besides saving gasoline) was that he knew having a copilot could lead to quarrels that could mess things up.
I know there’s been some unfriendly feelings at times on this thread, so let me close with some neutral humor. Many of you remember the old comedy team of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. Here’s a bit from their TV show (not verbatim). Lou was talking to a female neighbor.
Lou (looking downtrodden): I think my father hated me.
Neighbor: Oh, now, why do you say that?
Lou: He used to give me baths.
Neighbor: Well, Lou, what’s wrong with that? Lots of fathers give their children baths.
Lou: Face down?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 12, 2012 15:01:13 GMT -5
Piggybacking off your observations, Bookrefuge, which I think are very sound, I'm wondering what the motive could've been for Lindbergh to have gotten rid of his son. We've discussed, at length, the possibilities of a eugenics-motivated murder, but seem to have hit a brick wall with that--some believe firmly the baby was impaired, others do not. So, if Lindbergh was involved, what else could have been a motive do you think? And Amy, I'm just noticing your last post now. The snapshot in question (the first one Micheal posted; CALjr. in the swing) is indeed one of a series (like the bench one with the dogs). I don't have the book in front of me now, but I think you're right--it looks like it was on taken the same day as a snapshot in the Hour of Gold photo section, showing the baby standing upright, holding onto a railing or something, kind of twisted around at the waist to look at the camera.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2012 16:02:28 GMT -5
I think when considering the possibility of Lindbergh's involvement then we have multiple choices. The 1st is what everyone loves, hates, or loves-to-hate:
1A. He wants him dead due to his deficiencies. Like it or not he held those beliefs.
Next, a lesser variation of this could be true:
1B. Child kidnapped and never returned. He's not dead but raised "somewhere else as someone else." Again, he held those beliefs. (This would mean the death was accidental).
2. The Practical Joke gone wrong. Outsiders are brought in to help make it better then his last two when he himself "kidnapped" the Baby. This proves he was a sick Practical Joker.
3. Protecting a Family Member. Could the child have been killed by a "crazy" Family Member then CAL swoops in to work damage control? We know that DMJr. wasn't always in his right frame of mind and that Elisabeth was very ill. Could suffering with that illness drove her to madness?
4. Protecting a Staff Member. Could the child have been killed as the result, directly or indirectly, of a Staff Member then CAL swoops in to work damage control? Rumors swirled that CAL was involved with Betty Gow. Sounds impossible that is until you consider the "German Sisters" after which the sky is the limit.
5. List yours here: I am sure anyone could come up with one I haven't heard of yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2012 16:51:34 GMT -5
LJ, I do think they are from a group of pictures taken that same day at Next Day Hill. Possibly even the pic of Anne and Charlie sitting poolside is from the same group. His hair is short in that photo also. The bench ones were taken in Maine. I am thinking perhaps after his first birthday when Charlie and Betty Gow were up there. Not sure though. He could have been 14 months old in them. His hair having grown back in after the earlier summer photos.
BR, a lot of good thoughts in your post. I am still not sure about eugenics being behind what happened. Would his association with Dr. Carrel have influenced him in any way? I wonder if he ever let Dr. Carrel even see Charlie.
If Lindbergh were involved, then I would see it more as a cover-up of Charlie's death due to some other reason. But then, I remind myself that this crime was planned out so a sudden, unexpected death would not allow for that.
The only other reason I would consider him being involved would be because Charlie's physical condition was growing worse in spite of all they were doing to help him. Overuse of the sunlamp wasn't helping. The fontanel was still open and his head was larger than it should be for a child his age. What if Lindbergh was considering an institution for Charlie and Anne didn't want to do that. Would he have seen a kidnapping as the way to get around Anne?
I don't see Lindbergh "on the table" by Garrison. I think he was looking at the household help as suspects. Did Garrison have Lindbergh's permission to go to Highfields? I don't think Charles was home when this happened.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 12, 2012 23:29:31 GMT -5
Okay, I think the photo questions have been satisfactorily answered, based mainly on some nice observations by Amy. As to your list of possible motives, Michael, it's very helpful to see things laid out side by side like this. I'd like to take them one at time, starting at the end and working my way back:
4) Protecting a staff member: Why would Lindbergh have gone to such lengths to protect a staff member and let a (at least comparatively) innocent man go to the electric chair? I can see doing this for family, but not for an employee (unless maybe Lindbergh felt it somehow reflected negatively on his judgment that he hired and employed the guilty party). If Betty Gow was involved with Lindbergh and he was protecting her and hiding this relationship--well, that's an interesting possibility, but I don't see evidence that Gow had anything to do with this. I don't see a motive for her or any evidence that she and Lindbergh were involved.
3) Protecting a family member: This one seems a little more plausible and more in keeping with Lindbergh's image consciousness and privacy obsession. I can see him doing this, and maybe even allowing someone else be wrongfully executed for it. We know that Dwight Jr. had some emotional problems, but I thought it was pretty well established that he was at school around the time of the baby's disappearance. As for Elisabeth: Well, I know that Behn's book isn't too highly regarded, but there's something about his theory that I can't quite shake loose of (but maybe that's only because it's what first spurred my interest in the case). Either way, if we assume a family member's involvement, Elisabeth remains a person of interest (at least for me), but, bottom line, I don't see any hard evidence for this one either.
2) Practical joke gone wrong: We know Lindbergh had something of a sadistic streak when it came to practical jokes, but it seems a bit of a stretch to me to hire a bunch of guys to pull off some sort of ultimate practical joke, especially for a famous soloist like Lindbergh. And it also strikes me as incredibly callous and craven to allow your son's body to be dumped and just left in the woods. I can see where Lindbergh was occasionally something of a jerk, but I don't see him going quite this far (but, then again, maybe he never knew the location of the body--whether it was in the woods or initially somewhere else).
1a) Lindbergh kills his deficient son: I'd like to set that one aside for now. This possibility has been thoroughly discussed, everyone's made good points, and there's no need to go over it all again as I don't think minds are going to be changed. But 1b) Lindbergh wanting his deficient son off his hands--this one is interesting. I've read the new edition of Gardner's book, and this seems to be a variant he favors. Amy brings up the possibility that Lindbergh wanted the somehow unhealthy child institutionalized and Anne didn't, so a kidnapping scheme was concocted specifically to get around her and smuggle the baby into an institution. Additionally, Gardner mentions the now abandoned Skillman Institute (aka The North Princeton Developmental Center), a home for epileptics just a few miles from Highfields, so it may've been that Lindbergh staged a phony kidnapping to get the baby there without Anne knowing what really happened, but that he was double-crossed by the guys he brought in to do this. Rather than take the baby to Skillman (or wherever else), they killed him instead (accidentally or on purpose) and blackmailed Lindbergh. But why demand so little money though? And would Lindbergh have really believed the baby would never be recognized by the staff of an institution? This would require the cooperation and silence of a lot of people, so, while this possibility is intriguing, I still have questions about it.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 13, 2012 10:35:03 GMT -5
LJ, I agree with your general observations.
In regards to a practical joke: in addition to the improbability of a team of men coming (presumably from New York) to help with a joke, there is this to consider: very soon after Charlie was found missing, and before the ransom note was opened, the local and state police were notified. I cannot imagine Lindbergh calling the police if this was a joke—and later saying, “Sorry to bring you all the way down here, guys—I wanted to play a joke on my wife.” Of course, one could argue that the joke went wrong in the middle of it—that while Lindbergh was watching, his helpers accidentally dropped the baby, killing it. But if this was the case, I imagine there would have been a tremendous commotion. Lindbergh presumably would have gone into a rage—I should think it would have attracted the attention of people inside the house. And it’s hard to imagine Lindbergh and his joke helpers, standing over the corpse outside in the dark with a blowing gale, and agreeing, on the spur of the moment, to change this from a joke to a process wherein ransom notes would be mailed to the house, Lindbergh would pay the ransom, etc.—it starts to become fantastic.
Regarding protecting a family member or staff member who killed Charlie, accidentally or in jealous rage or whatever--in this case, it sounds like the fake kidnapping plot was conceived of very quickly. But I think it’s pretty well agreed that the kidnap ladder was carefully constructed for this job. So it shouldn’t have been a spur-of-the-moment operation.
Regarding the Skillman hypothesis. Skillman, I believe, specialized then in epilepsy. Michael has posted before on a rumor of epilepsy in the Morrow family. This is the one time that a eugenics hypothesis really grabbed my attention. A full-blown “grand mal” seizure can be frightening to watch—the individual becomes unconscious, shakes, and may bleed from biting the tongue. Epilepsy carried a bad stigma at that time, and its victims were sometimes targeted by eugenics laws. Furthermore, a child with epilepsy could look (as in photographs) normal—it’s these unpredictable seizures that are the main problem. So if someone wanted to make a case for “eugenics motivated kidnapping” in the LKC, I believe epilepsy might be their best shot.
However, an epilepsy theory carries its own problems. In the hospital, with a patient prone to seizures, our first priority is to keep them safe, because we don’t know when a seizure might hit. So we pad the bedrails—that way if they have seizure in bed, they won’t bang their head against the rails. For a child like Charlie, I don’t know what the protocols were like in 1932, but you probably would expect his crib to be padded—which it wasn’t, to my knowledge.
If the baby was having epileptic fits, I can’t see Anne going off on the China expedition for several months. The baby was under the ultimate supervision of Mrs. Morrow, and if she saw that kid go into seizures, she probably would have flipped out. She would have insisted on Anne coming home, and probably would have hired nurses to watch the baby around the clock. We also know that, after the kidnapping, Mrs. Morrow sent a letter to Dr. Van Ingen, asking if anything was wrong with Charlie. I don’t think she would have asked this if she’d already witnessed him having seizures during the previous year.
Likewise, if Lindbergh was fanatically concerned that someone might learn his son had epilepsy, he certainly wouldn’t have allowed him to attend preschool—because a seizure can occur at any time. If a seizure occurred, the whole school would have been talking.
In the LKC, the largest manhunt in US history was underway. If Lindbergh planned to put Charlie in Skillman—as you’ve pointed out, LJ, how long could he keep him there before someone recognized the most famous baby in America? What was Lindbergh going to do—put sunglasses and a fake moustache on him for the rest of his life? Well, speaking less facetiously, they could dye his hair—but they’d have to keep dying it. I suppose that, theoretically, a section of Skillman could have been isolated just for CAL Jr. But it would be a heck of an operation to carry out indefinitely, and Lindbergh would have to forever sweat the thought of discovery. And the scandal of discovery—and the revelation that he’d wasted the efforts of law enforcement personnel across the country--would have been worse than any scandal associated with epilepsy itself.
I’ve made this point elsewhere, but Anne was pregnant with her second son at the time of the kidnapping. If epilepsy ran in the Morrow family, and Cal Jr. had epilepsy, how could Lindbergh be sure the SECOND child wouldn’t have epilepsy? What would he do then? Stage ANOTHER fake kidnapping and put JON in Skillman? However, I would be interested in seeing exactly what Gardner says on this Skillman angle.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 13, 2012 10:57:03 GMT -5
More good points, Bookrefuge. As to epilepsy, as soon as I looked up the Skillman Institute, I saw that it was once a home for epileptics. That was something of a red flag to me, as, a few months ago, when I asked some medical relatives of mine why a toddler would receive vitamin D supplements, one said "Rickets", the other said "Epilepsy...?" This stuck in my head as a possible reason for Lindbergh to have wanted the baby gone one way or another, but, as you say, if epilepsy was the big bad secret, why risk having it exposed by putting him in Elisabeth's kindergarten, especially when it really wasn't necessary for him to start school yet (being too young)? So I have major doubts about the epilepsy hypothesis. As to Gardner's thoughts on Skillman: Commendably not wanting to state some sort of definitive "aha!" theory, he keeps things pretty general. He mentions Skillman as being very near Highfields, so, if there was something wrong with the baby to the point that Lindbergh wanted him institutionalized, it might've made sense to put him there. He doesn't address how Lindbergh would've kept the secret, what exactly could've been potentially wrong with the baby, or how Hauptmann or any of the other usual suspects could've gotten pulled into this.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 13, 2012 11:08:47 GMT -5
BR, personally speaking, it is an absolutely refreshing experience to read and absorb any of your intelligent, coherent, well researched and thought out posts and I say that while taking nothing away from anyone else’s views on this board.
Thank you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 12:46:53 GMT -5
Where does the idea that Charlie had epilepsy come from? I never really gave that consideration. Even if he did, why would you choose to put him right around the corner from your own house? Doesn't make sense. Is that really what Gardner says in his new book?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 13, 2012 13:00:11 GMT -5
The epilepsy rumor is something that's been circulating for awhile, I think. As to hiding someone so near to one's home, I can see both sides: On the one hand, it occurred to me too that, as you say, it doesn't make much sense to hide someone so close by, but, on the other, if you wanted to keep tabs and a close eye on things... Additionally, the idea may not have been to keep the baby there permanently, but only temporarily before he was transferred elsewhere. In any case, while Gardner seems to suggest that the baby was sickly and Lindbergh wanted him off his hands, he only mentions in passing that the Skillman Institute was nearby and, as such, might've been a likely place to put the baby (at least initially). But he doesn't even elaborate on what the Skillman Institute is/was exactly; I had to look it up elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 13:39:08 GMT -5
So Skillman is only an institution for epileptics. Skillman was searched by NJSP when Charlie went missing. Not the place I would have chosen to hide him for just that reason. I really don't think Charlie even had epilepsy. If he were having seizures, couldn't there have been other causes for them?
When reading over the letter Dr. Van Ingen sent to Mrs. Morrow, he talks about the type of diet Charlie should be having. It basically said the same thing that Anne gave to the newspapers with the exception of the Viosterol. Dr. Van Ingen mentions cod liver oil daily instead. He also mentions the fontanel not being closed. Is it possible Charlie was being seen by a specialist and not just Dr. Van Ingen? I wonder why Mrs. Morrow made such an inquiry anyway. She saw Charlie all the time. Seems odd.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 13, 2012 14:23:42 GMT -5
Skillman was searched and employees were questioned for the two years leading up to Hauptmann's arrest, true, but this was only after the baby wouldn't have been there anyway. If the baby had lived, Lindbergh, as he did throughout the investigation, could've "directed traffic" away from Skillman altogether (though this doesn't explain how hospital staff members could be kept quiet or not realize who their new patient was). Likewise, Mrs. Morrow could've been asked to make inquiries of a specialist as a kind of smokescreen: She asks certain questions specifically so a doctor can answer them and make it a matter of record that the baby was fine. This could explain why she asked questions about the baby's health when she presumably wouldn't have needed to (given that she saw the baby all the time, especially when his parents were abroad). But I'd like to see this letter she wrote, to get an idea of exactly what kind of questions she did ask, though. At any rate, I rather doubt the Skillman/epilepsy angle myself. Just referencing Gardner's hypothesis, really.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 13, 2012 16:19:26 GMT -5
You know I have the greatest respect for Lloyd. In fact, I would say he is the most intelligent man I have ever met. And I'm afraid that's part of the problem with his research on a criminal act. There are certain advantages to being a criminal investigator who is not a genius.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 13, 2012 17:03:18 GMT -5
I'd like to recommend The War Against The Weak by Edwin Black. It's extremely enlightening.
Garsson was acting under the authority of the Department of Labor to look for Illegal Aliens. However, all it took was one call from CAL and he was recalled to Washington D.C. and never heard from again (until Hoffman's investigation - kind of).
We must apply what we know to the theory. If CAL is involved, under any circumstances, then he knows Hauptmann was too eventually if not sooner. So why would he care if he goes down as long as the person he is protecting (himself included) does not?
What source makes you absolutely certain DMJr. couldn't have been in Hopewell on March 1, 1932?
It was "improbable" that CAL would make it across the Atlantic. But he did. It was "improbable" that CAL would stage the kidnapping of his very own son - TWICE - but he did. So what does this argument about "improbabilities" do for us here?
He told Whateley to call the Sheriff not the NJSP.
I absolutely can see him doing that.
This is part of the problem I see with people rejecting any theory which may involve CAL.... It's this notion about WHO he was. He wasn't. All through the investigation he did inappropriate things to which all around him laughed it off or made excuses for him about it. When the man wanted something done it usually only took 1 phone call - and it happened. I don't know who they were afraid of more - Madden or Lindbergh.
Think about that.
The problems I see is that you can have a seizure but it doesn't mean its epilepsy. Seizures can happen for many reasons. If anyone here has looked into Rickets you will see it can happen with that. Then there's other things commonly misdiagnosed as Rickets. But I guess its easier to simply say he just had Rickets then move on. Less to think about that way.
Again I could see it. She would do whatever CAL wanted her to do.
Skillman saw much investigation. They searched for the wood there. The Troopers were given sleeping quarters there. And the Employees were investigated.
I think whatever Lloyd wrote in his new ending needs due consideration. He's done years and years of research on this Case.
I still say that certain unknown facts make a world of difference once they become known. People have been written off as Suspects because they passed a lie detector test. However, once the DNA proves they did it then everyone changes their mind.
Leave room for the facts you haven't seen. We ALL agree they exist don't we? Because if we did not we wouldn't all be here to discuss and brainstorm.
Exactly. Do these things get overlooked or just ignored? It reminds me of one that Lloyd made early on in his book - Elsie Whateley's reaction thinking the child was dead - Page 23.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 18:30:39 GMT -5
Will look for that book Michael.
Garsson was looking for Illegal Aliens. Why would he go to Highfields? Why would the Dept. of Labor get involved with this case???
I agree about Elsie's reaction to Betty saying the baby was gone. There was more going on with him than just a cold. Elsie actually thought Charlie had died.
Another thing I always thought was odd was Betty sewing that little shirt for extra warmth. There were plenty of undershirts in Charlie's dresser. Could have put two undershirts on him.
There are so many things yet to learn about this case. Seems like every time I think I am sure about an idea or point something else is revealed or contradicts it and I am back at square one.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 13, 2012 18:43:42 GMT -5
the problem i have with Lloyds book, i keep hearing he wrote it for the readers to decide. i think thats a bunch of crap.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 13, 2012 19:44:23 GMT -5
This was Michael’s rebuttal to my following remark:
My statement was correct. Between the time Charlie was found missing and the time the note was opened, both the local police and state police were notified. I made no reference to Whateley. In basketball this is what they call a “no call”—the ref blows the whistle when no foul was committed.
Probabilities are an important element of criminal investigations. If someone said Charlie was abducted by Martians in a spaceship, the police would not look into it—because it is too improbable. Insurance companies set their rates based largely on probabilities—they charge more for a 18-year old driver than a 45-year old, because they know from statistics who is at higher risk. This doesn’t mean 45-year olds never have accidents, but probabilities do enter the analysis, and insurers would go bankrupt if they didn’t use them.
In the LKC, we shouldn’t necessarily rule something out just because it is improbable—but I think focusing on facets that are “probable” will tend to move us closer to the truth.
You are absolutely correct. Seizures happen for many reasons. For example, children sometimes have seizures from a high fever. However, the context of this thread is a eugenics-related murder. The reason I was discussing epilepsy is because epilepsy was being targeted by eugenics laws in the 1930s. Incidental seizures, such as febrile seizures, were not targeted by such laws.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 13, 2012 20:56:11 GMT -5
I want to add something here. Michael, in rereading my original long post (the one that started this thread), it jumps out at me that it mentioned your name several times. I realize it might therefore have seemed like it was a personal swipe at you, but I didn’t mean it that way. I was trying to analyze the eugenics theory, and in building my case, I referenced what had been said in other threads, and in doing that, your name came up several times. I think this was partly an incidental byproduct of the fact that you’re involved in just about every thread on this board, but also a byproduct of the fact that you and I do tend to disagree when it comes to the area of Lindbergh’s involvement.
In any event, I want to make it clear that the thread was not intended as an attack on you, and I apologize if it perhaps came off that way. You have provided incomparable service as the administrator of this board. You have taken time to answer many questions I have had, and have uploaded documents that no other resource could have, or would have, provided. So thanks for your service; it’s been great.
I would like to be your ally in seeking the truth about the LKC, even if that means that, in the final analysis, my inclinations get proven wrong and I wind up with a lot of egg on my face.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 13, 2012 23:23:16 GMT -5
Michael, I'm not at all sure that Dwight Jr. wasn't in Hopewell that weekend. I just thought I remembered reading that he was elsewhere at the time. If that's incorrect, if his whereabouts were somehow in question (as Elisabeth's seem to have been), please let me know. By the same token, is there anything in particular to suggest that he (or Elisabeth, for that matter) were in Hopewell that night? And as to Lloyd Gardner's conclusions: Though I've never met him, I too have the greatest respect for him as a writer and researcher. As such, I definitely give any conclusions of his the highest consideration, but I do have questions about the feasibility of what he seems to suggest. I'm not holding any biases toward Lindbergh (on the contrary; I've never been much of a fan), and I don't think the baby necessarily had to be an epileptic or anything that specific, but, if there was something wrong with him and Lindbergh wanted the baby off his hands as Gardner suggests, how would this have been accomplished without involving multiple people--something which not only seems impractical but also not in keeping with Lindbergh's secretive, "lone eagle" tendencies? And how would someone like Hauptmann have gotten roped into a scheme like this? Maybe through Lindbergh's NY associate Thayer, who might've known (or known of) the local Bronx celebrity Condon, who, in turn, knew a carpenter named Hauptmann and small-time conman named Fisch? I don't know, just speculating. You say we have to leave room for facts we haven't seen. Absolutely. But not knowing what those unknown facts are makes all this a bit like trying to put a puzzle together when you don't know what the overall picture is supposed to look like. And don't get me wrong; I'm not asking to be spoon fed anything or for you to divulge anything you're saving. Honestly, I think I'm just too focused on finding a smoking gun here...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 14, 2012 6:52:21 GMT -5
Although he was looking at illegals, it was obvious this was just a means to an end. Think of it as a "strategy" to get into the case without anyone having the authority to remove him from it. That's what was going on.
Of course your statement was correct, however, the intent of your specific point was not. I undermined it by explaining that Lindbergh directed Whateley to call the Sheriff, therefore, he expected only the Local Sheriff to be called.
So I am alleging no foul occurred, just putting what you said into its proper context by bringing out an important variable you failed to mention when making it. It could be you did it on purpose, it could be you didn't know about it, or it could be that you forgot about it. Nevertheless, it needed to be said.
Needless to say this is a false comparison argument. Martians would be "impossible." When you speak in general terms of "improbabilities" yet they occur often and in other similar situations, then they no longer should be looked at in that way. That was my point. Now you may personally think its "improbable" that a man willing to hide his infant then claim he was kidnapped - twice - wouldn't do it again by bringing someone else in to make it more believable, but for my money that's just bad math. However, suggesting it equals the claim that Martians did it is such a fantasitic and false comparison that it actually helps to support the position instead of harming it.
Again here is the problem.... People think differently. They accept probabilities and improbabilities differently. I know that you and I do. So should we declare who is right and who is wrong then shut the board down? Or rather, each of the Members here share their ideas from which we can all learn? No two people are ever going to completely agree about everything. Understanding that is what will bring us closer to the truth - not overruling certain things based upon the weight that other certain people assign to it.
I didn't know we weren't allowed to talk about anything other then epilepsy even though I was talking about it - just in terms of pointing to other possibilities. The problem being that whether or not someone actually had epilepsy is irrelevent. If they were having seizures some may view them as being "defective" especially when combined with other medical problems that may have existed.
I did not take it that way. And whether or not you get defensive with my responses will not encourage or discourage me from posting whatever it is I have to say. If I agree with you I will say so. And if I disagree I'll do that too. There will be issues where we are on the "same side" and issues where we don't agree on anything.
Here's the thing.... No one will wear egg or anything else for giving ideas that may be proven wrong. We debate and most of the time there is no "winner" or "loser" - we simply benefit from that debate itself by shaving off something here or adding a little to something there. Eventually, we will all get closer to the truth we are personally comfortable with.
I hate to keep going back to the Rail 16 example however I think that best exemplifies it. Some may not agree but for me I am convinced now what the truth was. I would never have gotten there if it weren't for my unwillingness to accept the unbelievable, and the luck of crossing paths with both Rab & Kevin.
If you remember where you read that point it to me. My mind is on overload and I seem to remember in Bill's book that there was a possibility.
I am not saying its "incorrect." I would have to know your source then re-investigate it. And yes, there is something (isn't there always?) that has given rise to suspicion on this angle that I found. It's another of those "unknown facts" I often reference. There is also something else I found in the Schwarzkopf File, in his handwriting, that points to this angle. I will see if I can find it for you.
As far as what else I wrote....
I write things just to get them "out there" while I am thinking about it. It's more to clear my conscience about what I think people might not be considering.
I think your looking for the "smoking gun" is important. But also allow yourself some room to consider things that are loosely connected which may never, at this late time, be directly connected. So make those connections then work from there. Could Condon and Hauptmann have known each other for example.....
As far as Lloyd's new material in his book.... I haven't read the finished product so I don't exactly know what it says yet. But I know that I have always been curious why he would choose that spot. Being so close to that Epileptic Village is a curious location. I certainly consider there could have been an original plan behind that. I'll have to wait until I read it to make any further comment.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 14, 2012 7:56:18 GMT -5
You presume to read my intent. My point was that it was unlikely that Lindbergh would waste the time of the police just to help a practical joke on his wife. Since both the local and state police were called before the note was opened, the point applies to both, and I don’t see how it makes any difference which one got called first.
The Martian example was simply to make a point about the usefulness of probabilities in an investigation. I did not intend to say that it equaled the probability of acts by Lindbergh.
Of course I wasn’t saying “we aren’t allowed to talk about anything other than epilepsy.” I was clarifying why I chose to speak about epilepsy—I spoke about it because this thread is about eugenics, and epileptics were the targets of eugenics laws in some states in the 1930s.
Regarding seizures from other conditions, the same objections that I mentioned apply. Seizures are unpredictable. Therefore if Lindbergh was supersensitive about people discovering that Charlie had seizures—whether from epilepsy or some other condition—it seems unlikely he would have permitted him to attend preschool, where the problem could be easily exposed.
|
|