Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 21:56:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 23, 2014 3:55:17 GMT -5
Very nice Amy, he looks like a normal toddler in these videos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 9:24:52 GMT -5
Thanks. Watching those videos I was struck the same way. He appears to be a normal toddler. He is active, inquisitive and responsive to the people around him. He even gives a very firm 'No' by shaking his head in one of those videos. So very toddler-like. LOL. I believe these videos are all from the spring and into possibly September of 1931. Then nothing. It is very strange. When Charlie was kidnapped no other images of him were made available. Nothing current. I know that Anne in her diary laments about not having any pictures that show Charlie as he was in 1932. Why no more pictures??? No videos that I can find either. If the family has anything at all past the fall of 1931 they have chosen not to share any of it publicly. All the books published by and about this family yield no photographic images of Charlie either beyond 1931. I know that the Lindberghs wanted to put this whole kidnapping/trial behind them permanently to the point that it would not be discussed anymore. I found a newspaper article mentioning this: news.google.com/newspapers?id=jr9RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=l1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2415%2C1750568In Reeve's book, Under A Wing, she mentions that Charlie's siblings knew nothing about their oldest brother until confronted by outsiders about it. Even after that it was a subject that was more or less not to be discussed. Scott Lindbergh talks about this in an article from 1977: news.google.com/newspapers?id=9IhPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ogUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7106%2C1204123People deal with the loss of a loved one in many ways. It must be so much harder when you are very famous people who do not want to share emotions publicly. Better just to close it out entirely, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 23, 2014 15:44:04 GMT -5
Thank you for the videos, Amy. They are wonderful. I worked for many years with developmentally disabled children, and I think I can say that there was absolutely nothing wrong with this little boy. I wonder how many times those drapes ended up in his crib. LOL
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Sept 23, 2014 18:09:57 GMT -5
Thanks Amy35..great footage. I tried to stop the film to take a better look at Charlie Jr.'s ears. I wasn't able to stop it. I agree, Charlie was a playful, healthy child. Just a couple of rickety toes. Lack of Vitamin D was reversed with a hell of a lot of sunshine. All animals gravitated towards Charlie Jr., that is for sure!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2014 20:08:52 GMT -5
Thanks. Watching those videos I was struck the same way. He appears to be a normal toddler. He is active, inquisitive and responsive to the people around him. He even gives a very firm 'No' by shaking his head in one of those videos. So very toddler-like. LOL. I believe these videos are all from the spring and into possibly September of 1931. Then nothing. It is very strange. When Charlie was kidnapped no other images of him were made available. Nothing current. I know that Anne in her diary laments about not having any pictures that show Charlie as he was in 1932. Why no more pictures??? No videos that I can find either. I've always been struck by the size of his head in comparison with the rest of his body. In some shots the size of his chest too seems unusually large. The rest of his body is disproportionate, and this fact is also noted in VanIngen's letter although I don't think anyone needs to read that to see it. Regardless, I think what is most notable to me is he is outdoors on a sunny day, and it appears to me this wasn't an unusual event. Noting that everything went "dark," that is, the fact no more pictures or movies coincide with his "Rickets" diagnosis seems to indicate his ventures outside ceases, or his body isn't getting the Vitamin D regardless of his exposure to sunlight. The next thing we know he's taking mega doses of viosterol in addition to being exposed to the sunlamp to the point where it's noticed by VanIngen that his skin over his entire body was unusually dry. This in addition to a near perfect diet which in all likelihood existed his entire life.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 24, 2014 4:07:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 8:55:14 GMT -5
Thank you for the videos, Amy. They are wonderful. I worked for many years with developmentally disabled children, and I think I can say that there was absolutely nothing wrong with this little boy. I wonder how many times those drapes ended up in his crib. LOL Charlie does go after those drapes agressively. LOL. You say that you worked for many years with developmentally disabled children. Can I ask you what type of disabilities these children had? Did any of the children have rickets?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 9:01:07 GMT -5
Thanks Amy35..great footage. I tried to stop the film to take a better look at Charlie Jr.'s ears. I wasn't able to stop it. I agree, Charlie was a playful, healthy child. Just a couple of rickety toes. Lack of Vitamin D was reversed with a hell of a lot of sunshine. All animals gravitated towards Charlie Jr., that is for sure!! I didn't realize these videos couldn't be stopped during viewing. The videos do give us a better look at Charlie's physical appearance, especially his head and hair. Charlie's hairline is quite irregular. Could it be that the lack of vitamin D affects hairgrowth and hair retention?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 9:06:12 GMT -5
These are excellent points and need to be taken into consideration when examining and discussing Charlie's rickets. I am currently looking at the possibility of Charlie's rickets being congential so I am glad you mentioned it!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 24, 2014 10:04:15 GMT -5
I wonder if congenital rickets would cause the skull to come apart like it did during the autopsy. Could the rickets have been that bad? Also, could rickets (or rickety symptoms) be caused by prenatal exposure to carbon monoxide/lack of oxygen (Anne's high-altitude flights while pregnant)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 10:20:42 GMT -5
Dr. VanIngen does say "very tall and unusually well developed child for his age." When you look at growth charts for toddlers, Charlie's height and weight at 20 months puts him in the normal range of a 24 month old. So it would seem that Charlie is growing well. However, I don't have any other record of his physical growth to compare it with to see if this is a normal height and weight developement pattern for Charlie or not. Being able to look at his pattern of developement would certainly be helpful. Do you think that Charlie's ususual development is due to his enlarged head and chest making him taller and heavier? Are children with rickets normally in higher percentiles of developement than normal children? I also wanted to ask you about the Dr. VanIngen letter. If you are able to share anything about this letter, I would like to know when it was discovered and by whom? Is this the actual letter or is this a typed copy of the letter Dr. VanIngen sent to Mrs. Morrow? I am asking because VanIngen's signature is not on this typed letter. I know we discussed Charlie's diet on another thread somewhere. The diet Dr. VanIngen describes in his letter is not the diet Anne Lindbergh gave out to the newspapers after the kidnapping as being Charlie's current diet. The two diets are quite different. Which diet do you think he was actually on? Just one or both? I have been looking into the possibility that Charlie's rickets could have been congential. When reading about the life of Dwight Morrow Sr. you come to learn about his fragile health when he was a baby and how it was felt that the cod liver oil he was given probably helped to save his life. Morrow was also prone to headaches from the time he was a young child. Looking over pictures of Dwight Sr. I have wondered if he might have had a mild case of rickets as a boy. With all the research you have been doing, have you considered a form of congential rickets being the cause of Charlie's rickets? Or possibly a form of genetic rickets? Here is a link to this type of rickets: ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/hereditary-hypophosphatemic-rickets
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 24, 2014 13:45:27 GMT -5
Bear in mind that the NORMAL human's head length, as a proportion of total body length, goes down from about 1/4 at birth to 1/8 at adult height. There are charts in pediatrics textbooks which indicate what this percentage should be as a function of age.
Can you please post a copy of Dr. Van Ingen's letter re Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2014 20:22:52 GMT -5
I also wanted to ask you about the Dr. VanIngen letter. If you are able to share anything about this letter, I would like to know when it was discovered and by whom? Is this the actual letter or is this a typed copy of the letter Dr. VanIngen sent to Mrs. Morrow? I am asking because VanIngen's signature is not on this typed letter. Although the hand written letter is not at the Archives, I've found no reason not to believe it's a copy of the original. Van Ingen is referenced in more then one source as saying he wrote that letter after "they" asked him to send the baby's measurements, and/or identifying marks. The diet seems to be his suggestion at the time the letter was written (May 4, 1932). With all the research you have been doing, have you considered a form of congential rickets being the cause of Charlie's rickets? Or possibly a form of genetic rickets? I've probably considered everything. I've consulted so many people with expertise who gave me varying "guesses" that it makes my head spin thinking about it. So many things can cause so many symptoms. Rickets could be just rickets, cause by a simple lack of Vitamin D in one's diet. Or there could be another underlying problem like some forms of Kidney Disease or Liver Diseases. If you just start here it goes on and on and on: www.rightdiagnosis.com/sym/vitamin_d_malabsorption.htmThe bottom line is if Medical Experts can't say for 100% sure then there's no way I could ever say either. And if I guessed what does that mean? I have my strong suspicions, in fact, I believe he probably suffered from more then one malady. Can you please post a copy of Dr. Van Ingen's letter re Charlie? From Ronelle's site again, since she's already uploaded it: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/vaningen.pdf
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Sept 24, 2014 20:42:04 GMT -5
Hurtable and all...Don't forget to compare the VanIngen letter to the death certificate. Please be open to the fact that I believe this information is relating characteristics about two separate children ..Charlie Jr. and the corpse that replaced him. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 24, 2014 21:19:02 GMT -5
don't agree amie, im satisfied that the baby was in fact Charles jr. theres to many Lindbergh babys I knew kennith kerwin and the other one who was famous forgot his name. they didn't play with a full deck
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Sept 25, 2014 8:01:37 GMT -5
don't agree amie, im satisfied that the baby was in fact Charles jr. theres to many Lindbergh babys I knew kennith kerwin and the other one who was famous forgot his name. they didn't play with a full deck Aimee, I guess that could mean we are insane....lol
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 25, 2014 9:28:14 GMT -5
not insane, mislead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 12:12:14 GMT -5
Hurtable and all...Don't forget to compare the VanIngen letter to the death certificate. Please be open to the fact that I believe this information is relating characteristics about two separate children ..Charlie Jr. and the corpse that replaced him. Thanks. View AttachmentAimee, Do you have access to fingerprints of your Dad? Perhaps his military records or his dog tags might yield something. On Ronelle's website she has a picture of Charlie's fingerprints that were lifted by Dr. Hudson in March 1932 from the Hopewell house. Here is a link to that picture: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/babyprint.jpgThese prints are probably still there. If you have any prints of your Dad's you could compare the two. I think, but am not entirely sure, this was done by Harold Olson who believed he was Charles Lindbergh Jr. Just an idea. I know that the DNA thing didn't work out for you.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 25, 2014 13:12:44 GMT -5
The most stunning differences between the description of Charlie in Dr. Van Ingen's letter and the description of the baby found in the woods on the autopsy report are the toe deformities. Dr. Van Ingen mentions the smallest toes (anatomically, the fifth toes) on each foot overlapping the next toes (anatomically, the fourth toes). By contrast, the autopsy report states that on the one foot of the corpse that was recovered, the big toe (anatomically, the first toe) was overlapped by the toe next to it (anatomically, the second toe) and partially by the toe next to that (anatomically, the third toe). In the living Charlie, the deformities involved the LATERAL toes bilaterally; while in the recovered body, the deformities involved the MEDIAL toes (on the one foot that remained). As I said, a stunning discrepancy. If both Dr. Van Ingen's description and the autopsy report are accurate, this is definitely NOT the same child!!!
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 25, 2014 13:35:41 GMT -5
so your saying that the father and betty gow and the shirt with the blue thread dosnt mean nothing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 14:41:53 GMT -5
The most stunning differences between the description of Charlie in Dr. Van Ingen's letter and the description of the baby found in the woods on the autopsy report are the toe deformities. Dr. Van Ingen mentions the smallest toes (anatomically, the fifth toes) on each foot overlapping the next toes (anatomically, the fourth toes). By contrast, the autopsy report states that on the one foot of the corpse that was recovered, the big toe (anatomically, the first toe) was overlapped by the toe next to it (anatomically, the second toe) and partially by the toe next that (anatomically, the third toe). In the living Charlie, the deformities involved the LATERAL toes bilaterally; while in the recovered body, the deformities involved the MEDIAL toes (on the one foot that remained). As I said, a stunning discrepancy. If both Dr. Van Ingen's description and the autopsy report are accurate, this is definitely NOT the same child!!! Like you, I was wondering how Charlie and this corspe could be the same baby because of the condition of the toes on the right foot. Then I found this written note by Dr. VanIngen stating that the toes also match to Charlie's right foot. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. This note was written on May 13th, 1932 on Dr. Swayze's letterhead. Just thought you would want to know about this. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/viosterol.html
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 25, 2014 14:43:37 GMT -5
It comes down to a question of honesty, integrity, and character. Who would you trust more, knowing what we now know about them, Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., or Dr. Van Ingen and the autopsy report writer (Dr. Mitchell?)?
Betty Gow was in a position where she could easily be blackmailed into following her boss's orders, like identifying the body as that of little Charlie or even placing a piece of her flannel with thread on the discovered body as a ruse to justify that false identification. And Lindbergh showed no desire to hurry home to ID what was supposedly his son's body, he waited until late the next day. What the devious Lindbergh may well have wanted was any dead child's body to be ID'd as Charlie, to end the public drama and get the case out of the public spotlight, while knowing all along that his real son was either dead or institutionalized.
On the other hand, no one has ever suspected Dr. Van Ingen to play any tricks, and in fact, he refused to identify the body at the funeral home as that of his patient, Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.. In refusing to do so under the circumstances, he showed his courage and integrity by going against the flow.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Sept 25, 2014 15:05:21 GMT -5
so your saying that the father and betty gow and the shirt with the blue thread dosnt mean nothing? Romeo, not too long ago I posted a newspaper article that stated from the "ME" that Betty Gow was alone when she ID'ed the body! CAL was not with her. Here is the article....it was the undertaker not ME.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 25, 2014 20:06:12 GMT -5
I have a gut feeling that the note written by Dr. Van Ingen on Swayze's letterhead (recall that Swayze was NOT a doctor; he was the county mortician) was kind of coerced upon him by some government official who was extremely upset that he could not positively identify the body. So Van Ingen hurriedly wrote that he could not identify the body, but that the overlapping toes on the right foot were consistent with what he remembered. But in doing so, he did not specify which toes were involved in the overlapping. As it turns out, based on his earlier letter to Mrs. Morrow, the overlapping toes on the right foot of CAL Jr. were different from the overlapping toes on the body. Thus if the Van Ingen letter to Mrs. Morrow was truthful and accurate, the decomposed corpse found in the woods was NOT that of CAL Jr,
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 25, 2014 20:18:38 GMT -5
To babyinthecrib:
Interesting little article. Perhaps CAL Sr. arrived belatedly and unexpectedly at the Swayze location and did ID the body in a perfunctory manner. At least he made an appearance there, according to all the histories of the events I've seen. Nevertheless, the seeming lack of interest on the part of Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., in viewing the body hints at the theory that he knew beforehand that it was someone else's child, not his.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 25, 2014 21:37:12 GMT -5
Thank you for the videos, Amy. They are wonderful. I worked for many years with developmentally disabled children, and I think I can say that there was absolutely nothing wrong with this little boy. I wonder how many times those drapes ended up in his crib. LOL Charlie does go after those drapes agressively. LOL. You say that you worked for many years with developmentally disabled children. Can I ask you what type of disabilities these children had? Did any of the children have rickets? I worked in Hospital Services (Isolation Unit) and the Nursery. We cared for children with many different syndromes. I don't remember that any were being treated for rickets. There were children whose disability resulted from a lack of an enzyme allowing them to process a certain protein in milk. This resulted in a serious condition known as PKU. By the time it was discovered in the child, it was too late. Now, every newborn is tested for this. It doesn't happen any longer. (Thank God.) Even though Charlie's head was a little on the large side, it doesn't exhibit the characteristics of a child with hydrocephaly. The baby looks bright and aware and ALL boy. How dare his daddy call him , "It."
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 25, 2014 21:40:00 GMT -5
I know she was alone, ask anybody who studied the case a long time they think it was Charlie I will never believe it wasnt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 12:49:55 GMT -5
I have a gut feeling that the note written by Dr. Van Ingen on Swayze's letterhead (recall that Swayze was NOT a doctor; he was the county mortician) was kind of coerced upon him by some government official who was extremely upset that he could not positively identify the body. So Van Ingen hurriedly wrote that he could not identify the body, but that the overlapping toes on the right foot were consistent with what he remembered. But in doing so, he did not specify which toes were involved in the overlapping. As it turns out, based on his earlier letter to Mrs. Morrow, the overlapping toes on the right foot of CAL Jr. were different from the overlapping toes on the body. Thus if the Van Ingen letter to Mrs. Morrow was truthful and accurate, the decomposed corpse found in the woods was NOT that of CAL Jr, So, if I am understanding you correctly you think that pressure was placed upon VanIngen to confirm that Charlie had the same type of overlaping toes on the right foot as existed on the corpse? After all that is part of the reason for this short little note being written. VanIngen confirms the likeness of Charlie to this corpse according to the last physcial examination he did on Charlie. VanIngen does make it clear that he cannot physically identify the corpse as actually being Charlie; he can only confirm that Charlie shared the same physical findings as are apparent on the corpse. I have, and still do, wonder why Mrs. Morrow felt a need to inquire about Charlie's physical condition from head to toes. Charlie lived most of the time at her home. She saw him regularly, knew what he was eating, was there sometimes while he was being bathed and certainly knew what his feet looked like and all the rest of him too. Why would she need to make such an inquiry to begin with???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 13:24:25 GMT -5
Charlie does go after those drapes agressively. LOL. You say that you worked for many years with developmentally disabled children. Can I ask you what type of disabilities these children had? Did any of the children have rickets? I worked in Hospital Services (Isolation Unit) and the Nursery. We cared for children with many different syndromes. I don't remember that any were being treated for rickets. There were children whose disability resulted from a lack of an enzyme allowing them to process a certain protein in milk. This resulted in a serious condition known as PKU. By the time it was discovered in the child, it was too late. Now, every newborn is tested for this. It doesn't happen any longer. (Thank God.) Even though Charlie's head was a little on the large side, it doesn't exhibit the characteristics of a child with hydrocephaly. The baby looks bright and aware and ALL boy. How dare his daddy call him , "It." Thanks for sharing with me about your occupation. The PKU condition you talk about was really quite serious and did much damage to babies. I googled it so I could understand it better. It is a wonderful thing that they can now test babies for this enzyme and begin treatment if needed. I am getting the impression that you don't think that Charlie had rickets. Were you aware that Charlie was being given Viosterol and spending time under a sunlamp? I believe these were standard treatments for Rickets in 1932. Would you know if they were used to treat any other type of disorder at that time? I hear you about calling Charlie 'it'. I don't like it either. Sometimes CAL did find Charlie amusing and was known to call him 'Buster'. You know what I find really telling about Charles relationship with Charlie? Charlie called his Dad 'Hi'. Not Da, not DaDa, just 'Hi'. In Anne Lindbergh's book, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, she mentions this in the last letter to her mother-in-law before the kidnapping. The letter is dated Sunday, February 7, 1932. It is written from the Hopewell house. In it she says "Charles is still "Hi". Perhaps we'd better stop it and get something more dignified." Perhaps this is an attempt by Anne to be humorous but I think it underscores the lack of connection between Charles and his son. Most parents can't wait to hear their child try to say Ma or Da sounds, especially with their first child. Not so in this situation!
|
|