Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2014 14:21:58 GMT -5
Hair Nodes are breaks (splits) in the hair shaft which weaken the hair. If you google hair nodes you can read about this type of condition. Hair nodes can have an external cause and can also be caused by disease. We know that Charlie was being treated for rickets. Vitamin supplements and sunlamps were the methods used in 1932. These usually brought about the desired results when treating a normal case of rickets. What I think we see with Charlie is something more serious going on. These standard treatments are not producing the expected results. Charlie is not metabolizing the vitamin D supplements aided by the use of the sunlamp as would be expected if normal rickets were all that was going on with Charlie. Charlie is given additonal sunlamp treatments thinking this might improve his response to the vitamin D supplements. Instead, his skin is becoming very dry(see Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow) and Charlie's hair is being damaged from the use of the ultraviolet light. Charlie is not improving even with all of the efforts to help him. I find this very disturbing. It might account for the lack of any photos of the baby after 1931. I agree with both your points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2014 14:48:59 GMT -5
everybody is trying to be doctors here, the fact is he had rickets so did 5000 other kids at that time. beyond that, I never in 20 years saw any proof that he had other diseases as far as I know. until somebody can take a peak at his medical records we don't really know What we don't know is if the rickets Charlie was experiencing was just a lack of vitamin D in his diet, which when addressed would respond to the supplements and light or a more serious form of rickets such as the one Hurtelable mentions in his post, the Vitamin D resistant form. This type doesn't respond to the methods being used on Charlie. Plus there are other conditions that can cause ricket-like symptoms but are actually not rickets. I agree that without a peek at those medical records, all we have is Charlie being treated for rickets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2014 15:09:22 GMT -5
Here's the actual statement by Alan T. Lane, Senior Forensic Scientist (now retired) with the NJPSP.
When I examined it under the microscope, I found nodes along the hair, little bumps along the shaft, and I had never seen this before. I've examined quite a few hair specimens and I'm not sure what caused this. It could have been from some disease or just some abnormality in the hair. I don't know why they were there, but they were present on the specimens that were taken from the house, prior to the kidnapping. The same nodes were present on each strand of hair that I looked at, that was recovered from the scene at the time the baby was found.
What's I think is of particularly significant about the hair is that, not only did it compare in all of the other ways, the color, the texture, the medulla and the cortex; all of those things compared. But these nodes made it so much different and what really is the probability of finding such unusual hair on a child along the side of the road, at just the particular time when you don't see this normally. So, I think it's quite conclusive that it, or certainly very strongly points that that definitely was the baby.
The above is lifted from a post made by another member during a discussion of the hair nodes. I do not agree that the hair had degraded over the years and this man's finding are faulty. Since he was a forensic scientist and we are not, I am sure that he would have been able to tell if the specimens he was examining were degraded in nature and he would have declined to issue findings on them.
Charlie's hair had nodes before he was kidnapped and they were still present on his hair shaft after his death. That is what the evidence shows.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 4, 2014 17:48:05 GMT -5
To amy35 and All
Alan Lane did not have the ideal background to do the study on the hair. He was a chemist, not a forensic pathologist or dermatologist, not even a physician or a medical scientist. Furthermore, for whatever reason, he was given this hair comparison assignment by none other than the Superintendent of the NJSP at the time. Political correctness could have played a role in his enthusiastic conclusion that the hair evidence was pretty much definitive for the corpse being that of Charlie, although he did do some other tests that he claimed were consistent with such a conclusion. The "body in the woods is the Lindbergh baby" notion had been the NJSP position ever since the body was discovered, so it's hardly a surprise that Mr. Lane, as a NJSP employee ordered to do this study by the "big boss," endorsed that view enthusiastically. Was he doing his work objectively? Not knowing him or his abilities, one couldn't say.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 4, 2014 18:20:24 GMT -5
alan lane had a good enough backround to do these tests. if the Lindbergh babys didn't bother the Lindbergh family for dna and other nonsense, the stuff would have still been at the museum for todays testing
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 4, 2014 20:19:32 GMT -5
The presence of these unusual nodes is the evidence which convinces me that this was Charles Jr., not that I really doubted it but I always held out the possibility.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 4, 2014 20:49:54 GMT -5
stella I had many arguments with kennith kerwin on the Lindbergh kidnap tour years ago. I firmly believe it was the baby. its funny kennith signed a baseball for me I was planning on getting Harold olson on the ball but he didn't want to meet me, even though we got along very well, I liked him
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Oct 4, 2014 21:15:04 GMT -5
Here's the actual statement by Alan T. Lane, Senior Forensic Scientist (now retired) with the NJPSP.
When I examined it under the microscope, I found nodes along the hair, little bumps along the shaft, and I had never seen this before. I've examined quite a few hair specimens and I'm not sure what caused this. It could have been from some disease or just some abnormality in the hair. I don't know why they were there, but they were present on the specimens that were taken from the house, prior to the kidnapping. The same nodes were present on each strand of hair that I looked at, that was recovered from the scene at the time the baby was found.
What's I think is of particularly significant about the hair is that, not only did it compare in all of the other ways, the color, the texture, the medulla and the cortex; all of those things compared. But these nodes made it so much different and what really is the probability of finding such unusual hair on a child along the side of the road, at just the particular time when you don't see this normally. So, I think it's quite conclusive that it, or certainly very strongly points that that definitely was the baby.The above is lifted from a post made by another member during a discussion of the hair nodes. I do not agree that the hair had degraded over the years and this man's finding are faulty. Since he was a forensic scientist and we are not, I am sure that he would have been able to tell if the specimens he was examining were degraded in nature and he would have declined to issue findings on them. Charlie's hair had nodes before he was kidnapped and they were still present on his hair shaft after his death. That is what the evidence shows.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Oct 4, 2014 21:32:59 GMT -5
I take the "Treatments with a grain of salt" lets not forget Bettys statement where she says she gives the baby a "physic" and he spits it up on his cloths the night of the kidnapping. WHO does this to a already sick child!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 5, 2014 3:22:53 GMT -5
Physic is a term for , which may have been cough medicine. Do we know what she gave Charlie that night?
Romeo, I always wanted to go on one of those tours, but I haven't seen them advertised for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 5, 2014 6:44:07 GMT -5
Richie sloan does not do the tours anymore
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2014 7:42:54 GMT -5
Physic is a term for , which may have been cough medicine. Do we know what she gave Charlie that night? In one of Anne's Statements she mentions the routine of dropping drops in the baby's nose, rubbing his chest, and dosing him. We know they were rubbing Vicks on his chest, and early she mentions Milk of Magnesia in one of the Statements as well. That's my guess. I am fairly certain that if we search Anne's, Betty's, and Elsie's Testimony its mentioned there to confirm this.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 5, 2014 8:07:56 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, I assumed it was some type of cold medicine. And thanks, Romeo, Richard Sloane, that's the name I remember seeing. As always I'm a day late and a dollar short!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2014 8:16:02 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, I assumed it was some type of cold medicine. And thanks, Romeo, Richard Sloane, that's the name I remember seeing. As always I'm a day late and a dollar short! I went through the transcripts where I expected to find confirmation but I came up empty. Betty is still calling it a "physic," and unless I am missing something I don't see any specifics. During Anne's testimony, she is asked whether or not the tray in Exhibit S-9 is a "medicine tray." She said it contained items for his bath but then adds there was a bottle of medicine on it.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Oct 5, 2014 8:28:09 GMT -5
These days, asking the pharmacist for a physic to relieve your constipation will probably get you a blank stare; it's an old-fashioned, rarely-used term for "laxative."
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 5, 2014 8:39:31 GMT -5
Perhaps it was a common term in Scotland? It can refer to any .
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 5, 2014 9:37:23 GMT -5
my mother used that term when I was young. she was born in 1926 so she might have heard it in the 30s
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Oct 5, 2014 9:53:18 GMT -5
The presence of these unusual nodes is the evidence which convinces me that this was Charles Jr., not that I really doubted it but I always held out the possibility. Is there a chance the hair that proved the body in the woods was Charlie was actually hair from his first haircut? In other words the hair from the corpse was never used. Another lie in this case and a easy way to say "this is the Lindbergh baby stop searching-case closed". With the amount of lies and deceit in this case, this scenario would not surprise me!
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 5, 2014 10:29:33 GMT -5
I saw blonde strands of hair mixed with leaves in little tubes from the crime scene when the museum had them
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 5, 2014 10:41:17 GMT -5
Yes, I tend to agree with you, kdwv8. Alan Lane (NJSP forensic chemist) stated that he compared hairs taken from the Lindbergh house to hairs from the burlap sack from near the body, and that they matched, even with respect to the "medulla and cortex." Since the medulla and cortex are found at the base of the hair, under the skin in a living person, I can't see how one can observe them on CUT hairs; the hairs would have to be shed or pulled from the scalp. So hairs taken from a haircut at the Lindbergh home would not have a "medulla and cortex." Doubt if they looked for shed hairs in the home. And who knows how the hair sample from the burlap bag arrived there. I believe he is NOT referring to the burlap bag found near the body, bot rather a burlap bag used as a police evidence carrier. So were these some of Charlie's known hairs placed there in the burlap sack and erroneously thought to be taken from the unknown body found in the woods?
I think there was likely other deceit in the evidence gathering procedure. The part of the flannel undershirt photographed on the chest of the corpse only covers a part of the chest. Considering that wild animals ate into the chest and consumed the lungs, it would be hard to conceive that part of the undershirt remained in contact with the body. In fact, it's more likely that Betty Gow gave investigators a piece of the same flannel that the undershirt came from in order to put it on the body so that the "this is the Lindbergh baby stop searching case closed" statement could be supported.
Here is one more important point that contradicts the "this is the Lindbergh baby" theme: the right toe abnormalities noted in Dr. VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow summarizing his findings on the living Charlie were different than those found on the right toes of the corpse at autopsy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 10:46:23 GMT -5
The presence of these unusual nodes is the evidence which convinces me that this was Charles Jr., not that I really doubted it but I always held out the possibility. Is there a chance the hair that proved the body in the woods was Charlie was actually hair from his first haircut? In other words the hair from the corpse was never used. Another lie in this case and a easy way to say "this is the Lindbergh baby stop searching-case closed". With the amount of lies and deceit in this case, this scenario would not surprise me! This is something that I have also considered. He did have that haircut and if he died at or very close to March 1 it doesn't leave a lot of time for regrowth of his hair. Your comment could put a whole new spin on those remains. Here is a photo from Ronelle' website of the forensic evidence from the gravesite: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/fragments.jpgThe largest container holds the hair. I am assuming that this is the hair collected at just the gravesite. Would you know Michael if that is all gravesite hair?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2014 18:09:31 GMT -5
The largest container holds the hair. I am assuming that this is the hair collected at just the gravesite. Would you know Michael if that is all gravesite hair? The vials and jar contained evidence from the area where the corpse was found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 19:35:09 GMT -5
The largest container holds the hair. I am assuming that this is the hair collected at just the gravesite. Would you know Michael if that is all gravesite hair? The vials and jar contained evidence from the area where the corpse was found. Thanks for confirming that for me. I have some questions about the Examination of Hair report you posted on this thread: 1) Who is Sg Thomas B. Christian, Pathologist? Did he work for Squibb Laboratory? 2) The hair in the first envelope labeled Charlie's hair - cut February 23, 1932 obviously came from Englewood. The second envelope is labeled "Wisp of Hair" from Colonel Schwarzkopf. Do you know where this hair sample came from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 19:38:33 GMT -5
Have you read the Squibb Laboratory Report on the burlap bag?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 5, 2014 20:24:10 GMT -5
No, I haven't seen a lab report with a Squibb laboratory letterhead. The one from Thomas Christian seems to be an internal NJSP memo. Before getting into that though, let's try to clarify some confusion. There was the burlap bag found near the corpse but closer to the roadway, but other burlap bags used by the NJSP for collection and transport of evidence items. Now which burlap bag was the one in which Mr. Lane in 1977 believed the hair samples from the body were contained? Could he have possibly been mislead by the labeling of the specimens by the NJSP back in 1932, or perhaps their slipping up and putting hair known to be Charlie's in an evidence burlap bag, and having later investigators believe that it came from the burlap bag found near the body in the woods? It's a question of how meticulously the evidence may or may not have been handled and labeled by the NJSP back in 1932. You can imagine that such evidence gathering and labeling may have been compromised by the descending of the hundreds media hounds and curiosity seekers on the body site in the woods shortly after the discovery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 21:35:51 GMT -5
No, I haven't seen a lab report with a Squibb laboratory letterhead. The one from Thomas Christian seems to be an internal NJSP memo. Before getting into that though, let's try to clarify some confusion. There was the burlap bag found near the corpse but closer to the roadway, but other burlap bags used by the NJSP for collection and transport of evidence items. Now which burlap bag was the one in which Mr. Lane in 1977 believed the hair samples from the body were contained? Could he have possibly been mislead by the labeling of the specimens by the NJSP back in 1932, or perhaps their slipping up and putting hair known to be Charlie's in an evidence burlap bag, and having later investigators believe that it came from the burlap bag found near the body in the woods? It's a question of how meticulously the evidence may or may not have been handled and labeled by the NJSP back in 1932. You can imagine that such evidence gathering and labeling may have been compromised by the descending of the hundreds media hounds and curiosity seekers on the body site in the woods shortly after the discovery.
Here is a link to the Squibb report for you to review: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/squibb.pdf
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 5, 2014 21:50:27 GMT -5
Amy said:
2) The hair in the first envelope labeled Charlie's hair - cut February 23, 1932 obviously came from Englewood. The second evelope is labeled "Wisp of Hair" from Colonel Schwarzkopf. Do you know where this hair sample came from?
This is my question. It isn't that I don't trust Colonel Schwarzkopf (cough), but it seems that more documentation as to the source of this "wisp of hair" should have been provided. What would have prevented someone from just taking a few strands from the haircut and placing it in another envelope? Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 6, 2014 16:43:35 GMT -5
To amy35 and All:
Thanks for linking me to the image of the Squibb Laboratory report. Note that the hair presumably recovered from body in the woods and the immediate vicinity is described as FINE (in contrast to noded) and LIGHT BROWN (in contrast to blond).
Note also that the Squibb Lab people in conclusion report that they regret that their studies aren't (in their opinion) very helpful to the police investigation.
What seems kind of strange is that the first 18 of the 19 pages from the Squibb Lab report are obviously produced by the Squibb organization itself. But for some unknown reason, the NJSP appears to have appended the19th and final page, which is the previously posted internal NJSP memo written by Thomas Christian where he seems to declare that two samples of hair, one known to be Charlie's and the other purportedly from the corpse in the woods, are identical in some respects. Seems as if by appending this extra page, the NJSP are trying to enhance their position that the corpse is that of CAL Jr., don't ask any questions, a position that the Squibb evidence report does not necessarily support.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2014 18:58:59 GMT -5
Is there a chance the hair that proved the body in the woods was Charlie was actually hair from his first haircut? In other words the hair from the corpse was never used. Another lie in this case and a easy way to say "this is the Lindbergh baby stop searching-case closed". With the amount of lies and deceit in this case, this scenario would not surprise me! I think we should always consider the "monkey business" possibility concerning everything. In this specific instance, I believe there's less of a motive for it to occur here. That's because Dr. Christian had been given both samples just a couple of days after the corpse had been discovered. No one was challenging the identity at the time, and it seems to me it was done to absolutely make sure it was him going even beyond the identification of both Gow and Lindbergh. I have some questions about the Examination of Hair report you posted on this thread: 1) Who is Sg Thomas B. Christian, Pathologist? Did he work for Squibb Laboratory? Dr. Christian worked for Greystone Park. No doubt the NJSP were familiar with him as a result of the numerous investigations involving Patients, and former Patients prior to this examination (and there were more investigations to come). www.preservegreystone.org/history.html2) The hair in the first envelope labeled Charlie's hair - cut February 23, 1932 obviously came from Englewood. The second evelope is labeled "Wisp of Hair" from Colonel Schwarzkopf. Do you know where this hair sample came from? According to the reports, this particular "wisp of hair" came directly off the head of the baby that was found dead in woodland off the Princeton-Hopewell Road in Mount Rose, Mercer County, N.J., on the 12th of May 1932.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 21:59:48 GMT -5
Michael, Thanks for answering my questions. You confirmed what I was silently hoping about the "wisp of hair" - that it was from the head of the child found in the woods and that it matched with Charlie's. I think Schwarzkopf seeking an independent evaluation of the hair is good police work on his part. Thanks for the link to Greystone. I was not aware of the existence of this facility.
|
|