|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2012 22:01:01 GMT -5
You know I addressed this already. Now you are acting like you didn't read what I wrote. Never did I say to refrain from use of any humor, yet, that's what I am seeing you suggest. Why?
Who is this sentence meant for? Everyone assumes they aren't forbidden from posting so why would you need to state this?
What I see you do is employ various tactics I am quite familiar with. For example, you create a position then attempt to argue against it as if this signals neutrality. So then as if to say "hey, I am putting myself in your shoes," implying that specific position is coming from those who don't agree and you just covered it. But that counter position is either absurd or one nobody has made - so the idea is we're left with no choice but to agree with your original one.
Fortunately, there are other options, some of which have been mentioned previously, which you either misunderstood, have forgotten about, or simply omitted.
Take your Van Ingen position that you are promoting. You take the numbers in his letter to Mrs. Morrow then, by power of suggestion, imply that whoever disagrees believes he created them "out of thin air." I have never seen anyone here or elsewhere ever suggest such a thing, yet, there it is in your post obviously meant to be attached to whoever sees things differently. So believe you or we wear that.
Here's the problem with this point..... There is absolutely no way you can know what's in those 162 boxes without going through them yourself. There could be things you expect that aren't and things you never dreamed of being in there. But there's only one way to find out. If what you guess is actually true why on earth would anyone ever bother to look? So you see, by claiming you are examining possibilities on "its own merits" then posting something like this to support it - is a contradiction. What you've done is just support your position by stacking 162 boxes of documents behind you that you've never seen.
I think as it stands we're polar opposites when it comes to research. Unfortunately I think you are going to get angry at what I just pointed out above but its a necessary evil. Admittedly, you may or may not be doing some of these things intentionally - but you are doing them nevertheless.
Anyway, I am pretty sure I've already addressed most of this stuff previously and I stand by whatever I've said. I do not believe it calls for any rebuttal.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 6:34:57 GMT -5
Anyone who would take the time to read 162 boxes of that stuff should get a library named after them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2012 6:54:57 GMT -5
162? That's nothing. Probably only take about a year and a half - the first time through. Me and you both Jack. Would you mind telling me what you've read and where it might be? I want to consider the possibility that one or more of your sources are better then mine. Maybe it wasn't as famous as I am making it out to be. I've seen so many letters written to the Governor about it. I've got a couple somewhere - one I think from a person who actually was there. Here is a little from the Feb 16 AP article: Center of a whirlwind of excitement and confusion on the Cunardline pier, she ended a helter-skelter chase over the liner with a punch to the jaw of an over curious woman.
Unable to find her stateroom in the tourist class section, Miss Gow and her party of friends were followed by an increasing crowd of curious passengers and visitors up and down decks.
As the chase increased, a middle-aged woman wearing glasses pushed her way through the crowd and snatch Miss Gow by the arm. "Let's have a look at you," she demanded. "Let me alone," cried the thoroughly harassed young woman, and launched a small doubled fist to the woman's face. That's what I am trying to find out. It's a good point you are making. But consider that Gov. Hoffman was informed of a rumor that Elisabeth had actually been the child's mother. While he didn't put much stock in it, he did ask both Mustoe (Monmouth Country Prosecutor's Office) and Mead (Red Bank Private Investigator) to check it out. From memory of the report I have, they found someone creditable who remembered seeing her pregnant at the right time. This can also be found in George Joynson's book: Wicked Monmouth Countywww.gjoynson.com/wickedmonmouthcounty.htmlIt's worth buying, but like I've said - it has only what it has. I would think if they liked Cummings so much it would have been a traumatic event firing her. Not a peep about it in the book. So if you buy it expecting to find something specific you are going to be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 24, 2012 7:41:21 GMT -5
I want to offer something here—it has nothing to do with my last post, nor is it a rebuttal of any kind.
KJ could tell it better, but sometimes when breastfeeding mothers have their breasts full of milk—and the baby isn’t feeding (because he’s asleep, not hungry, whatever)—the mother will “express” her milk. She’ll squeeze it out into bottles, and save it to give to the baby later. It is normal to refrigerate such milk so it won’t go bad.
Of course, Charlie went on formula less than two months after birth. It would also be normal to keep formula in the fridge as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2012 7:52:29 GMT -5
I considered that but I didn't know if it was done back then. Next, if what KJ surmised is true, would Anne have that much in order to express? There's nothing subversive in this I am just trying to work through it.
I considered this as well. I can see where an FBI Agent may refer to formula as "Milk" so I wouldn't want to rule that out. But again, if what KJ said was true, then he's drinking formula before Cummings was fired. Just so we're on the same page - what is your source for the baby drinking formula less then two months after his birth?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 7:55:45 GMT -5
Good lookups Michael - so much junk here!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 24, 2012 8:34:07 GMT -5
So now we have a breastfeeding conspiracy But wait, Ann really wasn't pregnant with Charlie so why would she be nursing? Meanwhile, who is on third? No, he's on first , I don't know who is on third.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 9:29:27 GMT -5
I don't particularly care about TLC, it's simply a puzzle. But I'm fascinated at this particular one at the work of Michael and Kevkon who continually keep digging at it. This crime was pretty much dead news in 1934 and although a couple of books appeared since then they were pretty much whining. So salud Michael and Kevkon - I know we commentators sometimes open up lots of work and junk, but thanks for looking at it!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 24, 2012 9:30:31 GMT -5
Again, KJ could answer it much better, but as KJ thought Anne had a low milk supply, my guess is that she probably wasn’t expressing milk--at least after the mastitis developed. We better throw this one to KJ.
It is based on the letter to her mother-in-law, dated August 20, 1930, appearing in HLHG. Anne wrote: “The baby is gaining much better than he did when I nursed him.” Taking the letter at face value, since Charlie was born June 22, I understand this to mean he was breast-fed for less than two months.
Well, my impression is that Cummings had at least 3 tours of duty with Anne—the last being when Jon was born. She was on for the first 6 weeks after Charlie’s birth. According to the FBI Files (p. 111) she later returned after about three months, which jives with what Anne said in her letter to Mrs. Lindbergh of Sept. 29, 1930, that Cummings “has said she will come back and stay with us this winter.” As I understand the FBI files, it was during this second stint that Cummings was, as the FBI book puts it, “discharged for some unknown reason.” At this point, Charlie was long past breastfeeding (which had ended with Anne’s breast problem). When Cummings returned, however, Charlie was almost definitely still on formula, because babies don’t eat solid food before age 4 months.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 9:33:44 GMT -5
On to baby's milk - gawd, who would have thought!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 24, 2012 9:46:34 GMT -5
You know on second thought, I believe this latest discussion is very beneficial. I asked several times for specifics involving the planning and commission of the crime ala Lindbergh but I think my question was misunderstood. Now we have a very detailed discussion on one facet of the Lindbergh/Eugenic theory. Look at how many people have been named or would be involved in just the issue of the nursing. Look at all of the events and records that are involved in just this episode. The level of corruption required in just the child's first few months to hide a motive is staggering. And it doesn't end. As BR pointed out, it continues for 40 years.
|
|
|
Post by kjones on Jul 24, 2012 9:54:25 GMT -5
Hi Michael: My quess is that the bottles of milk in the fridge were formula and not breastmilk. Let me give you a little info on breastmilk before I answer your question. Breastmilk is metabolized much quicker than formula. A breastfeed baby often nurses every 2 hours, while a bottlefeed baby will feed every 3-4 hours. First, if Anne was having a problem nursing, due to mastitis or low milk supply Charlie mostly likely would have been a very fussy baby. He would be wanting to feed frequently and not sleeping well. In order to let mom rest and make baby happy I would guess if Miss Cummings was as good as a nurse as I think she was, she would do what we refer to as "top off the tank". In other words supplement him after his feed with a little formula. Makes for happy baby and mom. Another reason might be that Anne would skip feeds at night in order to sleep. Miss Cummings would then feed Charlie bottled formula. Lastly, maybe MC was concerned that Charlie wasn't gaining and the decision was made by Dr. and family to supplement. Could be anyone of these or a little of all. In a letter to Mrs. L dated August 20 Anne writes that the baby is gaining much better than when she nursed him. She believes the abscess had something to do with it, and she was right. She also says "he is splendid and doesn't look thin anymore". And that my friends is the end of that. Oh by the way Jack, the discussion about Charlie not thriving is very important to the case. What clearly seems not important to you might not be the case for others. Remember Jack this is about Charlie and not you.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 10:06:00 GMT -5
It doesn't end because you don't make it end. The police solved toe case eighty years ago. Is closed. Now you keep poking at it and that's interesting, but in reality all of your jive and M's doesn't amount to poop! So stop feeling so important and become a regular person - people will like you more.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 24, 2012 10:44:06 GMT -5
Thanks for that profound advice, Dr. Phil—it sounds like you should start your own call-in show. Oh, and speaking of poop—hm, maybe it’s not the baby’s MILK but the baby’s POOP that unlocks the mystery of the LKC. I’m sure that Kevkon, especially, would be thrilled to see a thread begun on that topic. I can see the furious debate beginning now, with remarks such as: “Well, my brother-in-law has a PhD in poopology, and YOU’RE SAYING HE’S WRONG?!?”
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 11:28:00 GMT -5
I so agree (ha, ha). Personally I believe it's great keeping the thing going, but investigators should know in advance that they're never going to solve anything. It's been looked at from every angle including baby's milk and probably poop for eighty years and perhaps is a perfect crime. There's not much difference between a perfect crime and an imperfect one except that one hasn't been solved. So police couldn't figure it out, but perhaps you can. Geo seems a bunch of collateral BS because it's so basic - you just put a name on it. It's why crimes are tried and usually solved in certain jusisdictions. Ever wonder, with your Geo reasoning, why Gary Ridgway went to prison in Washington? Ridgway is the most prolific serial killer of all to date, and it's pretty sad watching his wife on TV saying that she had no indication. Police got Gary Ridgway - not psychics or weirdos!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 11:48:23 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong - you sound like a very nice guy and you'll have your moments of fame. But I've seen this happen before, and in a few weeks someone will come along with a lock of Hauptmann's hair from some place in Canada and off they'll go towards that and you'll be left to Michael's Archive. Speaking of digging in obscure places Michael (as above baby's milk and s as mom) do you ever even?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 24, 2012 12:59:38 GMT -5
You know Jack, sometimes it's not about the destination but the Journey As silly as I find where this thread has gone ( and how it got there), I respect everyone's right to explore it. I sometimes try to nudge it toward an objective or at times I criticize it, but I do respect those who contribute intelligently. As for SOJ's GEO profiling, I think you owe him the respect he deserves for putting together at great labor and diligence a scientific means for criminal investigation. I know you are man enough to do that, Jack. Then why not expound in a separate thread on your view that this was somehow a political crime involving the NSDP.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 24, 2012 13:22:16 GMT -5
Me thinks Jerk7 is a case study in the field of Poopology.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2012 14:35:04 GMT -5
That is what the FBI Summary Report says, and its legitmate for you to raise this point. However, she was fired her 1st go around. I've seen it stated that she left the 2nd time for an "unknown reason" so its possible the Writer got it confused. Another possibility could be one of those Investigations I have which says she was terminated was made and written 3 months after the Summary was put together so it possible the Summary was written before those facts were known.
Thanks again for your insight. Now what I need to do is figure out exactly who was working when in relationship to when the child is supposed to be gaining weight and when he wasn't. I also assume that if the child actually had Rickets, as well as or maybe something else, he had it then too. Am I right? If I am then while, from what Anne wrote, he looks "healthy" - this new diet of steady formula isn't addressing that issue. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 24, 2012 14:43:55 GMT -5
Not to further clutter up the thread, but thanks, Michael, for bringing this back on point (the baby's health--not that it necessarily generated some vast conspiracy, but could it have been some sort of factor in the LKC; a perfectly legitimate question to at least explore). Again, thanks to all who keep it in these confines.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 15:20:05 GMT -5
You're way out of line, Kevkon and in fact about to meet a friend of my uncle named Dino - listen for a knock on your door. We supposed to meet in an alley in Chicago a few years back and you didn't show up - nuf said! I'm just telling these people not to get their hopes up. I looked at Kennedy after "Rush to Judgement" was published and thought it would be simple to figure out. HaHa. Same with most murders except the ones the police have figured out. I am not a police officer and am not arbitrarily sticking up for them. I am not at liberty to tell you more about myself but be satisfied that I didn't run a gas station. SOJ is simply doing what the state police did at the time of the kidnapping. No one was looking at NYC until the notes started coming from there. DUH!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 24, 2012 16:46:12 GMT -5
Oh but you have Jack, numerous times.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggarman, Thief.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 24, 2012 17:11:12 GMT -5
Michael, this is just a straight opinion, not a rebuttal. My impression is that Miss Cummings was not fired the first time, but that there was a normal parting. Taking HGHL at face value, Anne wrote to Elisabeth on July 30, 1930:
“Tomorrow I go into town for my dressing. Saturday Miss Cummings leaves and I’m pronounced cured except for an occasional dressing.”
I do not read animosity towards Miss Cummings in this statement. This letter was written on a Wednesday. It says Cummings isn’t leaving until Saturday—so it doesn’t look like they were in any rush to get rid of her. Furthermore, just two months later (Sept 29), Anne wrote to her mother-in-law Mrs. Lindbergh:
“Then Miss Cummings (the Canadian trained nurse, you remember?) has said she will come back and stay with us this winter so I feel happy (that is, safe) in leaving the baby with her.”
It sounds to me like Anne is very happy with Miss Cummings. If the Lindberghs fired her after the 1st six weeks, they certainly changed their minds and became happy with her again very fast.
You mentioned before that your FBI memo mentions Miss Cummings being discharged due to the baby’s “declining health.” Are you perhaps trying to determine if this was associated with Charlie’s initial failure to make good weight gain? As KJ has explained, this early weight issue appears to have been due to Anne’s breast infection (which would have made the milk taste bad, giving the baby a poor appetite, and perhaps have been associated with a poor maternal milk supply). This is really an issue with the mother; it would have been explained to the Lindberghs by the doctors. It seems unlikely that the Lindberghs would have blamed the nurse and fired her over Anne’s breast-feeding difficulties. When this is combined with Anne’s positive statements about Miss Cummings, I personally consider it unlikely that she was fired during her first tour of duty. The second tour, I have no idea about.
KJ is our obstetric nursing expert, and we would probably benefit from further input from her.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2012 18:55:20 GMT -5
You're free to disagree with me BR. I take no offense to it believe me. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the order in which it happened because I have all of the documentation and there isn't just one which says what I have chosen to share. Miss Copin took over after Cummings was fired. Cummings came back after Copin quit then departed after Gow was brought on. I can't say it as a matter of fact but it certainly appears as though they weren't going to keep her the 2nd time around either.
I don't really want to add much more but let me say there are some reports that have some negative things being said about her. But I agree that if you read HGHL she sounds as though she was an Angel sent from Heaven.
So you see as I said before, you have much more faith in HGHL then I do. Firstly, it was edited by Lindbergh himself, and secondly, its Editorial Note specifically says it has been "cut for repetition and readability" which it doesn't need to say because its obvious many things were left out.
One thing I want to do however is to strike my question out about the Baby's Milk in the refrigerator. My other Report puts the time of this at September '32 - so that would have to be Jon's and not Charles Jr. It's to be remembered that Gow was in Scotland visiting her Mother at that time so Cummings was in charge of Jon then. Again, disregard the question because it does not apply.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 24, 2012 22:17:50 GMT -5
I would expect Anne to want her husband’s input on something so co-personal. But even if Lindy closely or even intrusively edited it—it’s 1973, he’s near the end of his life in Hawaii, and no controversy is blowing in the wind about the LKC (like it is on this board today). Ahlgren and Monier were still twenty years into the future. I think Lindbergh’s mind was on a lot of things besides the LKC then, and I don’t envision him getting worried that if he doesn’t, say, cover up Miss Cummings being fired 40 years earlier, that McGarrett of Five-O will turn up at his door and say “Book him, Danno!”
(Then Lindbergh tries to jump into his plane to escape, but Kono wrestles him to the ground. Then as he's led away in cuffs, he turns to Anne and says: "SEE? I TOLD you to keep that big fat yap of yours shut about Miss Cummings!")
(Later, the prison inmates tear up their toilet paper and give Lindy the largest ticker-tape greeting in prison history.)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 24, 2012 22:44:48 GMT -5
Something about Lindbergh getting arrested by Kono on Hawaii Five-O cracks me up; don't know why exactly... Anyway, Bookrefuge, I think, though there certainly wasn't the interest in the kidnapping towards the end of Lindbergh's life that there is today, he was still incredibly image conscious, concerned that his image and legend be maintained after his death. I didn't know that he helped edit Anne's books--though, I must admit, it doesn't surprise me in the least. So, given this, I think he could've very easily combed through the manuscripts and weeded things out--suggesting that she discard this or that for whatever reason--to reinforce the version of events he wanted supported (whether he had anything to do with the kidnapping or not). Also, Michael, I'm getting a little confused with this nurse thing. Cummings is hired, the baby declines. Cummings is fired, Copin is hired, the baby improves. Copin quits, Cummings is re-hired, but leaves when Betty Gow is hired? Without knowing why Cummings was let go the first time, it's difficult to know what this back-and-forth means exactly. Could you be just a little more specific as to what this sequence of events (if I have it right) suggests?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 23:02:06 GMT -5
So Anne, in between her visits to Borneo and wherever else her husband wishes her to go, has malnutritioned the baby because of an obscure (untreatable?) breast problem {forgetting I guess that millions of other babies are surviving somehow on other milk} and CAL believes that retardation is such that he wants to do away with CALIII? Why not take Anne out too with her frumpy breast? Kevkon alerted me to this but I actually didn't believe it at the time. What is really amazing is all of the typing these weirdos do - look above!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 25, 2012 0:12:31 GMT -5
I'm on the site a few minutes ago, and hey this actually happened, there's a pop-up that I was kinda interested in, but not exactly sure what it was - hey it's gone by now. So I thought maybe I could tell Michael or whoever to keep their pop-ups up a little longer and I unwisely went into their site. After trying to find a "contact us" or some other friendly term for about ten minutes I came upon "Alien APPS" (this is not a joke) and I just dumped the thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2012 16:40:52 GMT -5
Jack, there's the "off-topic" thread for that stuff. You're a funny guy who knows a lot about this case. Help me out here.... Well maybe she wanted it and maybe she didn't.... But there's no way it wouldn't have happened if Lindy wanted it. Regardless, the thread concerns Lindbergh's involvement, therefore, it is relevant when you (and possibly others) suggest HGHL has the weight you assign it. See my point? It's something to consider in regard to the theory. A&M's book exists because, from day one, this possibility was discussed. They were the only one's to write a book about it. First of all, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind Cummings was fired. No doubt. I understand why some don't want that to be true but honestly, if you ever plan on reading anything I publish - get ready - because you ain't seen nothing yet. This is just one very minor fact. And by bringing it into the public domain it shows how something like this is tucked away. Why? Well I think we're working through that now. My thoughts aren't written in stone yet. Another thing is this.... Copin was considered by everyone to be a great Nurse. Sometimes I think we forget who these people actually were. She's a young lady working for the most famous people on the planet. Taking care of a baby who is the "heir to the throne." And she quits! Why? According to the Reports because her methods were working and Lindbergh objected. So she basically walked away. It's actually nice to see, and I put her in the same class as Lupica. So not only is the termination hidden away - so is Miss Copin. I don't remember it being written about anywhere else so it shows when something happens how easy it is for us not to know about it. And then there's this book that has BR convinced it never did. Now Kevin might say that it doesn't matter and has nothing to do with the kidnapping - and he could be right - if this theory mentioning Lindbergh is incorrect. But learning these unknown facts never hurt, and at the very least mean nothing. However, looking more closely at them could lead down a path to learning something else that does. Earlier in this thread I suggested how many different things could cause Rickets or Ricket related symptoms. Here is a great link to exemplify what I was talking about. So the next time someone says "it was only Rickets" then direct them to this link:
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 25, 2012 19:04:32 GMT -5
Cool Michael. I'll hold my tongue. Site nowdays reminds me of my last secretary though - she typed like a mink and I depended on her a lot.
|
|