|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 25, 2012 22:12:07 GMT -5
Fantastic site, Michael. Eye-opening. I notice that many ricket-related illnesses listed seem to track back to kidney problems. Is there anything you've come across to indicate kidney issues with the baby? Another thing: if Copin's methods were working, why, in your view, would Lindbergh have objected? Because, even though her methods were working, they weren't in accordance with his rules...?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 25, 2012 22:51:35 GMT -5
You're right Kev. Upon looking at this last one and screaming to say something I didn't - everyone has a right to their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 26, 2012 0:41:51 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure glad you didn't say anything (because saying how much you WANTED to doesn't count at all...). Look, this thread has been going back and forth for weeks about was the baby sick or wasn't he. The guy who runs this board insists there was something wrong with the kid, and it's not the first time I've heard this. I mean, when the conversation gets into breastmilk territory--well, okay, maybe that's taking things a little far, but, personally, I'm just trying to figure out what Michael is talking about and if it had anything to do with anything, one way or the other. That's all.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2012 8:42:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. I assume the point of all of this is to prove that Charlie had a disease far more serious than rickets and that from that conclusion we can jump to the conclusion that Lindbergh's sole response was to eliminate his child. My view is that motive , though interesting, is not evidence. Now if someone can provide something in the way of evidence that connects Lindbergh to the crime, that's another story. I would say that I only wish that the research, debate, and scrutiny being applied here was mirrored on Hauptmann's life pre 3/1932. Unfortunately, that never seems to happen and it's a shame since he is the known participant and the least common denominator.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2012 9:10:39 GMT -5
But not surprising really, Kevin. It seems to be too large an elephant to be regarded as important enough in this room and a good example of how yellow journalism propaganda has lost none of it's shine in modern times.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 26, 2012 10:58:21 GMT -5
All true, but, at the same time, to explore the possibility of someone else's involvement (whether Lindbergh or another person's) is not to say Hauptmann wasn't involved, or, if Lindbergh was involved, that his sole response would've been to eliminate his child (I don't believe elimination would've been his sole response). At any rate, for me it goes without saying that Hauptmann was in this, and pretty deeply too. But by the same token, I don't think it was as simple as that, and that there was more here than met the eye. Again, I for one am just trying to figure out what Michael means with all this health stuff and if--if--it could have anything to do with that "more".
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2012 11:05:49 GMT -5
I think the lack of any trail of specialists would pretty much indicate that the theory makes Lindbergh single minded here. In any case, it sure would be nice if we scrutinized Hauptmann to this extent.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 26, 2012 11:39:43 GMT -5
I don't know, my understanding is that the baby was actually taken to a specialist at one point, and, either way, I can see how--given his personality and proclivities--it would've been Lindbergh's impulse, at least initially, to try to handle whatever potential health problems he may've seen as quietly and on-his-own as possible (hence the lack of a whole string of specialists and his attempts to toughen the baby up). And I agree: I think Hauptmann should definitely be scrutinized. After all, it goes without saying he was involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2012 11:45:47 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I don't think this case is half as interesting as many have built it up to be. Reminds me of a little scene actually and if I could borrow a page out of BR's book here:
Elaine: "Maybe there's more to Newman than meets the eye." Jerry: "No, there's less."
As someone on another board had commented, "Simple time, simple crime" and I don't think the truth is too far removed from that. A fresh and detailed focus on Hauptmann, the deeply involved criminal might still be able to identify any accomplices before and/or after the fact. Lindbergh, the controversial public figure, I feel represents little more than the flea on the tail of the dog.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 26, 2012 13:30:24 GMT -5
Okay, fair enough. I mean, I have no interest in blowing anything out of proportion or in going all Oliver Stone here. Neither do I have any vested interest at all in wanting to see Lindbergh's involvement. Unless I'm asking a direct question, anything I propose here is written to see if it can be convincingly shot down. I do this as a way of exploring any reasonable possibilities that occur to me and that others have raised. In any event, my initial instinct was always that Hauptmann was deeply involved but had to have had help, as, anything else aside, the crime scene looks like there was more than one person there. All I want is to determine the nature of this "help"--whether it was inside help by someone like Lindbergh, or help simply in the sense of Hauptmann having accomplices.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2012 14:00:14 GMT -5
Amen. But Lindbergh has to be considered in the same vein. For some reason, if what we are told about this crime is correct, he did not want to get the child back. And the fact that he remained with Anne leads one to believe that she went along with it. So, that's the Lindbergh question or problem - Hauptmann is simply collateral damage.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2012 14:29:54 GMT -5
You know Jack, if it was anyone but Lindbergh out there looking for his son, I'd be inclined to agree. But in my opinion, he felt deeply that this was a personal quest and that he was the one who was going to succeed in recovering his son, his way. I'm sure he must have felt at times the odds were against him but gauging all that against what he overcame during his trans-Atlantic flight, and while I may not agree with his actions, I can certainly understand the path he took.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2012 16:02:28 GMT -5
Certainly investigate Lindy, I see no reason for it to be an either/ or situation. I could tell a story about a certain well known author's response when I asked if his next book would be on Hauptmann, but I would just get myself in more trouble The ironic thing is that Hauptmann is in some ways more interesting than Lindbergh. He is more enigmatic ( as opposed to eugenic) ;D
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2012 17:16:01 GMT -5
Not only enigmatic.. he's practically slipped off the radar these days. In a few years, they'll be asking Bruno Who?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2012 19:52:11 GMT -5
I think establishing possibilities lead to other possibilities. That goes for just about everything. And if we can prove something isn't true well that works too in other ways. Lindbergh was a certain type of person, and believed in certain things. If his son wasn't the child everyone expected him to be it's an interesting situation even if he had nothing to do with his disappearance. But there is a basis for this discussion and theory. Without going into detail - there were at least (2) Investigators who were involved in early '32 who believed Lindbergh was involved. There were many more who believed it was an inside job. And of course Lindbergh himself said he should have been considered a Suspect. That alone should create interest in the theory. But there's much more then that. A lot more in fact. I have, believe its been done here too, and I don't see why we can't just because one thread is dealing with something else. It certainly isn't "one or the other." Funny show - but fictional. This case is anything but simple. That's why there's so much interest all of these years later. The more you know the more complicated it gets. Can I ask what gives you this impression Joe? Are these Lindbergh's feelings or yours that you are assigning to him? There's some things I've been working on. It's hard to know for sure if it will ever be properly identified but I am thinking it might be. One thing for sure, I won't be saying it is if it isn't - know what I mean? If we don't know then we don't know - which means we can't say it was only Rickets. We can say he had those symptoms and was being treated for Rickets. Huge difference. I think that interpretation should be left up to the individual. If I had a child, and his health was declining to the point I fired his Nurse because of it - I think I'd thank my lucky stars the new Nurse was turning things around. But that's not what happened. Here's what one USBOI Report had to say (and I recall the other says something similar): Miss Cooper [sic] was very strict and insisted on being with or near the baby at all times and after four weeks she resigned because she did not get along with Colonel Lindbergh who had different ideas relative to the child's upbringing. It was common talk among the servants that Miss Cooper was a splendid nurse.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2012 21:51:23 GMT -5
It's complicated alright, and mainly because of the two factors that could have prevented it from becoming that way: the two-and-a-half year manhunt and Hauptmann's refusal to confess to one iota of involvement. The collateral effects of the latter, over the past eighty years, have essentially dwarfed the cause and therein lies the complicated part.
Michael, if I knew one-tenth of the information you have unearthed in the twelve years we've both been studying this case, it would be that much harder for me to separate what I now deem to be essential and non-essential information.
They're neither. I guess you could call it my subjective interpretation of Lindbergh's actions to exhaust virtually all possibilities in achieving the recovery of his son, while at the same time demonstrating the misplaced trust he placed in the nature of some human beings that could hardly be called that.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 26, 2012 21:51:50 GMT -5
Well, I started this post last night, but I couldn't finish it, so I'm catching up a little late in the thread here. (It's, like, "so yesterday.") Five years is a long time to stay in the “get ready” mode. (Just joking) Well, I think we can guess from the above, taken together with Michael’s many other comments in this thread, where his book is probably heading. I may be wrong, but it looks like it is probably going to be some sort of variation on “Lindbergh arranged his son’s abduction because the baby was sick.” Michael has directed us to a website that seeks to comprehensively list every possible cause of a disease or symptom. We go to this site and see all kinds of causes for rickets, and at first glance, it may look like “Wow!” But go to the same website and look under anemia (and yes, I know there are different types of anemia and that anemia isn’t the same as rickets): www.rightdiagnosis.com/a/anemia/causes.htmAs a rough guess, it lists over 2,500 possible causes of anemia—even bug bites and hair spray. But if you’re anemic, do you think your doctor will trot out this list, and start asking you about bug bites and hair spray? No, POSSIBLE does not equal PROBABLE. Your doctor is going to start with PROBABLE causes, and only look for the improbable when those run out. Let’s look up “rickets” on other major medical websites. Let’s check www.medicinenet.com/rickets/article.htmThat’s all it says. A little simpler, isn’t it? Whoops. What happened to that super-long list Michael linked to? It’s valid, but again, POSSIBLE isn’t the same as PROBABLE. Look at some of the items on the list Michael linked to. I see “phenytoin,” “etidronate,” “ethotoin” and “glutethimide.” Those are drugs. Can they cause rickets as a possible side effect? Yes. Could they have caused Charlie’s rickets? No. They weren’t in use in 1932. How about Wilson’s Disease? Well, if Charlie had tremors, bloody vomit, an enlarged abdomen… Dent’s Disease? I suppose it’s possible, but nobody could have told Lindbergh that’s what his son had, since the term wasn’t used before 1964. I will elaborate more on this momentarily. You’re right, LJ—most of these listed diseases relate to the kidneys. The kidneys are very important regulators of the body’s electrolytes, and electrolyte disturbances can in turn lead to bone problems. A blood sample from Charlie would quickly tell you if he had a kidney malfunction or not. Am I saying all these diseases are ruled out for Charlie? Definitely not. I don’t think even a top physician could do that, without having access to Charlie’s medical records. But if someone wants to claim Charlie DID have one of these diseases, the burden of proof is on them. Let’s move from IMPROBABLE to PROBABLE. In the 1920s, America was in a rickets epidemic. I documented this at the very top of the thread. What caused the epidemic? Was it rare inherited genetic diseases, like ones on the list Michael linked to? No. Again, START WITH THE PROBABLE. The main cause was DIETARY deficiency of Vitamin D. Scientists hadn’t even figured out the formula for Vitamin D yet. What caused the end of the rickets epidemic? It was the discovery of how to make Vitamin D and add it to formula and diet. Unfortunately for Charlie, this had not yet happened when he was born in 1930. Anne’s breast abscess forced him to go on formula early in infancy, and formula was not yet being fortified with Vitamin D as it is today. Thus we have a CREDIBLE and LIKELY explanation for Charlie’s moderate rickets. Again, I posted documentation for all of this at the top of this thread. Rickets is very rare in America today, thanks to Vitamin D supplementation. The epidemic ended long ago. But after it ended, a few kids still came down with rickets. So naturally doctors started looking for other causes. And over time, many of the rare conditions on Michael’s list were discovered. But no doctor in 1932 could have rolled out that same long list to show to Lindbergh. Did Charlie had some rare, serious ailment? If so, why did his pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen, tell Mrs. Morrow, a powerful woman, that Charlie was healthy? Why didn’t he mention the disease in his pretrial deposition? Why would he put his neck on the line? Because he wanted to help Lindbergh in a eugenics conspiracy to get rid of his baby? Because Lindbergh bullied him? It would be easy for someone to say that, but show me some evidence. Is there proof that Van Ingen lied? Is there evidence that this respected pediatrician was embroiled in a conspiracy with Lindbergh? The burden of proof would be on the accuser. I invite anyone to review my long post at the bottom of page 5 of this thread, quoting various witnesses who said Charlie, to all appearances, was normal. If anyone believes that Will Rogers lied about seeing a normal, healthy baby two weeks before the kidnapping, and that Rogers and his wife (along with Van Ingen and the others), were in on a “let’s help Lindy get rid of his defective baby” conspiracy, be my guest—but show me some evidence. Well, as many of you know, Michael and I have been trying to avoid bitter exchanges. So if he counter-rebuts this particular post, I’m going to let it go. I’m not going to “counter-rebut” the “counter-rebuttal.” As I have done before, I prefer to keep things light by closing with some humor. So here we go with-- The Mighty Carson Art Players present their latest skit: **LINDY’S VISIT TO VAN INGEN’S OFFICE**(Starring Johnny Carson as Lindbergh, Ed McMahon as Van Ingen, and Carol Wayne as Miss Jones) LINDBERGH: What is it, doc? You said on the phone it has something to do with Charlie. Uh, there hasn’t been any trouble with that birth certificate, has there? [looks nervously from side to side] You know, the one I had you forge to make him look like Anne’s baby instead of Elisabeth’s? VAN INGEN: Huh? Oh, THAT. No, no, that was a piece of cake. We doctors do that kind of stuff every day. Strictly routine. LINDBERGH: What is it, then? VAN INGEN: Well, colonel, we’ve run some tests on Charlie. I have good news and bad news. Which would you like first? LINDBERGH: You know me, Doc. I’m tough! I can take it! Give me the bad news first. VAN INGEN: The bad news is, your son has Ooga-Booga Syndrome. LINDBERGH: I see. Is that serious? What does that mean in layman’s terms? VAN INGEN: Well, let me put it this way. I don’t think he’ll be the odds-on favorite to win any “Lindy Hop” contests. LINDBERGH: OK. And what’s the good news? VAN INGEN: The good news is, Ooga-Booga Syndrome won’t be discovered for another forty years. LINDBERGH: One more question, doc. Can you recommend any specialists? VAN INGEN: In birth disorders? LINDBERGH: No! Kidnapping! VAN INGEN: Of course. We doctors get that question from parents all the time. [pushes intercom button] Oh, Miss Jones, would you bring my Rolodex in here? (MISS JONES, a gorgeous ditzy cross-eyed blonde, walks in carrying a Rolodex with her backfield in motion, as Doc Severinsen’s orchestra plays “The Stripper.” As she walks back out, LINDBERGH smacks her keester.) VAN INGEN: [flipping through Rolodex] Ah, yes, here we are—a nice little group practice over in the Bronx that ought to meet your needs. I’ll write you a referral. LINDBERGH: Thanks, doc. How much do I owe you? VAN INGEN: Oh, just my usual fee. Five dollars for the visit. Forty dollars for the tests. And ten thousand dollars to keep my mouth shut.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2012 22:33:46 GMT -5
Joe: "His way" usually worked. But if what we are being led to believe is correct, it was not HIS child, it was THEIR child. So Anne could have raised $ 50K in probably half an hour. Yet she kept perfectly quiet about it. CAL too could have raised the money almost instantly but he didn't. So those things are facts about the case and much other information is baloney. Involving major crime appears to be only a slam on Hoover in CAL's strange way to devise humor. I don't believe for a minute that Charles wanted CALIII dead - if he didn't want him he could have easily shipped Charlie off to an orphanage and be done with him, as so many parents did. The only reasonable conclusion is that CAL knew from the start that Charlie was already dead. And whoever killed the child said your mom is next, then your wife - you can't stop us, and that's obvious from the way the kidnapping went down. Regarding getting Betty Gow as their new nurse - hey she had better legs!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 26, 2012 22:38:18 GMT -5
Kevin, without naming names if you don't want to, what's the story? And Joe, I can't imagine any person who has a serious interest in the case ever being able to ask "Bruno who?" (But maybe you were just kidding). And Bookrefuge--okay, I see your points. And they're good ones as usual. Furthermore, I'm not trying to push the idea that the baby was sick enough for it to be any sort of factor in the kidnapping (honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on this). But you say yourself that many of the diseases (kidney-related and otherwise) listed on Michael's website were only discovered after 1932. But obviously, just because a disease is unknown doesn't mean people still can't get it. So (purely hypothetically), could this have possibly been what happened: The baby had one of these conditions, and no one--not the family or the doctors--knew what it was because it was undiscovered (hence the lack of hard, specific documentation and/or proof)? I know you've pointed out the fact that the baby had to go on formula because Anne couldn't breastfeed due to an abscess, and since formula wasn't Vitamin D-fortified back then, that caused the baby's rickets. That's perfectly logical and possible (even probable). But, in addition to that, I'm also seeing instances of Lindbergh attempting to toughen the baby up using some pretty extreme measures. So, then, I'm still left with this question: If it was just a Vitamin-D deficiency due to rickets--a very common ailment in those days--why did Lindbergh feel the need to go that far? Now, I'm not asking you to answer that question one way or the other; just saying that it's something I for one can't shake loose of.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2012 22:52:59 GMT -5
Joe didn't ask "Bruno who?" RB.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2012 23:13:22 GMT -5
For whomever was asking, I have solved Historic True Crime cases - have you?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 27, 2012 7:51:04 GMT -5
LJ, I meant the average person when referring to "they." Actually, surprisingly few people know about this case today aside from seniors and it's really just a blip on the scope of human interest stories, even when a new book or theory comes out.. then the blip gets a blip-sized splash. But we love it anyway!
Jack, according to source documentation, owning a Geo Tracker will get you a pair of Prey tickets for the reality show Mantracker, one for you and one for your old secretary from Minsk.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 27, 2012 9:10:28 GMT -5
That is absolutely correct, LJ. As I said, I couldn’t prove Charlie didn’t have one of the unusual disorders on the list. But I prefer to look for “probable” cause, and formula unfortified with Vitamin D gives us a likely explanation.
LJ, I don’t see Lindergh’s “toughening” measures as intended to be some sort of medical remedy for rickets or disease. My guess is that Lindbergh was trying to toughen his son in terms of behavior--character, courage, etc. I certainly don’t agree with what he did. Charlie was too young for that kind of lesson—but this was Lindy’s first son, and he was immature when it came to parenting.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2012 11:16:21 GMT -5
It seems the issue of the child's health is going to be one of opinion since there is no conclusive evidence either way. How about a discussion which focuses on the nature of Lindbergh's belief in eugenics. Now my understanding is that eugenics was quite popular but not in the extreme form which promoted euthanasia. So for me to even get close to the notion that Lindbergh chose to eliminate his son, I would need to see evidence that he not only supported the most extreme form of eugenics and also believed it should be applied to one's own offspring. I'm not even sure the Nazis went that far. Is there evidence of this extreme position held by Lindbergh?
btw, Michael I understand that you are somewhat hindered due to your book, I thought this change in direction might be more fruitful.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 27, 2012 12:37:40 GMT -5
Well, I realize that Joe didn't ask "Bruno who?". I simply meant that I couldn't imagine anyone who ever studies this case at any point in the future being able to ask that. It seems inconceivable to me that Hauptmann would ever be forgotten in all this, so, given that, maybe Joe was just being facetious. And Joe, I see what you mean: We're interested in this because it's something that hooks us, but for most other people this is hardly the OJ murders--something everyone's heard of. I agree too that it looks, for now, that the baby's health is going to have to be a matter of opinion (barring further information). It could've been an undiagnosed condition that made the baby act or appear generally "weak" (at least in Lindbergh's view), or the attempts to toughen him up could've just been immature parenting, as Bookrefuge suggests. But as to Lindbergh's belief in eugenics (at least at this stage of his life), as well as in social engineering and/or social Darwinism in general, here are some things I came across, just from a quick initial websearch: First, a passage from Scott Berg's biography, on Lindbergh's association with Dr. Carrel: "Lindbergh spent every available minute with his mentor; and for months his mind was Carrel's to mold. Sitting in the doctor's high-walled garden or by the fireplace late into the night, the two men discussed improving qualities within the human species and the population at large, through diet and reproduction. 'Eugenics,' Carrel wrote in Man, the Unknown, 'is indispensable for the perpetuation of the strong. A great race must propagate its best elements.' He and Lindbergh carried on such discussions over the course of the summer, delving into the subject of 'race betterment.'" Also, later, when Lindbergh recalls seeing a baby elephant killed by lions during a trip to Africa with his daughter, she points out how cruel this is and Lindbergh writes his response in his Autobiography of Values: "Does not our well-being, our present existence, stem from countless instances of 'cruelty' eons past? Nature rewards abilities and penalizes defects too subtle for the human eye to note." Here is also a book I came across on the subject (though I haven't read it, it seems interesting): www.amazon.com/gp/product/006052815X/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=16Z4SV23N3JN1TBY9MF0&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846. Now, in any event, I don't think his belief in all this was so extreme that he supported euthanasia, but, then again, I for one don't believe his intention (if he was involved) ever would've been to euthanize the baby in the first place.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2012 12:55:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry LJ, but I just don't see any middle ground here. The nature of this crime, the means and method, are not those evident of consideration of life. This was a brutal crime and the evidence is clear on that. Lindbergh was a detail and hands on guy. If he was involved in the crime, he was involved completely. So, where does the evolutionary eugenicist evolve into a radical eugenicist?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 27, 2012 13:08:25 GMT -5
You're right; I'm not seeing a middle ground here either. To establish one, what I think may've happened (if we assume for a moment that Lindbergh was involved at all) was that he lost control of a situation that he thought he could control, and that this is why the baby ended up brutally murdered, not directly by Lindbergh. Simply put, those he brought in could've double-crossed him. So here is a possible middle ground that you're referring to. I think this is also in keeping with Lindbergh's personality: Good with machines, not as good when it came to judging and anticipating people. As to the evolutionary eugenicist evolving into a radical one--I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I think Lindbergh's eugenicist views would've been more extreme (if this is what you mean by 'radical') when he was working with Carrel regularly, but seem to have been tempered into a more evolutionary, social Darwinist view by the time he wrote his autobiography 45 years later (and after he and the rest of the world saw how eugenic theories can be perverted and taken to horrible extremes). So, based on the examples I pointed out, it would seem to me to be the other way around: A more extreme or radical eugenicist becoming less of one by taking more of an evolutionary, "nature's cruel" view.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2012 13:20:54 GMT -5
What I mean LJ is that eugenics is about preserving and improving a gene pool thru selective breeding and the exclusion of undesirable genes. It does not promote murder or euthanasia as a means to that end though extremists took it to that level. Many famous people believed in eugenics at that time. What I am asking for is something in the way that shows that Lindbergh was an extremist and that he would apply that to his own son. I'm not even sure there's a precedent for that.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 27, 2012 14:11:42 GMT -5
I don't think there is anything to point to that would suggest Lindbergh supported extremism--that is, murder or euthanasia--as part of his eugenics beliefs, because I don't believe he did. I'm simply speculating that he could've been enough of a eugenicist or social Darwinist at that point in his life to believe (rightly or wrongly) there was something wrong with his son, and that some sort of action needed to be taken (but which couldn't be seen as being done directly by him, as that would be a public admission there was something wrong with his gene pool). Now, speculating that Lindbergh felt "action" had to be taken does not have to mean that action was willful murder or euthanasia. I believe willful murder occurred, but, as I said, by those who Lindbergh (if we accept his involvement) may've lost control over.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2012 14:32:13 GMT -5
In other words, guilty with explanation. I'm not so sure Michael is as flexible on this as you are, LJ. Ok, how does Lindbergh, the man of science, determine that his son has some disease for which the only logical solution is his removal in a surreptitious manner? Lindbergh certainly has no problem with doctors, why is there not examinations and consultations? I'm not even going to bring up Anne, let's assume she is pre-occupied.
|
|