Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Mar 4, 2015 15:11:54 GMT -5
..Just a reminder..that any published photos of Charlie Jr. was altered by grease penciles in every newspaper. I have some of these photos directly sent to me from Newspaper's archives. This particular photo has been reproduced so many times that the toddler's eyes look black. Favorite greasing areas are eyes, eyebrows, lips and chin contour. Can you imagine how hard it was to actually know the toddler's features back then???!!! Geeze, no wonder.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 4, 2015 17:13:50 GMT -5
I like that picture also Rebekah. He was such a sweet child. He only lived long enough to celebrate one birthday which was his first. Sadly, when you go through Ann's diary, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead there are no entries for June 22, 1931. She ends the entries at May 10th and then picks up the entries on July 17th. I know that Charles and Anne were very busy preparing for the Orient flight during May, June and July. What I have read is that there was a small celebration with immediate family and of course the servants. We all know that famous birthday photo of Charlie with his little cake with the single candle on it which looks a bit large for that cake. Nine months later Charlie would be dead. www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/charles-augustus-lindbergh-jnr-son-of-the-american-aviator-news-photo/3096376It's hard to imagine what kind of decline he would have gone through in just those nine months. It's even harder to imagine him at 84 years old, but you know, I really wish he was still with us. Funny how people can mourn for a child they never knew.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 4, 2015 17:25:06 GMT -5
Hi, Aimee. I think the photo I posted came from video footage. I still have problems with them not including the fact that he'd just had a haircut a week before he disappeared. Hair as curly as Charles' would have hugged his head, even at 2" long.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 4, 2015 18:15:02 GMT -5
Since that book was written in the 1970s, you have to consider the possibility that there were original diary entries for that time frame in 1931, but they were edited out of "Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead." That editing could have happened for any number of reasons, some perfectly benign but also perhaps to cover up some information about the family that was not to be revealed to the general public.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 4, 2015 18:34:25 GMT -5
This was on DIRECT examination by Wilentz. Remember that almost all prosecution witnesses who appeared in this trial were carefully coached by Wilentz and/or his team of assistants before they were called to the stand. But, according to Lloyd Gardner's book, Willentz and his friends made Mrs. Lindbergh an exception and did NOT prep her, gambling that the defense would not challenge her for fear of offending the jury's sensibilities.
IIRC, the defense was never given the autopsy report nor Charlie's medical records in time to be used at trial. If hypothetically the trial were held today, those documents would likely have been available to the defense as part of discovery.
Generally speaking, The prosecution at the Hauptmann trial had a huge advantage over the defense in tutoring its witnesses before they appeared. Some of that was due to Reilly's poor management of the defense's case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 9:08:42 GMT -5
Hi, Aimee. I think the photo I posted came from video footage. I still have problems with them not including the fact that he'd just had a haircut a week before he disappeared. Hair as curly as Charles' would have hugged his head, even at 2" long. I understand Aimee's point about touching up of photos used in newspapers. I guess that is the 1930's version of photoshopping a picture! I found another picture of a still from one of the Charlie videos. It give us a glimpse of Charlie's top teeth. I remember you mentioning something about the effect of rickets on teeth. I don't think you can really discern anything from this picture but I will post it here for you to look at. www.ebay.com/itm/Lindbergh-kidnapping-ORIGINAL-PRINT-aviation-VINTAGE-PHOTO-PHOTOGRAPH-OLD-/111608865185?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19fc6821a1
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Mar 5, 2015 10:53:06 GMT -5
Wow. Amy35, you once again amazed me with another photo! O.K...Let's face it the photo quality is very grainy and hard to really get what's going on in there. What I did take away from the photo is that gap between the two front teeth. (The gap followed my dad's mouth his entire life, and I too as a child up until my 20's). Two points: 1)The baby the found in the woods had rotted teeth. I don't know if this was related to TB. 2) My dad had strong, health teeth..but craved Vitamin D his entire life. This time of the year isn't as sad to me as it is to others. My dad survived all of the mis-mosh and everyone involved with switching (including the Lindbergh and Morrow Family) the toddler - got away with it.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 5, 2015 14:51:32 GMT -5
Excellent, Amy! And, Aimee, the gap was the first thing I noticed. The condition of his two front teeth looks a little odd, doesn't it? The tooth on the right looks longer than the one on the left, but it may just be an optical illusion. It's the only photo I've ever seen of his teeth. Thanks!
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 5, 2015 21:50:59 GMT -5
Check out the 2nd video 22 seconds in, stop and scroll back and forth, you will get a pretty good view of Charlies teeth. They look like any other toddlers teeth to me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 22:15:15 GMT -5
I want to switch from Charlie's teeth to Charlie's feet. When Charlie's body was found in the woods and the autopsy was done, I was surprised to learn that Charlie's right foot had two overlapping toes. I had always thought that it was Charlie's left foot that had a problem. In Anne Lindbergh's diary, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead there is a picture of Evangeline Lindbergh holding Charlie. He is shoeless. You can see both feet. You can see that the small toe on each foot is turned under. The rest of the toes on Charlie's right foot are normal. The rest of the toes on Charlie's left foot no so much. Perhaps the rickets caused Charlie's toes on his right foot to change their appearence so dramatically. I don't know any other reason that could cause the two toes to overlap the large toe of the right foot when they weren't always that way. I am going to try and post a link to a picture that I call a "Generation Picture". It shows 4 generations of Morrows; Anne, Anne's Mother, Anne's grandmother, and Charlie. When you view this picture check out Charlie's feet. You can see his right foot plainly. The left foot, however, has been blurred a bit making it difficult to see all his toes. When you open the link, there will be 3 rows of pictures. Double click on the picture that is the second one in from the right in the second row. When it pops up, you should be able to click it again and the picture will enlarge quite a bit. Check out Charlie's feet to see what I am saying about his feet. galleryhip.com/elisabeth-morrow-sister-of-anne-morrow-lindbergh.html
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 6, 2015 14:13:57 GMT -5
To amy35:
The picture that you posted there also appears in Lloyd Gardner's "The Case that never dies. It shows, left to right, Grandmother Elizabeth Morrow, Grandmother Evangeline Lindbergh, Charlie, and Mother Anne Morrow Lindbergh. (3 generations, not 4). It is in the Library of Congress, according to Gardner.
I wasn't able to enlarge the photo you posted, so I did the next best thing I could: view Charlie's feet from the picture in the book with a magnifying glass. I tend to agree with your findings: no overlap of the right big toe by the adjacent toes. On the right foot, I can make out the big toe, then the second, third, and fourth toes distinctly. However, I can't make out the fifth (smallest) toe, which night mean that it overlaps the fourth. I'd agree with you that it is difficult to come to any definitive observations about the left foot because of the blurriness.
What you are driving at is that the deformities on Charlie's right foot seem to be consistent with the description of Charlie in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow, but inconsistent with the description in the autopsy report of the right foot of the child found in the woods. So I'd conclude that the photo you posted offers some evidence for the theory that the corpse of the child in the woods was NOT that of Charlie.
BTW, would you know or care to guess the age of Charlie on the E-Bay photo you posted? Could it possibly have been taken AFTER the last previously known photo of him on his first birthday?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 18:12:19 GMT -5
To amy35:
The picture that you posted there also appears in Lloyd Gardner's "The Case that never dies. It shows, left to right, Grandmother Elizabeth Morrow, Grandmother Evangeline Lindbergh, Charlie, and Mother Anne Morrow Lindbergh. (3 generations, not 4). It is in the Library of Congress, according to Gardner.
I wasn't able to enlarge the photo you posted, so I did the next best thing I could: view Charlie's feet from the picture in the book with a magnifying glass. I tend to agree with your findings: no overlap of the right big toe by the adjacent toes. On the right foot, I can make out the big toe, then the second, third, and fourth toes distinctly. However, I can't make out the fifth (smallest) toe, which night mean that it overlaps the fourth. I'd agree with you that it is difficult to come to any definitive observations about the left foot because of the blurriness.
What you are driving at is that the deformities on Charlie's right foot seem to be consistent with the description of Charlie in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow, but inconsistent with the description in the autopsy report of the right foot of the child found in the woods. So I'd conclude that the photo you posted offers some evidence for the theory that the corpse of the child in the woods was NOT that of Charlie.
BTW, would you know or care to guess the age of Charlie on the E-Bay photo you posted? Could it possibly have been taken AFTER the last previously known photo of him on his first birthday?
The generation picture is 4 generations. Evangeline Lindbergh is not in that picture. There is Anne, Anne's Mother Elizabeth, and Anne's grandmother (Elizabeth Morrow's mother) Mrs. Charles Cutter, and of course Charlie. I am sorry that you couldn't open it to the largest size and had to get out your magnifying glass. I use one too on a lot of the pictures to make sure I can see details. I have always been bothered by the overlapping toes of the right foot of the corpse. I have seen two pictures of Charlie's right foot and the toes don't overlap that way. So, I have wondered how Charlie's right foot came to be that way by 20 months old. Charlie did have health issues so perhaps as he started to walk he developed problems with the right foot toes. I really don't know what else to think. I believe that generation picture was done around January of 1931. Charlie would have been about 7 months old. The other e-bay photo I had posted probably dates to the summer of 1931 after Charlie's first bithday. It is just a guess though. I figure he is 13 months or so. I have not been able to find any other pictures of Charlie after the summer of 1931. That is strange if you ask me, especially since he is the first grandchild for the Morrow family.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 6, 2015 18:59:38 GMT -5
When I read Gardner's book, I took a good look at Charlie's left foot in that photo. Indeed, you can see that it is odd, but his right foot looks normal. It is strange that the left foot is missing from the body found in the woods, but weren't there toe bones found in the burlap bag? Amy, I couldn't access the photo you posted. I got links to all kinds of junk, so it's probably my computer. (Just did a scan for viruses and adware yesterday, so I'll do another one tonight. I never have any problem with this board, so it probably comes from Yahoo.) kdwv8, you are right about his teeth. That's why I thought it might just be an optical illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 21:02:32 GMT -5
Yes some of the left foot bones were found at the gravesite. The left foot had been present with the body when it was removed from that burlap bag. The right foot still had a small amount of tissue left on it so that foot stayed together better. Those remains were in bad shape.
Sorry you could not see the picture. After you open the link and bring up the site it is best to double-click on the generation picture. It should bring up a larger one. Thanks though for trying!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 6, 2015 22:49:42 GMT -5
Sorry, Amy, I'm not speculating here. I'm merely reading from the description under that very same photo in Gardner's book. The light-haired (or gray-haired) lady, second from the left, is identified as Mrs. Lindbergh. We know from other sources that Mrs. Evangeline Lindbergh was still very much alive and teaching high school chemistry in Detroit at the time of the purported kidnapping.
As for Mrs. Cutter, I have never seen any references to a fact that little Charlie had a living great-grandmother. Haven't been able to check out the birth and death dates for Mrs. Cutter, but I've found references to Annie Spencer Cutter, who I believe was Mrs. Elizabeth Morrow's sister. The latter became pretty well known as a librarian in Cleveland. But Elizabeth Morrow's mother was named Annie E. Cutter, and had the maiden name Spencer. So it would be quite easy to confuse Elizabeth's mother with Elizabeth's sister. Perhaps going through Census and genealogy data would inform us if Mrs. Annie E. Cutter was still alive at the time that photo with Charlie was taken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 0:22:00 GMT -5
I went and checked my Gardner book and the oldest lady is labeled as Mrs. Lindbergh. I really don't think this is correct. That little old lady is a number of years older than Mrs. Elizabeth Morrow. Evangeline Lindbergh was a few years younger than Elizabeth Morrow. I think someone made a mistake when they labeled that picture.
Charlie did have a great grandmother Cutter. According to Anne Lindbergh, in the introduction to her diary "Bring Me A Unicorn, she says Mrs. Cutter lived long enough to be a great grandmother to several of the Lindbergh children. I will continue to check to find the year that Mrs. Cutter died. I really think that is Mrs. Cutter in that picture, but I can't say positively it is....yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 12:37:24 GMT -5
I want to share what I found about that Generation picture I posted. I stated I believed it was Mrs. Charles Cutter, Charlie's great grandmother in that photo. I have been able to confirm that it is her. This photo appeared in the newspapers in January 1931 identifying the people. I must say that Charlie's appearance is different in the newspaper one. Must be more of that altering Aimee mentions being done with photographs by newspapers. Mrs. Cutter lived to be the great grandmother of Charlie, Jon, and Land Lindbergh. She died March 6, 1938, having suffered a stroke on March 4, 1938. www.ebay.com/itm/CT-PHOTO-aki-339-Anne-Morrow-Lindbergh-Aviator-1931-/111600964579?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19fbef93e3
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 8, 2015 12:57:17 GMT -5
You are correct that Evangeline Lindbergh (b. 1876) was a few years younger than Elizabeth (Cutter) Morrow (b. 1873). But, as we all know, sometimes a chronologically older person may appear to be younger than a counterpart. Evangeline would have been about 55 years old at the time that picture was taken. It's certainly not impossible for a 55 years old woman to be have mostly gray hair (that would be mostly a genetic predisposition to relatively early graying) while a 58 year old woman would retain her natural dark hair color. (Don't know if women were commonly using hair dyes back then, but that could explain Elizabeth Morrow's dark hair as well.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 13:08:26 GMT -5
Hurtelable,
Please see my post above this.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 8, 2015 18:18:57 GMT -5
To amy35 and All:
I saw your last E-Bay Photo post. That E-Bay photo is not the same photo as the Library of Congress photo seen in Gardner's book, but almost surely was taken at the same session as the Gardner photo with the same people and same photographer, but with a different pose.
On this E-Bay photo, it is easier to see little Charlie's feet and toes, but it would require more magnification for more definitive determination of his abnormalities. If I had to guess, I'd say the little toe overlapped the fourth toe on both feet, and the rest of the toes were normal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's what Dr. Van Ingen described in his letter to Mrs. Morrow just before the body was discovered. But it would be inconsistent with the autopsy report on the dead child.
As for The identity of the light haired lady in the dark dress on both these photos, I tend to think that it was Mrs. Lindbergh (as indicated by Gardner), NOT Mrs. Cutter. On second thought, that lady has more blonde hair than gray, and her face is more consistent with age 55 than c. age 80. Remember that CAL Sr. had blond hair, so it would not be surprising if his mother did as well. On the other hand, the Morrow family tended to have dark hair.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2015 8:39:46 GMT -5
Both early-to-mid 1931 photos show (L to R): Anne Lindbergh's mother Elizabeth Cutter Morrow (1873-1955); holding CAL Jr. is her mother Annie Spencer Cutter (1845-1938); and Anne Lindbergh (1906-2001), Elizabeth's daughter and Annie's granddaughter. It's a typo in Gardner's book, where he says that Annie Cutter is actually Evangeline Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 9, 2015 9:32:46 GMT -5
To lightningjew and amy35:
You people are ganging up on me. (LOL!) But remember that the majority isn't necessarily correct. If Gardner is wrong, that would be more than a typo, that would be a misidentification.
From this point of view, Mrs. Cutter would be 86 years old at the time of the photo, Mrs. Lindbergh 55. The lady in question looks more like 55 than 86, especially when you consider that people generally aged faster in those days than today and there weren't the cosmetic treatments available to women back then as there are now. Look at that lady's face. It would be remarkably wrinkle-free for an 86 year old! So on that basis, plus the blonde hair, I'd tend to think it was Mrs. Lindbergh rather than Mrs. Cutter.
If you have another source identifying the lady of Mrs. Cutter, remember that it could be in error just as much as Gardner might be. Perhaps you can put your argument to Gardner himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 10:28:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 9, 2015 13:57:33 GMT -5
To amy35 and lightningjew:
I have to concede now you're probably right on the identity of the lady in the photos. Suggest you e-mail Lloyd Gardner about it.
Now what's your opinion regarding little Charlie's toes in the most recent photo of him which you posted which shows the feet more clearly than the earlier one?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2015 14:38:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure what I see in this generation photo, in terms of the toes. I think the photos in the woods more clearly show something wrong with regards to the overlapping or malformed toes. But while we're on the subject of bone issues, what's even stranger is that a stick was able to poke through CAL Jr.'s skull after death. I think this did happen, since I don't know why anyone would lie about accidentally injuring the body of the American Prince of Wales--so what is going on here, that the bones were so soft after death that they could be punctured with a stick? The overlapping digits were, I think, related to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 16:14:11 GMT -5
Hurtelable and LJ,
I think the newspaper generation photo shows some altering of Charlie's appearance so it is not the best one to use when evaluating the feet. The two pictures I have seen that show the feet more clearly do not show the toes on the right foot overlapping the large toe. Both these pictures were taken when Charlie was not quite a year old. The corpse in the woods had two toes overlapping the large toe on the right foot. So something changed with Charlie's right foot. What I am guessing is that once Charlie started walking and the right foot had to support more weight, and the bones softened more, perhaps this is why the right foot changed and appeared the way it was when found in the woods. Otherwise, I don't know how to account for it if the corpse is Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 9, 2015 18:18:41 GMT -5
I want to share what I found about that Generation picture I posted. I stated I believed it was Mrs. Charles Cutter, Charlie's great grandmother in that photo. I have been able to confirm that it is her. This photo appeared in the newspapers in January 1931 identifying the people. I must say that Charlie's appearance is different in the newspaper one. Must be more of that altering Aimee mentions being done with photographs by newspapers. Mrs. Cutter lived to be the great grandmother of Charlie, Jon, and Land Lindbergh. She died March 6, 1938, having suffered a stroke on March 4, 1938. www.ebay.com/itm/CT-PHOTO-aki-339-Anne-Morrow-Lindbergh-Aviator-1931-/111600964579?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19fbef93e3Wow, Amy. This is an excellent find. Now, look at his left foot. Nothing wrong there. But, look at the right! If I didn't know better, I'd call this a reversal of the negative. I don't think they used film producing negatives in 1931, but plates. It's another ?.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 18:52:34 GMT -5
I want to share what I found about that Generation picture I posted. I stated I believed it was Mrs. Charles Cutter, Charlie's great grandmother in that photo. I have been able to confirm that it is her. This photo appeared in the newspapers in January 1931 identifying the people. I must say that Charlie's appearance is different in the newspaper one. Must be more of that altering Aimee mentions being done with photographs by newspapers. Mrs. Cutter lived to be the great grandmother of Charlie, Jon, and Land Lindbergh. She died March 6, 1938, having suffered a stroke on March 4, 1938. www.ebay.com/itm/CT-PHOTO-aki-339-Anne-Morrow-Lindbergh-Aviator-1931-/111600964579?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19fbef93e3Wow, Amy. This is an excellent find. Now, look at his left foot. Nothing wrong there. But, look at the right! If I didn't know better, I'd call this a reversal of the negative. I don't think they used film producing negatives in 1931, but plates. It's another ?. I really don't think it is a reverse image. I say this because you can see Anne's wedding band on her left hand. If the image were reversed it would appear as being on her right hand. I see what you are saying about the right foot looking different. I am going to post a generation picture that looks to be a reverse image one because Anne's wedding band is on the right hand in this picture. In reverse it also makes the right foot look like it is the one with the problem. www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U142231AACME/charles-lindbergh-jr-with-his-mother-and?popup=1
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 9, 2015 19:02:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure what I see in this generation photo, in terms of the toes. I think the photos in the woods show something wrong more clearly with regards to the overlapping or malformed toes, but what's even stranger (while we're on the subject of bone issues) is that a stick was able to poke through CAL Jr.'s skull after death. I think this did happen, since I don't know why anyone would lie about accidentally injuring the body of the American Prince of Wales--so what is going on here, that the bones were so soft after death that they could be punctured with a stick? The overlapping digits were, I think, related, to this. binaryapi.ap.org/91995b8f4faa4773bd4ab6f5e25a2b68/preview/AP111003134744.jpg?wm=apiI thought I had a better photo of the baby's skull, but until I can find it, this will do. I don't think a stick poked a hole in the right side of the head. If the skull was brittle, there would have been a radiating fracture at the hole. I can't even begin to imagine what would make it so soft that a stick would just puncture the area. Although a bullet was never found, I believe these are entrance and exit wounds from a small caliber firearm. What caliber was that Lilliput?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 9, 2015 19:08:35 GMT -5
Wow, Amy. This is an excellent find. Now, look at his left foot. Nothing wrong there. But, look at the right! If I didn't know better, I'd call this a reversal of the negative. I don't think they used film producing negatives in 1931, but plates. It's another ?. I really don't think it is a reverse image. I say this because you can see Anne's wedding band on her left hand. If the image were reversed it would appear as being on her right hand. I see what you are saying about the right foot looking different. I am going to post a generation picture that looks to be a reverse image one because Anne's wedding band is on the right hand in this picture. In reverse it also makes the right foot look like it is the one with the problem. www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U142231AACME/charles-lindbergh-jr-with-his-mother-and?popup=1Well, now, there you go. That IS a reversal. I didn't think they could do that with photographic plates, but apparently, they can.
|
|