|
Post by stella7 on Oct 6, 2017 13:50:10 GMT -5
Hurt, what makes you think Anne knew?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 6, 2017 15:39:29 GMT -5
Hey Hurt.
First, I think you’re correct that Lindbergh and Anne knew what Betty was up to, since Lindbergh devised the whole thing. I think everyone in the house knew that CAL Jr. was going away that night, but only Lindbergh knew he was going to die. Keeping him in an institution may very well have been what he said was going to happen, but that wasn’t the real plan. I think the baby’s identity would’ve been discovered sooner or later, and if he’s never going to be a normal, healthy adult, to Lindbergh’s eugenicist mind... well, best thing for him is to just put him out of his misery. As to the ladder: I don’t think it was used to take CAL Jr. away, at least not in the way the Lone Wolfers claim. I think someone got in through the front door, as you say, and handed the body off to someone standing on the ladder. So I think the ladder was used to an extent (the impressions in the mud, the positioning, the split rails), just not to climb through the window.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 6, 2017 16:14:56 GMT -5
CAL seemed quite cruel to little Charlie. Were there any instances of him mistreating any of his other kids? I'm also trying to picture what I read about his teeth. They were below the adjacent teeth? That sounds like an odd look. I saw one seemingly older photo of little Charlie on the Nova special where he did look a bit...not quite right? Darling little boy though. I'm not sure which thread to post this next part on but I just finished The Dark Corners which I found incredibly fascinating. One of the things that stood out to me was when CAL wanted to see Red Johnson himself and made a comment about the std, I know this is just a personal opinion but it certainly seemed to me like someone who was jealous. I also saw a YouTube video of Betty pushing Charlie in a stroller and to me, the way she was walking, very much seemed like someone who was trying to get attention from whomever was filming. It looked like she's sashaying her behind to put it bluntly. He could have been having affairs with some of these women, who knows. Men now a days seem to constantly be having affairs with the nanny. The final thing I wanted to say is, I have a nine month old baby and there is not a chance on earth that you could pull him from bed, take him, move him, pick him up without him yelling, screaming or some kind of very loud vocal cue. Even if it's me, his mother. Babies don't like to be startled or woken up so how in the heck did they ever get that baby out without him making a sound? I find that unfathomable. They must have done something to the baby or drugged him in some way. He wouldn't even stand still for the doctor, why would he go quietly into the night even with Betty Gow? Hi, Wendy. I agree with 99% of what lightningjew says, but I don't think the baby was dead before he left the nursery. I DO think he was drugged by Betty Gow when he had his supper. She reportedly told Anne that Charlie had gone to sleep very quickly and was sleeping soundly. What I think happened almost immediately after he fell asleep is only my speculation. I will say that I've doubted he was ever put into his crib. Even the photos taken of the crib that night make me wonder if the bedclothes weren't part of the staging. Welcome to the Board! How did you become interested in this case? Hi Rebecca, I just had a baby so I have a lot of down time in the house doing nothing so I watched the Nova special on Netflix and then read The Case That Never Dies, Hauptmann's Ladder, Cenetary John, Crime of the Century and finally The Dark Corners. I love that Michael put so much factual information together like that. I have further questions about things in the book but I don't know if I'm allowed to ask them here because I'd be giving away stuff in the book. I have a hard time belueving CAL had a hand in it but it also seems like, how could he NOT have had a hand in it. I would think his ego would have had a hard time with this being done under his nose without him having any clue. If we could really prove exactly what was wrong/not wrong with Charlie, that would help clear up a lot. My son has an extraordinarily large head (over 100th percentile for his age) and we had special testing done. They say he's fine, just has a big head so I'm very curious about Charlie's head circumference as well as body size et for his age because those are things I'm very familiar with. I did see a picture online where his head looked very square. I feel like more had to be wrong with him than a moderate rickety condition if he was done away with. Also, he was named after his dad which I would think would make his normality even that much more important. And why on earth would they name their second child Jon, the same name as the kidnap contact! Can't someone do a chemical test on any of Charlie's hair that's been kept?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 6, 2017 17:49:17 GMT -5
Hey Wendy, I, for one, wish they could test CAL Jr.’s remains, but unfortunately, the Lindbergh family removed those items from the NJSP Archives back in 2003, or thereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 6, 2017 18:48:42 GMT -5
Hurt, what makes you think Anne knew? Just a feeling that she showed little or no emotion when informed that the baby was gone; no mention of anything like that reports by police and interviews with the others in the house. Also, years later,sShe describes little or no emotion when she mentions the event very briefly in her memoir. And don't forget Anne Lindbergh was a professional writer. The absence of emotion, as it can be inferred from the written record, is inconsistent with the notion that the removal of her baby boy was shocking to Anne, and consistent with her coming to grips with it before it actually happened. I'm not saying that she approved of it, just that she couldn't overrule her husband.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 6, 2017 19:02:40 GMT -5
That happened with the help of the New Jersey Attorney General, and could not have happened otherwise. Smacks of corruption!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2017 8:08:22 GMT -5
I love that Michael put so much factual information together like that. I have further questions about things in the book but I don't know if I'm allowed to ask them here because I'd be giving away stuff in the book. I have a hard time belueving CAL had a hand in it but it also seems like, how could he NOT have had a hand in it. I would think his ego would have had a hard time with this being done under his nose without him having any clue. The biggest reason I even wrote the book was we could discuss the new facts in it. At Joe's suggestion I added a thread dedicated to its discussion - so by all means bring up whatever you like!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 7, 2017 15:36:37 GMT -5
That happened with the help of the New Jersey Attorney General, and could not have happened otherwise. Smacks of corruption! The favoritism continues.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 27, 2017 8:54:03 GMT -5
hi stella ann knew nothing her poor child was murdered. you people are bad detectives. I see nothing but absurd comments that would be laughed out of debate rooms. im still trying to figure out why sue Campbell is barred from this board. she gave 20 years of great research and gave a lot of authors new info on the case. don't understand it
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 27, 2017 10:25:32 GMT -5
I miss Sue Campbell's contributions as well. She very generously e-mailed some documents to mea few years ago.
Since we debate everything else here, I don't think Anne should be off limits. We tend to put both Anne and Anna on a pedestal.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Oct 27, 2017 13:32:45 GMT -5
And you can also see that something is wrong with him when he tries to crawl. Look at his eyes - they bulge. And his movements are choppy. He can't crawl correctly. just a question from this non-parent: does he really have difficulty or could it be it just looks strange because of old video technology? you know how old time films run at a different rate/speed than the current technology.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 27, 2017 16:48:14 GMT -5
As a grandparent I can say that his crawling is funny but normal. My grandaughter stuck one leg out just the same way. He looks normal in these videos to me.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 27, 2017 16:57:41 GMT -5
ilovedfw, did your dad work for Mr. and Mrs. Woods who owned White Cloud Farm? They were favorite customers of both my dad(manager of LaVake Jewelers) and my father-in-law(owner of Hill's Market) both in Princeton.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Oct 28, 2017 20:16:36 GMT -5
Consider that everyone in the Lindbergh household corroborated each other's conflicting stories. If one accepts for a moment for the sake of argument that the entire household is lying then anything about the household's story is up for scrutiny. Then there would be no reason to have any outsider enter the nursery. And then the theory that the nursery is wiped clean and devoid of fingerprints points away from one insider cleaning after the abduction to the simple explanation that nobody occupied the nursery since the last Lindbergh visit (and presumed after cleaning).
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 30, 2017 8:40:38 GMT -5
hi stella I cant see anne Lindbergh being involved at all. these people on this board and the other jump to different people with no evidence at all.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Nov 26, 2017 0:05:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 26, 2017 7:35:25 GMT -5
I believe this discussion came up a while ago and people sort of agreed it was Jon, not CJr. Just mislabeled.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 26, 2017 9:49:42 GMT -5
This is one of the mistakes on this page. That isn't CJr. and the picture below it is Betty Gow not Violet Sharp. As the page indicates, Ho-age was originally in NYC then moved to LA. He was in possession of many things that the Governor had entrusted to him as part of his re-investigation into this case. I believe this discussion came up a while ago and people sort of agreed it was Jon, not CJr. Just mislabeled. Actually this is a picture sent in to the Governor from someone who thought this was CJr. There were many of photos like this from people who saw the resemblance and/or had a story not unlike the one from HRO. These poor kids had adults telling them they were CJr. so they grew up believing it. In fact, there was one child in LA they were looking into but I cannot remember if this was a picture of that child. Hauptmann's sister hired an Attorney to investigate it and Lloyd Fisher even made a trip out there about it as well. Obviously it was a dead end regardless.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 26, 2017 18:08:11 GMT -5
To Trojan, Michael, and all:
That boy on the tricycle could NOT be little Charlie. He appears to be 3-4 years old and there's a younger girl (sister, most likely) in the photo with him. Much too big to be Charlie at 1 1/2. Plus, a child at 1 1/2 is probably too young to ride a tricycle (not neurologically sufficiently developed), especially such a large one.
So I would agree that it's probably Jon at about age 3 or 4, or maybe even a little older. By that time, I believe the first Lindbergh daughter (Reeve?) would have been born. I don't know what the age difference of the two was offhand, but I'm taking a guess here that Reeve is the little girl in the photo with big brother Jon.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 26, 2017 21:29:55 GMT -5
Correction to previous post:
Assuming the boy on the tricycle in the photo is Jon Lindbergh, the younger child pictured almost surely is not one of his siblings, because, according to Wikipedia, Jon is about five years older than the next oldest sibling in the family.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 27, 2017 17:35:29 GMT -5
That photo is of Charles Lindbergh Sr. Look at the bicycle. Look at the clothing. It was Sr. not Jr. Here's one way to analyze the photo. It could not be Charles, Jr., because the boy on the tricycle is too old, definitely older than 20 months. The claim now is that the boy is CAL Sr. Since CAL Sr. was born in 1902, such a photo would have to have been taken, give or take a couple of years, around 1907. On the other hand, if the boy on the tricycle was Jon, the photo would have been taken around 1937. My guess is that the clothing style worn by the lady in the photo is more consistent with 1937 than 1907. Also, the style of the tricycle probably fits 1937 better than 1907. So the guess here is that the boy on the tricycle is Jon.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 29, 2017 13:29:34 GMT -5
First, I think all the accounts of everything that went on in that house that whole day are suspect, at least from the evening on. Lindbergh hearing the falling-crate sound; saying "Anne, they have stolen our baby!"; Anne and Elsie hearing a cat (or something); Wahgoosh not barking--I think they all made it up. After all, we only have their word for any of this having occurred; there are no independent witnesses to any of it. Further, none of it sounds all that genuine, natural, or realistic; and their stories never stayed particularly consistent, indicating that it was all fabricated. I mean to say, I think they all knew that CAL Jr. was going away that night: Due to his worsening health issues, Lindbergh told the household that CAL Jr. needed to be sent away to be raised in an institution or something, and the only way to do this so that the family could save face was to have him taken from the house and have it set up to look like a kidnapping, to remove any suspicion from anyone in the house. There needed to be an actual removal for this, with evidence left behind to indicate a break-in and abduction. While only Lindbergh knew the child was going to die, everyone went along with the removal scheme, and was coached on what to say happened throughout that day and into the evening--that the dog didn't bark (when he did), that Lindbergh said he heard a sound which could, in retrospect, be interpreted as a break-in (when he didn't hear anything of the kind), etc.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 29, 2017 18:48:32 GMT -5
First, I think all the accounts of everything that went on in that house that whole day are suspect, at least from the evening on. Lindbergh hearing the falling-crate sound; saying "Anne, they have stolen our baby!"; Anne and Elsie hearing a cat (or something); Wahgoosh not barking--I think they all made it up. After all, we only have their word for any of this having occurred; there are no independent witnesses to any of it. Further, none of it sounds all that genuine, natural, or realistic; and their stories never stayed particularly consistent, indicating that it was all fabricated. I mean to say, I think they all knew that CAL Jr. was going away that night: Due to his worsening health issues, Lindbergh told the household that CAL Jr. needed to be sent away to be raised in an institution or something, and the only way to do this for the family to save face was to have him removed from the house and have it set up to look like a kidnapping, to remove any suspicion from anyone in the house. There needed to be an actual removal for this, with evidence left behind to indicate a break-in and abduction. While only Lindbergh knew the child was going to die, everyone went along with the removal scheme, and was coached on what to say happened throughout that day and into the evening--that the dog didn't bark (when he did), that Lindbergh said he heard a sound which could, in retrospect, be interpreted as a break-in (when he didn't hear anything of the kind), etc. Pretty much share this view, lightningjew, except that I remain uncertain that "only Lindbergh knew the child was going to die.' I can't rule out the possibility that death of the baby occurred without specific intention to kill him, i.e., the abduction job was botched. There is also the possibility that Lindbergh - and everyone else in the household - knew that the baby was going to die; hence the lack of the expected degree of grief when the body in the woods was found.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 29, 2017 21:44:45 GMT -5
The only reason I don’t think that others in the household knew CAL Jr. was going to die was because I just can’t see the others going along with it and being able to hold it together with the knowledge of a murder. Having knowledge of something that apparently went “wrong” is one thing, but... I don’t know; could be wrong here. Also, I do think the intent was for CAL Jr. to die. If he was just supposed to be abducted, there’s really no where that he could’ve been kept secret without being him being found eventually.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 12, 2018 18:14:25 GMT -5
Amy, as to your question about why Betty Morrow would ask Dr. Van Ingen for a letter describing CAL Jr.'s physical state/appearance when she spent a significant amount of time with CAL Jr.--so, yeah, why would she need to have this documented...? Here's my take: Let's assume for the moment there was something physically wrong with CAL Jr. (hence the lack of photos leading up to the kidnapping). We know there were rumors to this effect at the time, that these rumors were starting to circulate. If CAL Jr. was having serious issues, Betty Morrow would've of course been aware of this and of the rumors surrounding it, as you say. So then, to short circuit these rumors and protect her grandson from a public who, in her view, didn't need to know there was something wrong with him, she may've asked Van Ingen to supply as normal-sounding a physical report on CAL Jr. as ethically possible, so the family could have something on paper, something to point to should the rumors about CAL Jr.'s problems get out of hand. So Van Ingen wrote up a report that mentioned certain things (an oversized head, unclosed fontanel, overlapping toes, rickets, etc.), which, taken individually--broken down and spread around--might not sound particularly serious. In other words, telling the truth up to a point--preemptively couching, re-framing and playing down the reality so people will be satisfied enough not to dig deeper. I agree. In the doctor's letter to Mrs. Morrow, he says: "As far as PHYSICAL PECULIARITIES. . ." - why would she ask that question? THEN. . . Less than one month before the kidnapping, they have Charlie's hair cut so he will not look like a "sissy". Remember when the staff gave statements of THAT night and they all said Charlie had been running around and had come into the kitchen and yelled "Hi Elsie?" and that he could talk? Well, in the Rochester Evening Journal article of March 10, 1932 about the haircut, this is what the stylist said: (Anne was reading Charlie a story to keep him occupied while his hair was being cut) "He would point his finger (at the pictures in the book) and make noises, trying to talk." To me, both is proof everyone was lying about his development. (1) Thanks for posting that Rochester Evening Journal article. Aside from the story about Charlie's haircut and hairdresser, there are quite a number of other interesting articles about the LKC in that March 10 edition, e.g., regarding Mrs. Spitale (front page) and Betty Gow. (2) In regard to a letter FROM Mrs. Elizabeth Morrow TO Dr. Van Ingen which prompted the reply with a summary of Charlie's medical condition, (A) would anyone on this board have seen a copy of such a letter and (B) if such a copy exists, could someone please post it?
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jan 21, 2018 14:21:55 GMT -5
Yes.. I have copies of letters and such. I will post a few things within a couple of days on my thread.. NEW THEORY..HAVE AN OPENED MIND. These documents refer to my dad's birthday of FEBRUARY 18TH..my feeling is that Dr. V...was referring to my dad's information to Mrs. Morrow..in these letters. Always have..always will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 11:37:36 GMT -5
We are fast approaching the 86th anniversary of the Lindbergh kidnapping. I wanted to post something I found about the high altitude flight Anne made with CAL on April 20, 1930 when she was 7 months pregnant. We have certainly discussed how harmful this could have been to both Anne and her unborn child. I did find one newspaper story that did report that Anne was crying after she and CAL landed at Roosevelt field. Their plane was taken to the hangar before Anne was removed from it so the press could not witness her condition. I have no doubt that the flight did affect her and the child she was carrying. Here is an article I came across a while back when researching about something else. It seems that plans were made in case there was a need to deliver her child prematurely.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 18, 2019 15:37:01 GMT -5
Just one another thought, before I have to leave to work for few days: Maybe Charlie jr. had the Dandy-Walker Syndrome? ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/dandy-walker-malformationThis is from here ( www.wikiskripta.eu/w/Dandy-Walker_syndrom ), translated by Google: "Dandy-Walker syndrome can also be caused by environmental factors that affect the fetus before it is born. For example, exposing the fetus with rubella, toxoplasmosis or the effects of substances that cause fetal damage (teratogens). A more frequent occurrence of Dandy-Walker syndrome occurs also in mothers suffering from diabetes."Unfortunately I’m not a MD or anything related with health care, but I think the flight could be the cause, too (it’s unprovable, because there was - thank God - not enough pregnant women making flights like Anne).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 16:28:55 GMT -5
Very interesting find and theory. It would tie into Dr. Gardner's theory about Charlie having hydrocephalus. No doubt that high altitude flight would have had an impact on the unborn child. Thanks for making me aware of this!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 18, 2019 16:38:53 GMT -5
Very interesting find and theory. It would tie into Dr. Gardner's theory about Charlie having hydrocephalus. No doubt that high altitude flight would have had an impact on the unborn child. Thanks for making me aware of this! Here's the quote about Scotland Yard from Dr. Gardner: “The way everyone tiptoed around the question of Charlie’s health and prospects was perhaps the most obvious indication that not everything was right. The New Jersey State Police sent a top official to Scotland Yard in 1932 to ask for help with the ransom notes. At one point Scotland Yard asked if anyone had checked with doctors who might have knowledge “of the family to determine whether or not he was normal in every respect to offset the motive of the family of attempting to have the child destroyed due to being abnormal.” Major Charles Schoeffel replied that “These and numberous [sic] suggestions of a like nature” had already been “investigated and checked out by members of our Department.”
Though I think we know that Schoeffel wasn't 100% accurate in his reply, given how much they kowtowed to CAL.
|
|