|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 31, 2016 2:23:25 GMT -5
and Betty made a flannel band, not an overshirt, for CAL Jr. on the night he disappeared. Micheal, how accurate is this? To clarify, he specifically said this was made as the Vicks worked better with a pad on top of it, which was the reason she stitched this partial shirt. This sort of makes sense to me, as I'd always wondered why the need for this item that night. The Hydrocephalus would also seem to explain the reason the child's skull came "apart like an orange," as the bones were never properly fused together as they would be in a normal skull of a child of that age. Overall, as LJ mentioned, most of the first section is very similar to his longer "Case That Never Dies," but it is the last chapter, "Theories" that is the most compelling as he really elaborates on his thought process and the relationship between Lindbergh and Carrel.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 31, 2016 3:47:46 GMT -5
I did read the Gardner "The Crime of the Century" piece, too. It was interesting, but I would have to give it a bit of a mixed review. I have great respect for Gardner's book, but I thought this came across as a little bit sloppy in places...? (Example: It totally transposes Anne's sisters, Constance and Elisabeth.) If he's editing it along (trojanusc mentioned it had recently been updated), maybe we should consider it kind of a work in progress.
I'm betting it was indeed a type of undershirt, as we've always heard, not a "band". I mean, there are pictures of it, no? But it served the purpose of a flannel garment to cover a poultice or ointment treatment -- and sometimes, such a garment COULD be a band, without the armholes, etc., that Charlie's had. (I've always kind of assumed it was partially for treatment purposes, not just extra warmth, so that part makes sense to me.)
I see the hydrocephalus as more of a strong suggestion than a sure identification of "the disease" of CAL. It does "fit", but as you note, lightningjew, it can resemble other conditions ... and it also can be PART of the symptom picture for some complex conditions.
I think most of us, including Gardner and the pediatric neurologist he credits (and I'm wondering if that is the same doc you saw on the TV show, amy35), are pretty much shooting in the dark when it comes to trying to figure out what may have ailed Charlie. Barring that Michael has unearthed some super-secret report on Charlie's health -- and I hope he HAS, but I doubt it -- I think we always will be. I think without medical records, lab reports, etc. for Charlie -- and I truly never expect to see anything that specific surface -- questions will always remain. What I DO hope for, and think possible, is that enough will come to light to help us feel pretty certain whether Charlie had a truly grave and/or permanently disabling condition or conditions.
I wonder a lot about the hair oddities. (Not that the Gardner piece mentions them, I don't think -- but the topic just comes to my mind with these other subjects.) First, I wonder a BIT about whether the hair samples compared were truly from Charlie's haircut and from the remains. Assuming they were...I keep trying to find a disease, condition or treatment (as in arsenic/mercury compounds, per my congenital syphilis conjecturing) that would produce that effect ... but I have never found anything that seemed like "Bingo!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 9:40:15 GMT -5
I read Lloyd's new publication yesterday also. Thanks Trojanusc for sharing this with us! I found it an interesting read as others no doubt did. Much of it I was familiar with from his first book on this case. He does expand on a number of points about the case. I think this is a good example of how positions about aspects of this case can expand and evolve as more is learned and researched and as others share their thoughts and opinions on facts, reports and possibilities in this case. There is no getting around how the perspective of others who look into this case can influence what others think and how they understand the elements in this case. This board is an excellent example of this. A couple of things about Lloyd's latest effort: Betty's homemade shirt - Betty made a shirt. No doubt about it. It had a neck opening and two sleeves for the arms. What I am not sure about is the need to make this shirt because Betty was going to apply Vicks to Charlie's chest and this would help the Vicks to perform its function. Charlie had undershirts available. This was not the first night Vicks was applied to Charlie's chest. Read Elsie Whateley's statement. She was applying it to Charlie's chest on Monday. Perhaps Betty was just trying to improve how the Vicks was working by making that shirt. Since Charlie was supposed to be so much better on Tuesday (running around chasing Wahgoosh), I am still of the opinion that the shirt was more than just an aid because of a cold. The Blanket pins - I never heard of these until I read about this case. I can understand why people would choose to use them to keep the blankets from bunching up around the child or to keep the blankets covering the child through the night. What totally stuns me about these pins is where Gardner says they were placed. Why would they be pinned so close to the child's neck?? Wouldn't this be dangerous? Children move around when they sleep, just like adults. Pins placed this close to the head would have been so restrictive and would cause a child to move downward under the blankets to change positions. Were Betty and Anne fearful that Charlie might try to climb out of his crib and possibly fall so they would pin him in this manor?? Open Nursery Window - On page 215, Lloyd describes Betty going into the nursery at 10 pm. He says she goes to the southeast window (the one with the faulty shutters) to close it. Huh? I thought the window that was left open in the nursery was the French window on the south side of the nursery. That is the one Betty says she left open. Crime Scene - On page 285 Lloyd mentions that the local cops were sent outside to control the growing crowd of people on the property tramping away possible clues and handling the ladder. Yikes! Michael has explained as clearly as possible that the crime scene did have protection and now this is called into question once again. I guess it is a matter of interpretation as to the level of protection provided and how early it was done the night of March 1. Charlie's health - Hydrocephalus (fluid build up in the brain ventricals) in young children does cause the skull to expand. We know that Charlie had an enlarged skull because Dr. Van Ingen makes note of it when he is giving Charlie a check-up. Rickets causes a broad forehead with frontal bossing (enlarged browbone) which contributes to the square head shape seen in children with rickets. What I am wondering is when did the enlargement of the head go from being caused by rickets to actual hydrocephalus. If Charlie's skull was beginning to enlarge because his brain ventricals were retaining fluid, there would have been other symptoms present that Dr. Van Ingen would have picked up on that would have been of grave concern to him. Why would he have sent Charlie home instead of to the hospital? Excess fluid build up needs to be drained. I agree with sweetwater. We don't have enough factual knowledge about Charlie's true health problems to be certain about anything except that he was not healthy like the Lindberghs claimed and that he was being treated for rickets aggressively. Because of the condition of the skull of the corpse, it is safe to assume that Charlie suffered with the vitamin D resistant form of rickets and this type of rickets can easily lead to other more serious illnesses because his immune system is compromised. I think that Lloyd Gardner is one of the most knowledgeable people concerning the Lindbergh kidnapping Case and the people who populate this crime. I always learn things from what he writes and I hope that he will continue to do so!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 31, 2016 13:02:19 GMT -5
Hydrocephalus does seem to fit, and when I said Gardner named the disease, I just meant that he seems to have come closest and given the most educated guess. But it may not be the case. If vitamin D-resistant rickets causes frontal bossing, and can lead to other problems which compromise the immune system, that could've been enough. As to why Betty would make CAL Jr. that shirt, I think it was because she knew he was leaving, that he would be outside in raw weather. On an unrelated topic, it was kind of exciting to see that he came to same conclusion I did, about Betty possibly being the one who dropped the thumbguard in the driveway.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2016 15:55:51 GMT -5
Crime Scene - On page 285 Lloyd mentions that the local cops were sent outside to control the growing crowd of people on the property tramping away possible clues and handling the ladder. Yikes! Michael has explained as clearly as possible that the crime scene did have protection and now this is called into question once again. I guess it is a matter of interpretation as to the level of protection provided and how early it was done the night of March 1. The whole question of whether or not the crime scene was compromised from the outset is completely covered in my book. Just as an example, go the indexes of every book you can find on this case. Look for the names of 2 Troopers: Trooper Dean, and Trooper Lester Johnson. Can't find them right? I'm going to tell you why now even though it's in my book. These men were detailed from the Flemington Barracks at 11:25PM to Highfields. Once they got there they were told to go back because they were not needed. We have been lead to believe that by the time they got there it was "out of control" yet, that facts show these men had nothing to do. That yard was secured and constantly guarded until such time the Press were given walking tours - in the late forenoon. It was at some point during those tours that they lost control and it was released. This idea that Reporters were walking in the yard creating footprints that Police later mistook as clues involving the crime is a myth. I haven't read Lloyd's new book yet, but it is true that Hopewell Marshal Wolf was among those guarding the yard as Reporters began to show up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 20:29:39 GMT -5
The whole question of whether or not the crime scene was compromised from the outset is completely covered in my book. Just as an example, go the indexes of every book you can find on this case. Look for the names of 2 Troopers: Trooper Dean, and Trooper Lester Johnson. Can't find them right? I'm going to tell you why now even though it's in my book. These men were detailed from the Flemington Barracks at 11:25PM to Highfields. Once they got there they were told to go back because they were not needed. We have been lead to believe that by the time they got there it was "out of control" yet, that facts show these men had nothing to do. That yard was secured and constantly guarded until such time the Press were given walking tours - in the late forenoon. It was at some point during those tours that they lost control and it was released. This idea that Reporters were walking in the yard creating footprints that Police later mistook as clues involving the crime is a myth. I haven't read Lloyd's new book yet, but it is true that Hopewell Marshal Wolf was among those guarding the yard as Reporters began to show up. So, Michael, I did what you suggested. I went through 10 different books that had indexes plus several books that didn't have indexes, so I read the chapters about the crime scene in those. You are 100% correct. Trooper Dean and Trooper Lester Johnson do not appear in any of those books. Nowhere. Not even in the footnotes of those books that have them. I thank you most sincerely for sharing with me and this board something from your upcoming book. You have done so much already to clarify this highly controversial and incorrectly explained (in other books) aspect of the crime scene. I truly hope that your book will finally make clear to everyone the truth about how the crime scene was handled that night. I know it will for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 20:48:01 GMT -5
As to why Betty would make CAL Jr. that shirt, I think it was because she knew he was leaving, that he would be outside in raw weather. On an unrelated topic, it was kind of exciting to see that he came to same conclusion I did, about Betty possibly being the one who dropped the thumbguard in the driveway. I think the shirt was serving a double purpose also. It would provide extra warmth and it would end up being used as a point of identification of the corpse as being Charles Lindbergh Jr., although Betty did not know that at the time she made it. I read where Lloyd said he thought it possible Betty dropped the thumb guard so it could be found just as you have included in your theory. I think this is the most likely explanation for its sudden appearance on the driveway. Do you think it might be possible that the thumb guard could have been dropped at this location the night of the kidnapping when the car on the access road was exiting the entrance way of Lindbergh's private drive? The thumb guard could have been pushed into the gravel and dirt once all the cars started turning into Lindbergh's drive. This would have concealed it quickly. No one would have known it was there. It then could have eventually become dislodged and Betty ended up seeing it quite unexpectedly. Just a thought I had and would like your opinion about this.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 31, 2016 21:10:33 GMT -5
Hydrocephalus does seem to fit, and when I said Gardner named the disease, I just meant that he seems to have come closest and given the most educated guess. But it may not be the case. If vitamin D-resistant rickets causes frontal bossing, and can lead to other problems which compromise the immune system, that could've been enough. As to why Betty would make CAL Jr. that shirt, I think it was because she knew he was leaving, that he would be outside in raw weather. On an unrelated topic, it was kind of exciting to see that he came to same conclusion I did, about Betty possibly being the one who dropped the thumbguard in the driveway. Would the rickets explain for the really brittle skull, though? That to me is one of the keys of discovering the child's illness. So brittle it could be punctured with a stick by just turning it over.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 31, 2016 22:35:17 GMT -5
Hey Amy. Since it apparently didn't look like it had been outside, exposed to the elements since March 1, I think the thumbguard was probably dropped there within a matter of hours of being found. Since there's no way kidnappers could've gotten as far up the drive to place it where it was found (anything else aside, the abandoned house at the driveway entrance was being used as a police checkpoint), I think it would've had to have been dropped there by someone inside--either Lindbergh or Betty at his behest. My guess is this was to give Lindbergh a reason to pay the "ransom" when he did and bring the extortion to an end. And Trojan, I don't know that rickets would've made a skull so brittle or soft to allow a stick to poke through, and the skull to come apart like an orange. Whether it was just severe rickets or hydrocephalus--whatever the cause, I think it's clear that there was something wrong with CAL Jr., and this, I think, is the key to the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2016 5:37:51 GMT -5
I thank you most sincerely for sharing with me and this board something from your upcoming book. You have done so much already to clarify this highly controversial and incorrectly explained (in other books) aspect of the crime scene. I truly hope that your book will finally make clear to everyone the truth about how the crime scene was handled that night. I know it will for me. It was just a very small example to support my position. It's really not a "fair" method because anyone could do it to anywhere since there is just too much to know. I am hoping "how" I attempted to write the book brings out exactly what happened. The whole entire reason the "myth" exists is because the NJSP pushed it to either explain away certain evidence and bungling, or misdirect the FBI concerning what evidence the NJSP actually had. But the key to knowing exactly what happened (as it pertained to the NJSP) was to go, report by report, from the day in question. I know I've said it before, but one of the biggest mistakes people make is to believe everything in a book. And if it's in more then one they "lock" it in. The problem here is one book may have gotten it from another, then everyone assuming it's true, adds it to their own book - and poof - a new fact is born out of (1) original mistake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2016 20:03:36 GMT -5
Hey Amy. Since it apparently didn't look like it had been outside, exposed to the elements since March 1, I think the thumbguard was probably dropped there within a matter of hours of being found. Thanks LJ, for your response to my thoughts about the thumbguard. I read Betty's testimony about the this incident. She told Wilentz that she and Elsie took these walks in the afternoon. They would walk all the way down to the entrance to Lindbergh Drive where the Guard House was. Betty and Elsie made that walk down in the afternoon and when they turned around to come back up the drive they didn't walk very far and they saw an object on the drive and Betty said she recognized it as the thumbguard. Do you think Betty could have dropped the thumbguard on the way down? If it had been laying there earlier in the day wouldn't someone else have noticed this or maybe it would have been run over by a car or two before Betty and Elsie made their afternoon stroll down the drive. If the thumbguard is a plant, and Betty did it at the behest of Lindbergh, who really benefits from this? What would be Lindbergh's purpose in having this thumbguard suddenly appear?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2016 20:33:52 GMT -5
The whole entire reason the "myth" exists is because the NJSP pushed it to either explain away certain evidence and bungling, or misdirect the FBI concerning what evidence the NJSP actually had. But the key to knowing exactly what happened (as it pertained to the NJSP) was to go, report by report, from the day in question. I really appreciate the point you make here. The need to look at every report about something that happened is the only true way to get the most complete picture of what did happen and to understand why. This is just another reason that your book is going to be so revealing concerning this crime. You did take the time to find all the reports, review them and draw conclusions based on all the available material. You didn't stop at the first thing that appealed to you or reject something because you didn't like it or agree with it. I am not aware of any author who has done this in the manor you have. This couldn't have been said any better! I understand that authors quote each other in their books. Wayne Jones book would not be as long if you took out all the pages of quoting he did from Scaduto's book. There is nothing wrong with using other published books for reference as long as what material you are using is a correct fact to begin with. When I do read a book, Michael, that is why I always ask you about things I come across and I am not sure if they are correct. I am really thankful for your help.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 2, 2016 23:53:07 GMT -5
My original idea of how the thumbguard wound up where it was found was that Betty slipped it out of her pocket on her and Elsie's way down the drive. They turned around to head back up to the house and "found" it: Since the thumbguard was lying in the middle of the drive, there was no reason for Betty and Elsie not to notice it on their first pass--so how did they miss it, unless it wasn't there at that point? I think Betty would have been told to plant the thumbguard by Lindbergh, with a convenient witness present (Elsie). Their daily walks would be a perfect opportunity for this. But then again, since the thumbguard was flattened a bit, that tells me it may have been run over by a car. And since, other than that damage, it didn't look like it had been outside for a month, I now think the thumbguard had been there for about as long as it took for a car to run over it--that is, it was dropped on the drive earlier than Betty and Elsie's walk. I think Lindbergh would've been the one to do this, on his way down the driveway in a car maybe, probably that morning. Now, whether it was Lindbergh or Betty who planted the thumbguard, what purpose would it serve to have it conveniently turn up? Look at the timing: The thumbguard being discovered could be construed as a classic example of warning or pressure to pay the ransom, and, sure enough, the ransom was paid a day or two later--a ransom that the kidnappers had threatened to jack up even further, to $100K. Before this could happen, then, I think Lindbergh needed what appeared to be an urgent reason to pay the ransom when he did, to end the extortion before it got completely out of control (even more than the situation already was). In any case, I think it almost had to be someone at Highfields planting the thumbguard. It seems like an insane risk for kidnappers to sneak back onto the property to drop it, especially when they could've, say, mailed it (as they did with the sleeping suit and most of the ransom notes). Anyway, how did they make it that far up the drive, past the gatehouse/checkpoint, without being seen? I mean, they wouldn't have necessarily used the driveway, walking past the gatehouse, but the terrain was much more wide open than it is today; I don't know how they could've not been spotted from wherever they would've approached. Again, seems like a crazy risk. It's been suggested that the thumbguard came off in the backyard, that it had been there since March 1 and a bird or animal later picked it up and dropped it in the driveway. But this seems farfetched, and, again, the thumbguard didn't look like it had been outside for that long.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Aug 3, 2016 2:54:16 GMT -5
My original idea of how the thumbguard wound up where it was found was that Betty slipped it out of her pocket on her and Elsie's way down the drive. They turned around to head back up to the house and "found" it: Since the thumbguard was lying in the middle of the drive, there was no reason for Betty and Elsie not to notice it on their first pass--so how did they miss it, unless it wasn't there at that point? I think Betty would have been told to plant the thumbguard by Lindbergh, with a convenient witness present (Elsie). Their daily walks would be a perfect opportunity for this. But then again, since the thumbguard was flattened a bit, that tells me it may have been run over by a car. And since, other than that damage, it didn't look like it had been outside for a month, I now think the thumbguard had been there for about as long as it took for a car to run over it--that is, it was dropped on the drive earlier than Betty and Elsie's walk. I think Lindbergh would've been the one to do this, on his way down the driveway in a car maybe, probably that morning. Now, whether it was Lindbergh or Betty who planted the thumbguard, what purpose would it serve to have it conveniently turn up? Look at the timing: The thumbguard being discovered could be construed as a classic example of warning or pressure to pay the ransom, and, sure enough, the ransom was paid a day or two later--a ransom that the kidnappers had threatened to jack up even further, to $100K. Before this could happen, then, I think Lindbergh needed what appeared to be an urgent reason to pay the ransom when he did, to end the extortion before it got completely out of control (even more than the situation already was). In any case, I think it almost had to be someone at Highfields planting the thumbguard. It seems like an insane risk for kidnappers to sneak back onto the property to drop it, especially when they could've, say, mailed it (as they did with the sleeping suit and most of the ransom notes). Anyway, how did they make it that far up the drive, past the gatehouse/checkpoint, without being seen? I mean, they wouldn't have necessarily used the driveway, walking past the gatehouse, but the terrain was much more wide open than it is today; I don't know how they could've not been spotted from wherever they would've approached. Again, seems like a crazy risk. It's been suggested that the thumbguard came off in the backyard, that it had been there since March 1 and a bird or animal later picked it up and dropped it in the driveway. But this seems farfetched, and, again, the thumbguard didn't look like it had been outside for that long. All of these thoughts are good ones, I think, lj. I have to say up front, though, that I am one of the ones who is not convinced the thumbguard was planted. I still DO believe it may have been there all along. Maybe it got crushed down into the mud early on and then, near the time of its discovery, another gully-washing rain came and not only uncovered it but washed it pretty clean. (Would be interesting to know if there had been a recent big rain when it was found.) Or maybe it got hung up in a bush and yes, a bird later picked it up and dropped it, or one of the family dogs caught a hint of Charlie's scent, plucked it out, and carried it to the driveway. Maybe one reason it would not be noticed on the walk up the drive but instead on the way back, even if it was there (no matter how it got there), would be the angle of the sun at the time. Or maybe the two ladies were absorbed in conversation on the walk up and just didn't notice -- or had their attention fixed on something else, like whatever seemed to be happening at the guardhouse that day. If the planting theory is correct, though -- and how I WISH we could know for sure -- that, to me, is a really strong indicator (though I can't say a certainty-sealer) of Lindbergh's involvement in the disappearance at some level. And I even start thinking, if that IS the case, who might he have taken into confidence -- and who might, therefore, have agreed to "drop" the thumbguard. Betty or someone else at Highfields, yes. But what about Breckenridge? Or even Schwarzkopf. What if CAL said, "Look. This is what happened. My child had problems. He needed treatment (or to be institutionalized, or whatever) and Anne couldn't face it. I arranged a fake kidnapping to get him away -- I knew I could make her see the benefit afterwards -- but somewhere, at some level of what was set up, "they" double-crossed me. My child didn't end up where he was supposed to be. And now I have everybody and his brother trying to get money from me, and I fear more and more every day that we will never see our boy alive again. This has to end." Whether or not "that" story was true...I think there were ears that might have listened and hands, not necessarily involved up until then, that might have done "this one little thing" (drop the thumbguard) ...to "help" Lindbergh. Thumbguard remains enigmatic to me. (Like so much else. Sigh.) And Anne's testimony (regarding the thumbguards) at the trial adds an extra layer of fog, for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 11:01:47 GMT -5
Now, whether it was Lindbergh or Betty who planted the thumbguard, what purpose would it serve to have it conveniently turn up? Look at the timing: The thumbguard being discovered could be construed as a classic example of warning or pressure to pay the ransom, and, sure enough, the ransom was paid a day or two later--a ransom that the kidnappers had threatened to jack up even further, to $100K. Before this could happen, then, I think Lindbergh needed what appeared to be an urgent reason to pay the ransom when he did, to end the extortion before it got completely out of control (even more than the situation already was). In any case, I think it almost had to be someone at Highfields planting the thumbguard. The timing of the appearance of the thumbguard does intrigue me. The ransom note that threatened to increase the monetary demand from $70,000 to $100,000 was received March 30, 1932, a Wednesday. The next ransom note, April 1, 1932, a Friday, set the date for the ransom payment as Saturday which was April 2, 1932. So we have the ransom note setting the payment date being received on the same date that Betty Gow finds the thumbguard on the driveway. That is really cutting it close. So which one came first? The finding of the thumbguard which was to create pressure to pay the ransom or the April 1 ransom note which gives the date to make the payment. Do we know for certain what day Betty found the thumbguard?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 12:03:49 GMT -5
I have to say up front, though, that I am one of the ones who is not convinced the thumbguard was planted. I still DO believe it may have been there all along. Maybe it got crushed down into the mud early on and then, near the time of its discovery, another gully-washing rain came and not only uncovered it but washed it pretty clean. (Would be interesting to know if there had been a recent big rain when it was found.) Or maybe it got hung up in a bush and yes, a bird later picked it up and dropped it, or one of the family dogs caught a hint of Charlie's scent, plucked it out, and carried it to the driveway. Thumbguard remains enigmatic to me. (Like so much else. Sigh.) And Anne's testimony (regarding the thumbguards) at the trial adds an extra layer of fog, for me. I think there is a possibility the thumbguard could have been out there also. If it had been dropped near the entrance the night of March 1, it could have easily become buried in the softened dirt and gravel that night by the first police vehicles arriving on the scene and driving over it, pushing it down into the rain softened earth. By the time they started making searches that evening it would not have been on the surface of the drive anymore. When you look at that thumbguard you can't miss how very dirty those ribbon ties are. They look like they were buried in wet dirt. Could it not be possible that the thumbguard had become crushed, as you have stated, into the dirt and then surfaced weeks later after more rain and car traffic dislodged it? That drive had become rutted by all the cars up and down that driveway. What if it did surface and was found by someone who quietly took it into the Highfields house and gave it to Lindbergh. Breckinridge was known to make trips down the drive to talk to the Troopers. Maybe he happened upon it and gave it to Lindbergh who eventually put it to good use. Here is a picture of the thumbguard that was found and how dirty those ribbon ties were: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/thumbguard.jpgThe metal portion of the thumbguard was in very good shape. It could have been buried in the dirt and even have laid in snow and rain and mud puddles and still have been in such good condition (the metal part). The metal used to create this guard was Monel wire. This wire was highly resistant to corrosion. So much so that this wire could lay in seawater and not corrode. Dirt, mud, melting snow water and rain water would not have caused it to rust. Here is a link to an advertisement for this thumbguard that was posted on this board several years ago by Kevkon: www.magazineart.org/main.php/v//healthandmedicine/medicalequipment/Baby+Alice+Thumb+Guard+-1931A.jpg.htmlIf anyone is interested in acquiring a Baby Alice thumbguard like the one that appears in the advertisement, there is one for sale on ebay right now: www.ebay.com/itm/Baby-Alice-Thumb-Guard-1930-Thumb-Sucker-Postage-1c-Stamp-Medical-Rare-Vintage-/302016878927?hash=item46519bd94f:g:XfIAAOSwDNdV0-Wz
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 3, 2016 13:10:28 GMT -5
I think it was found on April 1. The thing is though, Lindbergh had been stalling about paying the ransom, which I don't believe was ever meant to be paid at all. That being the case, I think the thumbguard was dropped the next day, Lindbergh giving himself a pretext to change his mind and finally pay--that is, making it seem like the kidnappers had CAL Jr. and, because of this, were forcing his hand. And Sweetwater, I like all your ideas. But I do think, rather than Schwarzkopf, those words (or something similar to them) were probably spoken to Betty, to get her to participate. And I have a hard time believing the thumbguard could've been outside for that long; the laces would've been far dirtier than they were, I think. They look pretty dirty now, sure, but could that be because of age and subsequent handling? Didn't people say they were basically white when the thumbguard was found?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 14:45:44 GMT -5
Didn't people say they were basically white when the thumbguard was found? Hey LJ, When I read your response that people said the ribbons were basically white when the thumbguard was found, I went on a search through my photo/video files to see what I could find on the thumbguard. You are correct about the ribbons being basically white. I am attaching a video of the thumbguard as it looked in the court room for the trial. The ribbons are not only white but they are soft looking as you would expect them to be if the item was very new. I don't know why the thumbguard at the archives that was photographed by Ronelle looks so soiled. It is very misleading. It is hard to believe it is the same one! The thumbguard at the trial and identified by Betty as the one she found on the Lindbergh driveway could not have been on that driveway for very long at all. I find it hard to believe it was even run over by a car when you look at this video of it. It really does strengthen the position that the thumbguard was a plant and spent next to no time on that driveway, let alone out in the weather. Good call on the thumbguard, LJ. Here is a link to the video showing the thumbguard. It appears at 2:30 minutes in. Be sure to enlarge the video and stop it at the appropriate place to get a good look at the thumbguard. youtu.be/hpbi_LQIlzE
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 3, 2016 15:38:11 GMT -5
Yeah, just watched that video (I've seen it before, but it was a long time ago. Fantastic stuff; thanks for that!), and the thumbguard doesn't look like it was outside, exposed to the elements for a month. It's hard to tell whether it was deformed; this is something I read, that it was flattened (i.e. possibly run over). I think the reason the strings look so dark in Ronelle's picture is because of age, poor handling and lack of preservation. In any case, I don't think, as you say, the thumbguard was out there long at all. An animal picking it up in the backyard and dropping in the driveway means it would've been outside since March 1. As I think we've shown, that's out. And I think it would've been crazy for kidnappers to have even tried to breach the security perimeter at Highfields--to sneak back onto the property to drop the thumbguard where it was found, especially since they could've mailed it, so I think that's out too. So if it wasn't outside the whole time, and an outsider didn't leave the thumbguard in the drive, I think that leaves an insider dropping it where it was found. The condition of the thumbguard can help us narrow down who this insider was: If it was flattened, that probably means it was run over--i.e. it had been out there prior to Betty's discovery. If it was not, that could mean it was dropped even sooner. Being something of a large contraption, it seems like it would've been hard for Betty to have dropped it without Elsie noticing (as I originally thought), so, run over or not, I'm leaning more towards it being out there prior to their walk--dropped from a car by someone else at Highfields. How Betty and Elsie missed it on their first pass down the drive--who knows? Maybe, as Sweetwater said, they were distracted, in conversation; that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2016 18:53:30 GMT -5
On the topic of the thumb-guard.... There are several sources about the discovery. Once they are all reviewed it leaves the actual day "up in the air." Here is a copy of the letter from Maish looking for his trial testimony money: Attachment DeletedAs to the question about "when" the last hands-on examination of the child's bones were.... We all know the NJSP conducted a "review" of the evidence in lasting from 1977 thru 1981. During that time their Forensic Scientists made examinations of this evidence as well as the other evidence throughout. As an example, they sprayed luminal on the flannel shirt, the undershirt, the sleeping suit, and the burlap bag during this time. When that came up negative they treated selective areas with benzidine. Sometime during this review they had "outside" Experts make hands-on examinations. The child's bones were among them. The NJSP solicited Dr. Wilton Krogman, a Physical Anthopologist from Pennsylvania for his expertise. On May 25, 1977 he spent 8 hours examining the (11) bones the NJSP had at the time. The examination consisted of physical and x-ray examination. The next outside Expert to examine these bones (that I know of) was made by William Bass, a Forensic Anthropologist from Tennessee. That occurred in 1982. It also appears he returned to the NJSP Forensic Lab sometime in June 1984 for yet another examination of those bones. Of course there may be more but this is all I am personally aware of. Hope this helps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 20:44:17 GMT -5
In any case, I don't think, as you say, the thumbguard was out there long at all. So if it wasn't outside the whole time, and an outsider didn't leave the thumbguard in the drive, I think that leaves an insider dropping it where it was found. The condition of the thumbguard can help us narrow down who this insider was: If it was flattened, that probably means it was run over--i.e. it had been out there prior to Betty's discovery. If it was not, that could mean it was dropped even sooner. Being something of a large contraption, it seems like it would've been hard for Betty to have dropped it without Elsie noticing (as I originally thought), so, run over or not, I'm leaning more towards it being out there prior to their walk--dropped from a car by someone else at Highfields. How Betty and Elsie missed it on their first pass down the drive--who knows? Maybe, as Sweetwater said, they were distracted, in conversation; that makes sense. Do you think Charlie ever had the thumbguards on the night he went missing? Anne testified that she never saw the thumbguards put on Charlie that night. She must have left the room to go downstairs before Betty put them on. Betty is the only person who would have knowledge that they were placed on Charlie or not placed on him. Betty testified that she did put them on. In your theory you mention that Charlie could have been given something to help him to stay asleep. Maybe Betty never put them on at all. Otherwise, if the thumbguards were on Charlie when he left the house then that would mean someone on the outside had them. Wouldn't the insider have had to somehow receive the thumbguard back so it could end up being dropped on the drive for Betty and Elsie to find? That thumbguard in the video does not look like it was ever buried with Charlie that's for sure. It is possible that Charlie had more than one set of thumbguards. Maybe the thumbguard dropped on the drive was one from a second set that existed. It wasn't so much a large item. The metal wire part slipped over a small child's wrist and thumb. The long ribbon ties make it more bulky to handle. I agree that it might have been hard for Betty to conceal the thumbguard and then get it out of a pocket and drop it behind while walking with Elsie. What other options do we have? Can you see Breckinridge dropping the thumbguard? He knew that Betty and Elsie made that walk daily. Maybe he went down ahead of them to talk with the guards and the newspaper people that might have been around there and when he saw Betty and Elsie approaching he started back up the drive passing them and then he dropped it for them to find on their way back up the drive. Or do you see Lindbergh dropping the thumbguard on the driveway when he was either leaving or coming back? Whoever did this had to be "in" on what was going on. So there are not too many people to choose from. I think sweetwater's suggestion about Betty and Elsie missing it on the way down makes sense also. I still don't think it was on that drive very long though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 20:55:49 GMT -5
On the topic of the thumb-guard.... There are several sources about the discovery. Once they are all reviewed it leaves the actual day "up in the air." Here is a copy of the letter from Maish looking for his trial testimony money: So we don't know for certain when the thumbguard was actually found? I wonder who started the April 1, 1932 date as the day it was found. Maybe this is one of those "facts" you talked about in your recent post. It appears in a book and then ends up in other books and a new "fact" is born. I believe when Betty testified she said it was about a month after the kidnapping when she found it. Maybe this is why the April 1 date became attached to this event. Thanks for posting that letter. Wow! People were sure in a hurry to get "paid" for testifying. That letter is dated just a few days after the trial ended! I wonder why he wrote to Captain Lamb instead of Wilentz?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 3, 2016 21:40:48 GMT -5
I doubt the thumbguard was put on CAL Jr. that night. I actually don't think it ever left the house, not until it was dropped in the driveway. If not Betty, I think the person who was best positioned to plant it was Lindbergh, probably on his way out. I think he and Betty were the only ones at Highfields who knew anything, and Betty didn't have the complete picture.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2016 8:03:16 GMT -5
Here's a little "extra" info on that guard you may or may not be aware of:
Maish told Peacock this guard was "three or four years old." Since it wasn't purchased direct, I am not sure how long a guard like this would remain on a shelf before it's purchased. Maish had all of his records to show the shipments to the stores and suggested they could trace which store and when if need be but that was never done. The instructions that came with that guard showed the "tape" is to be wrapped around the child's hand twice. Next, the tape that came with the guard was temporary, and Maish said the tape on the thumbguard shown to him wasn't the original. Something else is that Maish could not tell if this was a #2 or #3 guard. The #2 was designed for a child from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2, and the #3 for a child from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 4, 2016 10:31:56 GMT -5
So what we could have here, then, is a new thumbguard, bought and planted. The one found may not have been CAL Jr.'s at all. Also, it would make sense if he had a pair of them. Maybe one was on him and the other was planted...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 14:11:46 GMT -5
Oh wow! First we can't fix the date the thumbguard was found on the driveway and now we can't even be sure that the thumbguard found was actually Charlie's.
So where do we go with this??? First Anne says she never saw the thumbguards put on Charlie that night. If you read Betty Gow's March 10, 1932 statement she never mentions putting thumbguards on Charlie as part of his bedtime preparations. She mentions the clothing, the medicine, the special nightshirt and even the blanket pins but not the thumbguards. Betty Gow made a statement on March 3, 1932. Michael, did Betty mention putting the thumbguards on in that statement?
Maybe this thumbguard was planted, not to pressure Lindbergh to comply with the ransom request, but to mislead authorities about how the kidnapper(s) exited from the property that night. This thumbguard became part of the police theory that the kidnapper(s) took the child down the driveway and then stopped where the creek water was to check if the child was injured. This is where the police were claiming the sleeping suit was removed and that the thumbguard also came off at that time. The thumbguard steers the investigation in this direction.
The fact that the thumbguard that was found could have been 3 or 4 years old is surprising. That is a long time for something to sit on a store shelf, but then, maybe back then it was more common??? The tape on the thumbguard shown to Maish was not the original tape, so what are the chances that this thumbguard is new? It could have been in use for a while if the tape was replaced. Or, maybe someone replaced the tape because the original tape was messed up from being buried with Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Aug 4, 2016 18:00:49 GMT -5
Why plant the thumbguard around April 1st? No meaningful purpose worth the risk of being seen/found with the thumbguard in your possession. While I posted this once before, I'll add it to this thread. My first approach is to look for an explanation that can explain an event without deliberate involvement of others. My understanding is the thumbguard was found in the middle of the driveway near the guard house (someone on the board had posted this). Also, the metal part was slightly flattened. How could it have been partially flattened? If a car drove over it - totally flattened. But how? Also, the driveway was fairly narrow and very difficult to drive the tires down the middle of the lane. If planted by someone, why partially flattened? While what I am proposing isn't re-searchable for the most part, here goes a possible explanation. What happens in NJ every March/early April? Birds build nests. And they are prolific at finding strings, ribbons, etc., to use in their nest building. So what? The night of the kidnapping the thumbguard falls off or is pulled off while Charlie is manhandled as he is taken away from the house to a waiting car (Featherbed Lane?). During that night, someone (police, etc.) inadvertently and unknowingly steps on the thumbguard, partially flattening it as it is pushed into the mud. Yes, there was a lot of mud around. A day or two later, it even snows a few inches, further covering the guard. After a few days, the searching of the grounds near the house for something like a thumbguard is over. Now, its the end of March, after multiple washing rains, the strings are now exposed and spotted by a nest building bird. Try as it might, its a bit heavy and awkward to fly with the metal guard and the bird drops it. It might even have picked it up a couple of times, repeatedly having to drop it mid-flight. What is the easiest path for the bird to fly.. down the middle of the driveway until it either gives up, gets dark or loses track of the guard. A day or two later, along comes Betty and Elsie on their walk down the driveway. While my theory requires a cooperative bird, its possible. I looked at the YouTube video of the guard, it looks weathered to me and off-white in color.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 15:12:08 GMT -5
Your theory is interesting. How you account for the flattening of the metal part of the guard probably makes more sense than a car running over the thumbguard. A foot pressing down on the metal part would likely cause a partial flattening. A car would have most likely crushed it.
The weather was bad for a while. Rain, snow and mud for sure would have helped conceal the thumbguard. I just don't think the thumbguard as it looks in the you tube video looks dirty enough to have been buried for almost a month. The thumbguard ties definitely give it the appearance of having been in use for a while.
To be clear, your theory is that the thumbguard might have been pushed into the dirt somewhere around Featherbed Lane and then when it surfaced it was carried by a bird and then dropped on the Lindbergh driveway. It is an interesting idea for sure. I am just hesitate because I would expect those ties to be more soiled than they look in the video. I will keep your theory in my thumbguard file for sure. Thanks for posting it!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 5, 2016 16:18:36 GMT -5
Oh wow! First we can't fix the date the thumbguard was found on the driveway and now we can't even be sure that the thumbguard found was actually Charlie's. So where do we go with this??? First Anne says she never saw the thumbguards put on Charlie that night. If you read Betty Gow's March 10, 1932 statement she never mentions putting thumbguards on Charlie as part of his bedtime preparations. She mentions the clothing, the medicine, the special nightshirt and even the blanket pins but not the thumbguards. Betty Gow made a statement on March 3, 1932. Michael, did Betty mention putting the thumbguards on in that statement? It's just to say the discovery could have been any day from March 29th thru and including April 1st. The "accepted" day is April 1st but there are other sources that say differently or leave it up in the air. I've read all of her Statements prior to May 12th and she doesn't mention putting on the thumb-guards. There's so many obstacles to navigate in order to get to the truth of any issue. The #1 road-block is whether or not those giving information are always telling the truth. I can tell you there were not.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Aug 5, 2016 18:25:49 GMT -5
It's just to say the discovery could have been any day from March 29th thru and including April 1st. The "accepted" day is April 1st but there are other sources that say differently or leave it up in the air. I've read all of her Statements prior to May 12th and she doesn't mention putting on the thumb-guards. There's so many obstacles to navigate in order to get to the truth of any issue. The #1 road-block is whether or not those giving information are always telling the truth. I can tell you there were not. So... whatever day it was "found" ... can somebody refresh me on what happened then? Betty gave it to whom ...Lindbergh? And then what? Is there a clear picture of how things progressed after it was found? Was it turned over to authorities right away? How well is the chain of possession (or whatever is the correct term) documented? It is a little interesting to me that in her trial testimony, Betty Gow flubs a little when asked when she found the thumbguard. It goes something like (and I'm paraphrasing, so not word for word): "I think it was May 12th. Oh, no, it was not..." and she corrects then, I think, to indicate about one month after the kidnapping. May 12th of course was when the body was discovered and I guess, more than likely, she makes that mistake because that looms understandably as a "big event" in her mind. Still, it's interesting to think about WHY that date slipped out, in recalling about the thumbguard. Something at the edge of her mind about ANOTHER thumbguard, maybe...or ...? Maybe recalling to herself that May 12th was the first time she gave a statement about putting on the guard/s? I had been unaware, Michael, that Betty's statements didn't mention a thumbguard/thumbguards on the baby until the May 12th statement! That is interesting. Also, looking at her trial testimony, it almost sounds as if she is saying that she put only one thumbguard on the baby...? Does she (or anybody) state somewhere that he had thumbguards placed on both hands? (I only have an abbreviated version of her trial testimony right at hand, so it may be that she does go into detail about two guards but that that part was condensed in the version I am looking at.)
|
|