Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 11:22:35 GMT -5
Charlie having rickets would have been unacceptable to Lindbergh. Like it or not, he was a Eugenicist. Having a child with genetic issues that produced a physical manifestation presented a real problem for him. Charlie was no longer being photographed. Rickets produces appearance changes, like head size and shape. The legs will also start to change once the child starts walking. It becomes difficult for the bones to carry the weight of the upright child and the leg joints will start to bend; sometimes outward and sometimes turning inward. Tooth development and tooth enamel quality are impacted. There were no recent pictures of Charlie. Perhaps this is why. Dr. VanIngen did say that he had trouble getting Charlie to stand upright to measure him.
Rickets, no recent photographs, trouble standing upright, plus a special diet. Putting all this together creates a "picture" of Charlie that would not sit well with a eugenicist father.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 12, 2017 11:22:53 GMT -5
I was reposting Bookrefuge's excellent post, that particular point which I do agree with. Before considering your question, what other illness are you talking about that CALjr wasn't already being treated for, ie. rickets?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 12, 2017 11:49:54 GMT -5
I wasn't suggesting he killed his son because he was speculating there was something wrong only that I don't believe for a minute if CAL would release info about any sort of degenerative disease. God Lord, the Morrow family didn't turn out to be what I'm sure he thought they were. You're a RN I'm assuming. Have you looked at any differential diagnoses? Rickets can be caused by conditions not related to Vitamin D deficiencies. You're right about children in the 1920's. I thought your post was very well thought out presented so well I just don't agree. As a nurse, what would you worry about if you were treating a pt. 7 months pregnant and carried off a plane and hospitalized after a 14 hour high altitude flight? Every nurse I've asked has, at the least looked horrified. Before I was licensed I worked as a MSW In a medical center and covered NICU as well as postpartum units. Completed half of a 3 yr nursing program so I was interested in the medical aspects of pt.care not just psychosocial aspects. Lots of nurses in my family ( mom, daughter and 7 aunts). You have my respect.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 12, 2017 11:59:07 GMT -5
Amy, Lindbergh may not have liked the fact that his child was affected by rickets, and I believe that's a pretty fair assumption. But it had been medically recognized and he was being treated for it in a parentally responsible way. Would a case of rickets, a disease so commonplace back then, have been so unacceptable to the point where he would consider killing his own son, even when his physical and mental development was normal? And this then staged through a 'world event' kidnapping? Where did the private, secretive and anti-social Lindbergh suddenly disappear?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 12, 2017 12:03:45 GMT -5
Sorry for the confusion Kate, it wasn't my post. It was a repost of Bookrefuge's original post that I felt was extremely well researched, thought out and explained.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 12, 2017 12:15:40 GMT -5
I was reposting Bookrefuge's excellent post, that particular point which I do agree with. Before considering your question, what other illness are you talking about that CALjr wasn't already being treated for, ie. rickets? For example, any of the birth defects that may have manifested as the result of less-than-ideal conditions the expectant mother was subjected to in pursuit of altitude and speed flying records sought by the father...
Italics mine... would rickets have been significant enough to warrant a trip to the Rockefeller Institute?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 12, 2017 13:47:21 GMT -5
I think a kidnapping planned by CAL would have allowed the baby either treated or euthanized and Anne would never have known.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 13, 2017 8:58:04 GMT -5
but amy regardless of the rickets theres no proof that he killed his son, and if he did, he would have had to know Hauptman because all the evidence was discovered pointing to him. anybody that thinks Lindbergh did it is out of there minds
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 20:58:06 GMT -5
but amy regardless of the rickets theres no proof that he killed his son, and if he did, he would have had to know Hauptman because all the evidence was discovered pointing to him. anybody that thinks Lindbergh did it is out of there minds Just so we are clear: 1) I don't think Lindbergh killed his son. That is Ahlgren and Monier's theory, not mine. 2) I do not believe that Lindbergh solicited, hired or organized the persons who took Charlie and killed him. That is why nothing will trace back to CAL, including Hauptmann. 3) I am just as sane as you are.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 13, 2017 23:22:07 GMT -5
I'm with Amy on this. Lindbergh didn't kill his son, and had nothing to do with those who did--but what's so "nutty" about the prospect of him being involved? I've said it before, I'll say it again: The crime scene is ridiculously phony and staged, in that there's this breadcrumb trail of evidence gifted to police. Who in that house had the power to stage things and take control of the investigation, steering police away from anyone in the house? And who wound up doing that very thing? And this is setting aside the vague and differing versions of events Lindbergh gave to police, the fact that the police were very suspicious of him from the start, and the general statistics of parental involvement when a child goes missing. So we have means and opportunity covered, and as for motive: I don't know what CAL Jr. had, but I do know that Anne went flying when she was seven months pregnant with him and had to be carried off the plane, that there are no photos--none--of that child in the months leading up to the kidnapping, and that his bones were so soft after death that the skull came apart "like an orange peel" during the autopsy.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 14, 2017 14:10:08 GMT -5
You are presuming, perhaps unjustifiably, that the corpse was that of Charlie. We have discussed this several times before on these threads, but I'll say it again: the overlapping toes on the right foot of the corpse were NOT the same as the overlapping toes on the right foot in the living Charlie, as specifically mentioned in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to grandma Morrow. So either the autopsy report or the Van Ingen letter were in error, or the corpse was not that of CAL Jr. That discrepancy by itself throws a huge monkey wrench into your assumption that the corpse was that of CAL Jr.
Furthermore, even if for the sake of argument we stipulate that it was the corpse of Charlie, the softness of the skull could have been a postmortem change brought on by prolonged exposure of the corpse to the environment in which it was located.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 14, 2017 14:47:26 GMT -5
The corpse was that of CAL Jr. And all things being equal, bones don't get mushy after death; they get dry and brittle, skeletons--even exposed ones--remaining extant and rigid for centuries. And even setting the body aside, how do you explain the rest of the points (the phoniness of the crime scene, Lindbergh taking charge of things with no experience in that field, his lies to LE, and on and on)?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 15, 2017 8:48:00 GMT -5
that's good kate I thought you were on the other railroad track. they say im not to sane sometimes
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 15, 2017 8:48:51 GMT -5
I meant amy
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 15, 2017 10:03:32 GMT -5
The corpse was that of CAL Jr. And all things being equal, bones don't get mushy after death; they get rigid, skeletons--even exposed ones--remaining extant and rigid for centuries. And even setting the body aside, how do you explain the rest of the points (the phoniness of the crime scene, Lindbergh taking charge of things with no experience in that field, his lies to LE, and on and on)? I don't think there was enough evidence to rule out the possibility that the corpse could have been that of another child, who also had rickets. No one here, it seems, has addressed the discrepancy in the right overlapping toes between the corpse (as per the autopsy) and the living Charlie (as per Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow). Furthermore, Dr. Van Ingen refused to make a legal identification of the body as CAL Jr., despite the intense pressure he was under to do so.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 15, 2017 10:24:19 GMT -5
Producing a body solves the problem that if the real CALjr has been institutionalized or relocated overseas, it reduces suspicion of the child. "He kinda looks like that Lindbergh kid, but it couldn't be - he was found dead wasn't he?"
Since the public never saw pictures more recent than when he was a little over a year old, who knows what he looked like at 20+months? The public was fixated on the image in the wanted poster, and how old were those images?
One wonders if the ransom payment delay was due to difficulties finding a body that was close enough in appearance to double for CALjr. Convenient that both hands are missing to preclude fingerprints; maybe the other foot had to go because it wasn't consistent with the real CALjr either like it had something like a healed break, etc that would've made the substitution obvious.
Ellis Parker didn't believe the corpse was the real CALjr so it isn't as farfetched as some of the other inconsistencies...
Hurtelable - what do you think happened to the real CALjr?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 15, 2017 11:22:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 15, 2017 13:05:54 GMT -5
There were no reports of another child going missing, and the odds of another child wearing the shirt Betty Gow made for CAL Jr. the night he disappeared seem pretty slim. We do see overlapping toes in the photos of the body, though not quite as described in Van Ingen's letter. Maybe he made a mistake or was misremembering.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 15, 2017 13:39:25 GMT -5
Playing Devil's advocate, if you're going to the trouble to substitute a body, how much more trouble is it to dress it with the flannel/t-shirt to be more convincing?
I've always thought that if CJ wanted to prove possession of the baby, why not offer the obviously homemade flannel versus the generic Dr Denton... unless you don't have the baby and you're willing to take the chance of guessing the right size/version of the sleeping suit and going out and buying one as proof.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 15, 2017 14:20:31 GMT -5
The flannel shirt Betty made was a very unique thing. This was found with the body in the woods. The Dr. Denton sleeping suit was another matter: First, the $50K ransom was a dummy figure, a number pulled out of a hat to lend the whole thing that much more authenticity as a kidnapping. But, though they would've had to have been paid upfront, the "kidnappers" went rogue, going for that extra $50K by treating the whole thing as a real kidnapping (sending more ransom notes, selecting a go-between, etc.). Condon was used for this purpose as a pawn, approached by the kidnappers to act as a go-between--someone who Lindbergh would have no choice but to give that extra $50K to, to then pass on to the kidnappers. The kidnappers go to Condon and ask for his help in returning CAL Jr. to his parents. Condon agrees, and they "establish" communication with each other: Condon will place an open letter in the newspaper, offering himself as a go-between, an offer which the kidnappers will accept by sending Condon a communique with the same symbol as seen in the nursery note, thereby certifying him as being in touch with the actual kidnappers. Condon first meets CJ at Woodlawn, and finds out there that CAL Jr. is, in fact, dead. At that point, it's imperative that Condon make sure that the kidnappers get their money, so they will go away and not reveal his true involvement with them (that he was in touch with them earlier than he claimed, that it wasn't a matter of him simply offering himself as a go-between). To make sure of this and maintain the idea that he is legitimately negotiating for the return of a live child, he tells CJ to mail CAL Jr.'s sleeping suit to him, as the best possible proof that CAL Jr. is still alive. It is retrieved off the body, but due to decomposition and exposure, it is unusable as proof CAL Jr. is alive. They need another sleeping suit, which was relayed to Lindbergh. He takes another suit from the house--the one CAL Jr. was first wearing the night he disappeared, but which he had spat up on, was changed out of, and which was washed and hung up to dry by Betty (hence the suit's brownish-yellow stains and its laundered appearance when it arrived at Condon's in the mail).
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 16, 2017 5:24:33 GMT -5
What happened to the diapers?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 16, 2017 13:59:28 GMT -5
I don't think with Lindbergh's ego, he would have wanted to portray himself as an idiot to the world as the one who. without knowing what was the message inside the first ransom note, called the police. It seems that if he knew those instructions were in that note he'd have his cohort Betty not find the Baby and quickly check with Anne, then run to a phone and get in touch with the police because the baby was missing.
People have said for all these years that Lindbergh may have actually killed Charlie by calling the police, and that may be true, but if the contrived plot which is being suggested here was correct, it would seem the instigator would have handled it differently - more approving of himself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2017 10:55:24 GMT -5
I think this is a great join-the-dots exercise, but do you really believe Condon would ever have even entertained being part of a scheme like this? Going through all of the phony motions, pursuing CJ with his own savings, having been able to endure Inspector Harry Walsh, falsely accusing CJ, writing a book about his experiences and joining the lecture circuit? It is predictable fallout from the belief that Lindbergh would somehow scheme to eliminate his first born son though, but that's another story. I find it amazing how effectively the "Evil Condon" 'dripping tap' has been working throughout the years. We now have, courtesy of a couple of discussion boards, a totally surrealistic image of John Condon, manufactured entirely for the benefit of shoehorning him into this kind of a role, one that essentially contradicts his documented character and the public record. Certainly he was long-winded and liked to see his name in print, but he was also a very caring and family and community-oriented individual with a long list of humanitarian interests and achievements, so why not consider the complete picture here? IMHO, you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong universe here.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 18, 2017 11:25:26 GMT -5
Barring new information, I don't think Condon was a bad guy. I think he had an altruistic nature, in part because he enjoyed the limelight, and that this was exploited. He liked being the hero and regarded himself as a supreme do-gooder, and saw the ultimate opportunity for that here, only realizing once it was too late what he had allowed himself to become involved in. At that point, he was forced to lie all over the place, and cover his (and others') tracks. I mean, come on: He puts his go-between offer in this tiny little paper--a glorified newsletter really--and the kidnappers see it as quickly as they do and bother to respond? How was that not prearranged, i.e. the kidnappers knew to be on the lookout for it because they and Condon worked something out and had therefore been in contact beforehand?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 19, 2017 7:19:53 GMT -5
Condon was in an unusual situation, given the national stature of the crime, the secret negotiations and the level of control Lindbergh and Breckinridge had over the case during the first 72 days. He wasn't directly reporting to investigators at all times and when he did, much of it would have been filtered first through his interaction with Lindbergh and Breckinridge. Considering his age, eccentric nature, and love of the limelight, I can understand why ultimately his message wasn't clear at all times. From the time he first offered himself as an intermediary, his main intention was to be of service to Lindbergh whom he regarded a true American hero as well as his own, even if it meant being a hindrance to law enforcement at times. That may be too much of a corny sentiment for some here, but it also doesn't mean it's not the truth, and Condon never waivered from that position. Just what are the odds that Condon and Hauptmann would end up living just over 3 miles apart from each other in the Bronx? Pretty slim, but I'd say they're a lot greater than the odds Condon would have ever become mixed up in a scheme to eliminate Charles Lindbergh's son.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 19, 2017 21:01:31 GMT -5
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think Condon willingly became mixed up in a scheme to eliminate Lindbergh's son. I think he was approached by the kidnappers, who needed a pawn--someone that Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the $50K "ransom" to, to then pass onto them. Being Bronx-based (hence Hauptmann living near Condon and the cemeteries), the kidnappers knew (or knew of) Condon and his penchant for the limelight, that he would willingly act as a go-between if it meant being the one to put the baby in Anne Lindbergh's arms when the time came. In short, they lied to him, telling him that the child was still alive. He wouldn't have gotten involved if he'd known otherwise, but he found out subsequently--probably at Woodlawn, after he was already involved and it was too late to back out--that CAL Jr. was actually dead. Why didn't he just come out and say so? Because, as I said above, Condon was afraid that his true involvement with the kidnappers would then come to light--that he had been in touch with them earlier than he claimed, that they approached him and he didn't immediately turn them in because he wanted to play the hero, and was going to accept money from them (that $20K addition to the "ransom"). To sum up, Condon was duped by the kidnappers, and once he found out, had no choice but to try to cover their tracks and his own. One of the ways he did this was by removing his $20K fee from circulation: He couldn't accept it since it was now blood money, and that portion also contained the largest and most traceable bills.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 20, 2017 3:46:26 GMT -5
Condon didn't remove the $ 20K from the ransom package. True he maybe suggested to the kidnapper (there was only one Cemetery John) that CAL couldn't afford $ 70K, but Charles was sitting right in the car when Condon only took away the $ 50K, and if Charles was determined to do as the kidnappers wished, per his testimony, he would have directed Jafsie to give him the whole seventy.
The case is really hard to believe, but unpredictable for logical reasons. As far as Charles Lindbergh goes, he felt that not only was he the most popular man in the world, but was also the most intelligent. That's why he didn't talk much. Why put your foot in your mouth? When he got snookered by a pretty simple, not only predictable but predicted crime, it had to have been terribly humbling. In some cases he just acted as if he didn't want the crime to have happened and acted as if it didn't. So, especially his first decisions after 3/1/32, were unthoughtout, from the hip so to speak, and in some cases pretty quickly changed. Not opening the envelope because of the weak (and could be overcome by gloves) excuse of disturbing fingerprints. Calling the police without finding out instructions on note. Not allowing the press on his property, then allowing them all on, then not allowing them on. Changing go-betweens for the ransom delivery three (4?) times. Not putting the money together quickly - in fact missing having cash by the first appointment.
The above (Condon observation) is misleading and secondly is using things as evidence which have absolutely no basis in reality. It's hard to believe that JFC would really have thought that the newspaper ad would bring on the kidnapper to him. But it did. And sure the crime would have been much easier to accomplish with inside assistance, but what's been stated even many times on this subject board, is that the crime has been studied by the high and low of whizzes, and they haven't come up with any proof of accomplices (in over eighty years) so why assume that as fact now? It does appear that CJ had a cohort at each of the cemetery meetings, but there's no proof of that.
Especially to take the Lindbergh and Morrow families who still have many living relatives and drag their names through the dirt pretty severely is probably, or at least close to criminal. I think if I was a Lindbergh or Morrow I'd start a few lawsuits in hopes of shutting some loudmouths or loud keyboards up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2017 7:20:21 GMT -5
Condon didn't remove the $ 20K from the ransom package. True he maybe suggested to the kidnapper (there was only one Cemetery John) that CAL couldn't afford $ 70K, but Charles was sitting right in the car when Condon only took away the $ 50K, and if Charles was determined to do as the kidnappers wished, per his testimony, he would have directed Jafsie to give him the whole seventy. First comment is we don't know how many Cemetery John's there were. If we take into consideration an independent witness, CJ at Woodlawn certainly wasn't Hauptmann. So if it was Hauptmann at St. Raymond's then there's two. We cannot trust anything Condon says. Could it be true? Sure. But if we believe everything he said we're dividing by zero because he contradicted himself so many times. Next, Condon WAS to blame for the removal of that 20K. That's by his own statements and Lindbergh's. Whether or not Lindbergh himself removed it (which he should have over-ruled) doesn't matter when it concerns Condon's admission it was HIS idea. When was the first time the Bronx came into the picture? And so I would submit Condon knew his letter would be responded to. Next, there is absolutely proof of an "accomplice" at both cemeteries. This fact went all the way into the Grand Jury testimonies and it wasn't until the Lone-Wolf position that it all disappeared.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 20, 2017 8:30:48 GMT -5
The biggest issue that faced Lindbergh, after his son was kidnapped, was himself. Realizing what had just taken place, he immediately wanted to take full responsibility in having his son returned in a single-minded mission, something he felt was his specialty. Of course, this didn't involve flying the Pacific or Great Circle or building something new and amazing. He now had to count almost entirely on his abilities to deal with many different people and personalities interactively and somehow he must have felt he was capable of marshaling their collective force to a successful conclusion. And even when he knowingly kept these relationships so highly compartmentalized.
Ultimately, Lindbergh was totally naive within this belief. He had a totally misguided perception that through his past accomplishments, these same people would somehow align themselves with him, everyone faithfully. To begin with, he was ill-prepared to be a father and had limited skills in negotiation much beyond being able to sell his barnstorming services or the concept of a single person flight to Paris. But he felt compelled to show the world he was capable of succeeding in this totally new area of personal endeavour, almost to the point where his returned son would have been perceived as some kind of new and shining trophy. His first actions doomed him to failure immediately and this was the event that began his downward spiral into the role of tragic hero.
Someone.. Anne was not strong enough at the time, perhaps Breckinridge, Mrs. Morrow or a trusted friend, needed to reason logically and emotionally with him in a quiet room and allow the investigation to proceed with only his assistance. Would he have listened? Maybe, but we'll never really know. There would still have been challenges between the competing law enforcement agencies, but perhaps one of them would have been able to rise up and guide the investigation to a successful conclusion, long before now.
Jack, I understand what you're saying about the issue of libel and slander. Can anyone really imagine what would be worse? Losing your first-born son to a mind, or minds, quite literally bordering on the demonic, or as a family, having to endure over 85 years of having this unfortunate child picked apart for potential, "infanticide-inducing illnesses" and the resulting level of innuendo and accusations towards his father?
This case needs to get back on the right track and in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 20, 2017 9:08:34 GMT -5
You may be surprised to know that the Bronx Home News was not the "tiny little paper" some people think it was. At the time of the Condon piece, it's circulation was about 150,000, which is far beyond a "glorified newsletter." Yes, it was distributed almost exclusively to residents of the Bronx, but the Bronx, if it were a city to itself, would have ranked in the top 10 in population in the country. Just for some perspective, that 150,000 circulation figure would be more than 1% of the national population at the time, and considering that many copies were read by 2 or more people, you can estimate that maybe 2% or more of the national population would have seen Condon's front page article, and a much higher percentage than that when you consider only the middle Atlantic Coast, where the crime took place.
BTW, the Bronx Home News was financially stable enough to last for 41 years (1907-1948). It didn't just fade into the sunset at the end of that time frame, but rather was bought up by and merged into the New York Post. which is the oldest continuously-published newspaper in the United States today.
|
|