Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 23:28:08 GMT -5
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.) Betty Gow's trial testimony about putting on the thumbguards the night of March 1, 1932: Trial Transcript, Pages 262 and 263, Direct examination of Bessie Mowat Gow by Attorney General David WilentzQ(Wilentz) Did it have over that a sleeping garment or sleeping suit? A(Betty) In addition to that he wore diapers, a rubber covering on top of that, then a sleeping suit. And on the sleeping suit a thumb guard in each hand.
Q(Wilentz) Now, did you affix the thumb guard? A(Betty) I did.
Q(Wilentz) Will you tell us how you affixed it? A(Betty) The metal part over his thumb, the tapes around the wrist of his sleeping suit twice, tied in a knot.
Q(Wilentz) In other words, I suppose that the purpose of tying it around twice and in a knot was to see to it that it was securely fastened? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) I show you Exhibit S-16 and ask you whether or not that is one of the thumb guards, the metal thumb guard which you affixed to one of the thumbs of this child on the night of March 1, 1932? A(Betty) It is.
Q(Wilentz) It is. And I notice that it is knotted. Is that the knot in which it was tied that night? A(Betty) That is the identical knot.
Q(Wilentz) The identical knot? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) It hasn't been untied or unloosened? A(Betty) No.
Q(Wilentz) So far as you know? A(Betty) So far as I know.
Q(Wilentz) Now when you would affix this metal thumb guard and you would tie it, I take it you would tie it around the sleeping garment? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) Quite securely? A(Betty) Quite securely.
Q(Wilentz) And was that a process that you followed and a procedure that you followed every night when you put the child to bed? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) I suppose that is for the purpose of preventing the child from sucking its thumb, is that it? A(Betty) Yes.
Trial Testimony of Betty Gow about the finding of the thumbguard. Trial Testimony, Pages 276, 277, 278, Direct Examination of Bessie Mowat Gow by Attorney General David Wilentz Q(Wilentz) And during one of those days, Miss Gow, did you find Exhibit S-16 (showing the witness)? A (Betty) I did.
Q(Wilentz) The thumb guard. With whom were you when you found the thumb guard, S-16? A(Betty) With Mrs. Whately.
Q(Wilentz) Will you please tell us the circumstances of that discovery.
The Court: Will the witness give us the date? Mr. Wilentz: Yes.
Q(Wilentz) Tell us the circumstances and the date? A(Betty) I believe it was May the 12th--Oh, no, it was not--about one month after the baby had been stolen.
Q(Wilentz) That would be somewhere in the neighborhood of April the lst? A(Betty) Yes it would.
Q(Wilentz) And tell us about it, please, how you happened to find it? A(Betty) It would be in the afternoon after lunch, Mrs. Whately and I were in the habit of taking walks down the driveway.
Q(Wilentz) On the premises? A(Betty) On the premises. We walked down to the gate where the police were stationed, talked to them for a little while and on the way back I should say about one hundred yards from the gate we both noticed this object on the road. I recognized it immediately and picked it up.
Q(Wilentz) Who picked it up? A(Betty) I did; went right up to the house, found Colonel Lindbergh, and gave it to him, told him how I had found it.
Q(Wilentz) Was it then in the same condition as it is today in this courtroom? A(Betty) Exactly that condition.
Q(Wilentz) Still knotted? A(Betty) Still knotted.
Q(Wilentz) About what time of the day was it? A(Betty) Between three and four, I should say.
Q(Wilentz) In the afternoon? A(Betty) In the afternoon.
Q(Wilentz) Now from March the lst, the date of this crime, until April the 1st, that date that you found this, I take it it was your custom to take an afternoon walk? A(Betty) Yes, it was.
Q(Wilentz) Did you at any time during that month leave the Lindbergh estate at all? A(Betty) Never.
Q(Wilentz) Never went off the estate? A(Betty) No.
Q(Wilentz) Then the extent of your walks was upon the estate property, isn't that so? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) And when you say that--how many hours did you stay away from the gate house on the estate before you found this thumb guard? A(Betty) I should say about a hundred yards.
Q(Wilentz) And when you say a hundred yards, you mean towards the homestead towards the building from the gate. A(Betty) A hundred yards from the gate.
Q(Wilentz) From the gate in the direction towards the homestead? A(Betty) In the direction of the homestead.
Q(Wilentz) Now let's see if we can find on one of these maps this gate house we are talking about.
Mr. Large: The upper one on the right. Mr. Wilentz: Referring to Exhibit-- Mr. Hauck: S-1 Mr. Wilentz: S-1
Q(Wilentz) I think this is intended to indicate to the Lindbergh homestead. Now what direction--When you talk about the gate house, was that up along the public highway? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) Near the public highway, so I take it that is that little step up here, somewhere? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) Is that so? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) Will you then point out in what direction from that gate house it was that you found this thumb guard? A(Betty) (Witness points it out)
Q(Wilentz) Now, will you please take this pencil and mark an "X" at the point at which you think it was in that roadway where you found this thumb guard? You will have to step up. (Witness steps on chair and marks Exhibit S-1 with an "X" as indicated.)
Q(Wilentz) Now, X, as you have indicated it on that map, indicates the point which you believe to be a hundred yards this side of the gate house on the Lindbergh estate and the point at which you found in the road the thumb guard which is marked in evidence as Exhibit S-16, is that it? A(Betty) Yes.
Q(Wilentz) And that is your idea, incidentally, of a hundred yards; is that it? A(Betty) Yes.Defense Attorney Edward Reilly cross-examined Betty about the thumbguards. If you want me to post that, let me know!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 7, 2016 8:40:44 GMT -5
I haven't read the text of Lloyd Gardner's interview with the present-day pediatric neurologist, and would appreciate if someone may be able to post it here.
But I'd suggest that rickets was far more likely to be a cause of Charlie's enlarged cranium than hydrocephalus. For one clue, Charlie was taking large doses of a intended to provide him with Vitamin D. (Unfortunately, this would not be effective, by definition, in a Vitamin D resistant rickets patient.) Futhermore, hydrocephalus would likely cause a very rapid and very generalized deterioration in a child's overall neurological status. If that were the case, Charlie would be significantly behind his chronological age in reaching the neurological developmental milestones which are so important in the first two years of life. In particular, he would be unlikely to talk or walk/crawl at a level a child his age would be expected to do. To the best of our knowledge, we have no evidence that this was the case with him, so I would hold off on the hydrocephalus talk. He probably wouldn't have survived to twenty months if he had hydrocephalus, because there was no surgery (shunt procedure) available at the time to specifically treat hydrocephalus.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 7, 2016 15:33:03 GMT -5
I haven't read the text of Lloyd Gardner's interview with the present-day pediatric neurologist, and would appreciate if someone may be able to post it here. But I'd suggest that rickets was far more likely to be a cause of Charlie's enlarged cranium than hydrocephalus. For one clue, Charlie was taking large doses of a intended to provide him with Vitamin D. (Unfortunately, this would not be effective, by definition, in a Vitamin D resistant rickets patient.) Futhermore, hydrocephalus would likely cause a very rapid and very generalized deterioration in a child's overall neurological status. If that were the case, Charlie would be significantly behind his chronological age in reaching the neurological developmental milestones which are so important in the first two years of life. In particular, he would be unlikely to talk or walk/crawl at a level a child his age would be expected to do. To the best of our knowledge, we have no evidence that this was the case with him, so I would hold off on the hydrocephalus talk. He probably wouldn't have survived to twenty months if he had hydrocephalus, because there was no surgery (shunt procedure) available at the time to specifically treat hydrocephalus. It's worth reading Lloyd's new book, it's only like $2.50. I don't know enough about it, but from my conversation with him he spent a good deal of time going over every facet of the material with various pediatric specialists to get a better of sense what ailed the child. As such, he cites a number of reasons for his belief, including the fact the child had trouble standing up and the pins next to the child's head to ensure he didn't attempt to move during the night, for fear he would fall. The specific nature of his enlarged skull ("copper beaten skull") is also indicative of something more severe than resistant rickets. Additionally the unfused skull bones and its brittle condition tend to lend itself more to a hydrocephalic condition. If Lindbergh is indeed behind this, it is probably crucial to remember the child was probably becoming worse in his ailments than better.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 7, 2016 18:14:58 GMT -5
If CAL JR had all these ailments....rickets, hydrocephalus, brittle skull, soft bones, epilepsy and so on. Don't you think that sucking his thumb would be the last thing the parents or anybody else would worry about? Why even bother with that crazy thumb guard? If he is that messed up, why not just go ahead and let him suck his thumb?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 7, 2016 21:15:39 GMT -5
Whatever the exact health issue--hydrocephalus, vitamin D resistant rickets, what have you--I think, given the condition of the corpse and the fact that there are no photos of the child in the months leading up to the kidnapping, that CAL Jr. was not a healthy child. Not just sickly or weak, but seriously ill. I think this is the point. As to why there would be a thumbguard at all if this was the case: Lindbergh would still not want his child sucking his thumb, and, in any case, it may be, given all these other health problems, that thumbsucking was indeed a moot point and that the thumbguard was never used--except as a piece of evidence to be planted: Any item of CAL Jr.'s would do; it just so happened that the thumbguard was chosen for this purpose.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 7, 2016 23:11:20 GMT -5
If CAL JR had all these ailments....rickets, hydrocephalus, brittle skull, soft bones, epilepsy and so on. Don't you think that sucking his thumb would be the last thing the parents or anybody else would worry about? Why even bother with that crazy thumb guard? If he is that messed up, why not just go ahead and let him suck his thumb? Also mentioned in Lloyd's book is the following, "The Lower canine teeth tended to divert towards the incisors and were below the line of adjacent teeth.” It is speculated this is the reason for the "abnormal measures" taken to prevent thumb sucking. Excerpt From: Lloyd C. Gardner. “The Crime of the Century.” iBooks. itun.es/us/oB2M9.l
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 8, 2016 6:59:10 GMT -5
Where did Gardner get that info from? It wasn't in the autopsy report. And as far as I know, it wasn't in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. I'm unaware of any of Charlie's contemporaneous medical or dental records being made public. (BTW, does anyone know if he had been seen by a dentist? I don't think it was common for small children to get dental care in that era.)
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 8, 2016 14:24:26 GMT -5
Will Rogers saw CAL JR the weekend before the "kidnapping". He said the baby played with blocks on the floor with his mom and his dad threw pillows at him. When Rogers was about to leave the baby climbed into his car. This hardly sounds like a baby who is practically on his "death bed". Unless of course Rogers is in on the conspiracy!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2016 16:00:58 GMT -5
Will Rogers saw CAL JR the weekend before the "kidnapping". He said the baby played with blocks on the floor with his mom and his dad threw pillows at him. When Rogers was about to leave the baby climbed into his car. This hardly sounds like a baby who is practically on his "death bed". Unless of course Rogers is in on the conspiracy! I'm not sure you can call someone who's trying to make a situation look normal a part of some conspiracy. I think this sort of thing happens every day. Think about how many people convicted of child abuse were characterized as a "good" parent prior thereto. Or even a stranger telling someone how beautiful their baby is when they are just being "nice." What would you have Will say? The child was very weak? Very sickly? Was stupid? That ain't gonna happen. The proof about the child's health comes from what's available. Most Experts say, even with Rickets, a stick could not have made a hole in that child's skull where it did. But that is exactly what occurred. So because Will said what he said that means all of the documentation which points to the child being sick wasn't true? That there was no hole in his skull? That Inspector Walsh really used something other then a stick to poke a hole in his skull and it's HIM that's part of the conspiracy?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 8, 2016 20:59:52 GMT -5
OK, So we're not going to take any more pictures or movies of our grossly deformed child but we're going to allow a celebrity like Will Rogers to see him a week before the big plan to get rid of him? This just doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 8, 2016 22:15:46 GMT -5
I've seen posts here that said the baby's skull was soft, while other posts said the skull was brittle. Can you clear this up for me, was the skull soft or brittle? Or was it soft on one side and brittle on the other side?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 8, 2016 23:17:55 GMT -5
OK, So we're not going to take any more pictures or movies of our grossly deformed child but we're going to allow a celebrity like Will Rogers to see him a week before the big plan to get rid of him? This just doesn't make much sense to me. They were friends. He didn't come over to specifically examine the child and probably saw him in passing. By all accounts, he was still a conscious breathing two year old. Suppose, passing from room to room, he saw the child looking down playing with a toy. How would he know the child was unable to stand up straight, had dental issues necessitating the thumb guards, unfused skull bones, etc. The oversized head might not have been noticeable to an untrained expert or a person who only saw Charlie in passing. Additionally, suppose he did see something amiss, but was unclear of the specifics of the problem. Did you really expect him, in the middle of this frenzy, to go against Lindbergh, the greatest hero of the era, by saying his child was ill? His statement was made to the press for a specific reason and whether or not the exact details were true, we will never know. Michael can probably clarify this more. The skull issues are documented in a few places. First, the fontanel or "soft spot" in the child's skull is supposed to close on an infant relatively early on. Alas, in Charlie's case, it never closed shut, indicating a problem. Additionally, the child's skull was brittle enough that a stick pierced a hole right through the side of it when they tried to turn it over in the shallow grave. When the skull was examined at autopsy, they attempted to saw the top off, but instead it just came apart on its own (or, "came apart like an orange," as Reilly said). Reilly, at the trial, tried to blame this on the corpse being exposed to the elements, but this can not be the case. As Lloyd puts it in his new volume: “A normal skull—even that of a two-year-old—would not have so deteriorated in that short a time. Down in the vaults of cathedrals are ossuaries from before the Middle Ages testifying silently to the strength of the bones of saints—but also of commoners. Intact skulls from the time of the Neanderthals tell us much of what we know about that prehistoric era.” ---- One interesting tidbit in all of this, per Dr. Gardner, is when Scotland Yard was asked for assistance in the matter and briefed upon the facts of their case, their reply had an ominous tone: “At one point Scotland Yard asked if anyone had checked with doctors who might have knowledge “of the family to determine whether or not he was normal in every respect to offset the motive of the family of attempting to have the child destroyed due to being abnormal.” Major Charles Schoeffel replied that “These and numberous [sic] suggestions of a like nature” had already been “investigated and checked out by members of our Department.” ---- Excerpts From: Lloyd C. Gardner. “The Crime of the Century.” iBooks. itun.es/us/oB2M9.l
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Aug 9, 2016 1:04:14 GMT -5
amy35: Just a thank you to you for posting the Betty Gow transcript. I was not meaning to be lazy by not finding it myself -- just had those thoughts I posted come and only a bit of time to post them, so I just turned to what I had readily at hand. Thank you for going the extra step I had planned to take when I had more time.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Aug 9, 2016 1:18:14 GMT -5
I think it might be possible that, whatever was wrong with Charlie, he need not have reached a stage yet where he truly looked "grossly deformed" or showed severe dysfunction with expected skills in the eyes of a casual onlooker. But his condition MAY have been progressing...and with the public/press interest in the Lindberghs so extreme, I would not be surprised if even slow but cumulative changes would be something Charles and/or Anne would decide at some point not to risk being "picked up on" by outsiders by releasing further pictures. (After all, that something was "wrong" had been speculated about in the press almost from the time he was born.) Perhaps a new or further diagnosis had been made, at some point, for Charlie and they were grappling with what to do. Could be they had not even shared it with other family members yet.
Still, it does seem that maybe they had just stopped TAKING pictures. (Anne's diary mentioning, after his death, that there are no pictures recent enough to really show what Charlie looked like toward the end of his life.) I know that it is not all that unusual for a family to "miss" a few months, in the picture-taking, for a variety of nowhere-near-ominous reasons. Something like that COULD explain the apparent lack of later pictures. But it is something that has always really bothered me.
I try to remember, too, that even if much of our speculation about Charlie's health problems is right on target, that alone does not mean that CAL absolutely had something to do with Charlie's fate. I would need further evidence of THAT, to feel more certain, I think. It COULD be that the baby had the severe health problems but really got kidnapped, anyhow. There could be reasons -- in addition to just guarding family privacy, which we know CAL was big on -- to not have revealed further information after Charlie disappeared...even if CAL had no role in it all. I can easily see Will Rogers playing into that kind of "protection" for the family. But I agree, too, that he may just not have really noticed anything seriously amiss or wanted to comment publicly on it, if he did.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2016 5:51:49 GMT -5
Michael can probably clarify this more. There are certain things, by design, we will never know. That isn't a crime. Like Sweetwater said, there are plenty of reasons for families to seek privacy. All of the documentation that exists proves there was something wrong with him. The argument now becomes to what extent or severity. Pointing to what Will Rogers said is a common rebuttal, in fact, it's usually the only one. So the question becomes was he or wasn't he healthy? Even the family conceded he had Rickets! So here's a child with Rickets and his Father is knocking him down with pillows? I mean that's what Will said in order to emphasize how normal he was. And he's not the only source who has CAL doing things like this. Next, he's also not the only source attributing normality among the family when there was not. It was an everyday occurrence. History records it as fact when half of those things never even happened. Lindbergh did "this," and Lindbergh acted like "that." Negative. He instead acted a very different way. Again, all the documentation points to the child being unhealthy. So in the end, did Inspector Walsh poke a hole in the skull with a mere stick? If one is willing to accept that then there's your answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 19:49:28 GMT -5
Since this thread has been discussing Will Rogers and the comments he made about visiting the Lindberghs 2 weeks before the kidnapping and having seen Charlie, I thought I would post the newspaper articles for anyone who is following this thread but has not seen any articles. This story was picked up by many newspapers all over the country. As often happens, some articles relate/delete different things than others so I will post several of them here. All of these articles appeared in different newspapers on March 3, 1932. My own opinion is that some of the things mentioned, I find questionable, but you can't miss how Rogers seeks to impress that Charlie was a normal child. I am not sure why he feels that would be necessary to do, if indeed, Charlie was perfectly normal. The same article in a different newspaper but with an additional detail: Here is a third article relating the same interview with additional details not in the others but not including other details:
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 9, 2016 20:37:35 GMT -5
Since this thread has been discussing Will Rogers and the comments he made about visiting the Lindberghs 2 weeks before the kidnapping and having seen Charlie, I thought I would post the newspaper articles for anyone who is following this thread but has not seen any articles. This story was picked up by many newspapers all over the country. As often happens, some articles relate/delete different things than others so I will post several of them here. All of these articles appeared in different newspapers on March 3, 1932. My own opinion is that some of the things mentioned, I find questionable, but you can't miss how Rogers seeks to impress that Charlie was a normal child. I am not sure why he feels that would be necessary to do, if indeed, Charlie was perfectly normal. The same article in a different newspaper but with an additional detail: Here is a third article relating the same interview with additional details not in the others but not including other details: It does seem very forced. Like he had an objective, to "normalize" the family. The "throwing pillows and knocking him over" game seems really, really odd to me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2016 18:52:04 GMT -5
It does seem very forced. Like he had an objective, to "normalize" the family. The "throwing pillows and knocking him over" game seems really, really odd to me. We need to examine what he says and when he says it. The public diagnosis was "rickets." The family is treating him for "something" as evidenced by his diet, his medicine, and the sun lamp. So where is the observation there's something wrong with him? There's none, in fact, we'd think he was a child in perfect health. Next, as USC mentions above, it doesn't seem like a normal thing for a Father to purposely knock down a child so afflicted. Rogers does his best to make it seem like a playful yet careful game, after all, Lindbergh was throwing "soft" pillows at him. However, the pillows may have been soft but the floor sure wasn't. And Lindbergh wasn't a normal Father either. This isn't the only source for Lindy acting this way towards his 1st born. The reason he did this was to "toughen" him up ... meaning he was afraid his son was showing signs of becoming soft or weak and didn't alter his tough love tactics regardless of his health. Crazy insane practical jokes and tough love for his unhealthy son - a recipe for disaster if you ask me. The other observation Rogers made was how happy the child was. It's nice to see since most others all have him behaving with anything but a contented disposition. So often everyone tries to dispel any notion the child was sick when we know he was. But when the stories emerged it was actually much worse the replies are always that it was investigated and disproven. While reports say that I have yet to see the actual investigation disproving it. But what I do see are hints that Authorities may have believed it was true. On page 198 of Lloyd's book he sites an FBI document concerning VanIngen and Hoover. It's in this Memo that Hoover says: " ...Mr. Garvan would take me to see the doctor, and probably obtain from him an interesting statement." The term interesting doesn't seem to fit into the context of this subject. What did they expect to be so interesting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 21:14:30 GMT -5
We need to examine what he says and when he says it. Rogers is being interviewed (March) about his visit he had with the Lindberghs in February, 1932 which is the same month Dr. Van Ingen saw Charlie and described his enlarged head and had noted his reluctance to stay in an upright position. The Rogers must have noted Charlie's appearance and that it wasn't "normal". The Lindberghs and the Rogers were very friendly. Do you think it possible that they talked together about what was wrong with Charlie? Then when Charlie went missing, Rogers thought it important to portray the family and Charlie to the newspapers the way he did???
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 10, 2016 23:56:04 GMT -5
We need to examine what he says and when he says it. Rogers is being interviewed (March) about his visit he had with the Lindberghs in February, 1932 which is the same month Dr. Van Ingen saw Charlie and described his enlarged head and had noted his reluctance to stay in an upright position. The Rogers must have noted Charlie's appearance and that it wasn't "normal". The Lindberghs and the Rogers were very friendly. Do you think it possible that they talked together about what was wrong with Charlie? Then when Charlie went missing, Rogers thought it important to portray the family and Charlie to the newspapers the way he did??? You also have to remember this was an era before TMZ and citizen sleuths. Messaging related to high-profile figures was tightly controlled but oftentimes the stories were less than accurate. For example, if a film studio in that era had a problem with one of their leading men being gay, they'd get "in front of the story" by completely fabricating a relationship with an up-and-coming starlet. The gossip column article would be rife with details about their most recent date and flowery language about how smitten they are with each other. The reality, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. To me, this Will Rogers thing reads very much the same way. It's filled with colorful anecdotes that are there for a reason - to show that the child was "normal" and posit the Lindberghs as a normal American family. That pillow throwing anecdote is one of the oddest inclusions, but perhaps when taken out of context and with no knowledge of Lindbergh's sadistic pranks, it seems less abnormal.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 11, 2016 2:50:21 GMT -5
good points, everyone. what i am now pondering is this: say Charlie did have a fairly serious health issue, it's understandable that the family would try to hide it before the kidnapping. but then, if this is a real kidnapping, wouldn't it make sense for the Lindberghs to publicly declare Charlie's health problem and thus show the kidnappers they are motivated to quickly complete the ransom transaction and get the baby back asap? i know there was the published diet (and the kidnappers promising to follow), but that too seems hinky. with the exception of the vitamin supplement drops, the diet seems pretty normal food. so why the concern over whether or not the kidnappers are feeding him right? btw, do the AMOUNTS of food given in the diet seem right for a child that age? seems awfully skimpy to me. but then again i've never raised kids, only cats. and maybe it only seems lean to my super-sized modern taste buds if there really were health problems, and this was a real kidnapping, the Lindberghs keeping silent about it doesn't make a lot of sense. however, if it's a "hoax", then their silence is more than understandable, it's imperative. just my latest random thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 11, 2016 5:50:10 GMT -5
good points, everyone. what i am now pondering is this: say Charlie did have a fairly serious health issue, it's understandable that the family would try to hide it before the kidnapping. but then, if this is a real kidnapping, wouldn't it make sense for the Lindberghs to publicly declare Charlie's health problem and thus show the kidnappers they are motivated to quickly complete the ransom transaction and get the baby back asap? i know there was the published diet (and the kidnappers promising to follow), but that too seems hinky. with the exception of the vitamin supplement drops, the diet seems pretty normal food. so why the concern over whether or not the kidnappers are feeding him right? btw, do the AMOUNTS of food given in the diet seem right for a child that age? seems awfully skimpy to me. but then again i've never raised kids, only cats. and maybe it only seems lean to my super-sized modern taste buds if there really were health problems, and this was a real kidnapping, the Lindberghs keeping silent about it doesn't make a lot of sense. however, if it's a "hoax", then their silence is more than understandable, it's imperative. just my latest random thoughts. Good point, but my response would be even if this was a "legitimate" kidnapping, you'd still have Lindbergh's ego to contend with. Nobody really doubts he had a penchant for eugenics, believing himself to be of superior stock and sympathized with the Nazis. Admitting, publicly, that the child was cripplingly ill (which is also not in question), would be admitting to a defect in himself, which he almost certainly could not handle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 15:34:27 GMT -5
For example, if a film studio in that era had a problem with one of their leading men being gay, they'd get "in front of the story" by completely fabricating a relationship with an up-and-coming starlet. The gossip column article would be rife with details about their most recent date and flowery language about how smitten they are with each other. The reality, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. Could not this same type of concealment of facts be applied to the Lindbergh kidnapping? What if there was a plan to have Charlie put into a facility where he could be cared for the rest of his natural life? What if his illness required him to be moved to a hospital or institution where he could be ministered to by professionals? Back in the 1930's families did not keep handicapped/seriously ill children in their homes. Something would have to have been in the works for Charlie, and a cover story would need to be in place ready to roll out when it was time for him to go missing. It was possible back then for rich and famous people to do such a thing and do it successfully. Will Rodgers was a real champion for his friend, Lindbergh, during this tragic time. He did want America to see the Lindbergh family and Charlie as a happy family and Charlie just like other 19 month old children. Yet we know that he wasn't. Rogers must have known this also. So then Rogers must be doing this by design to help the Lindberghs. Rogers would come out again to support and promote Lindbergh in the media. When the Lindberghs put the notice in the paper March 6 authorizing Spitale and Bitz to act as go-betweens for the kidnapping, Lindbergh was being criticized for this. Rogers spoke out in defense of Lindbergh and how he is handing this kidnapping. Here is that article:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 15:50:32 GMT -5
btw, do the AMOUNTS of food given in the diet seem right for a child that age? seems awfully skimpy to me. Charlie's diet at the time of his kidnapping is supposed to be a "rickets" diet. I think it is a bit lacking even for rickets. Where is all the meat, especially fish (for rickets) that should be a part of his diet. Two year olds eat meat. Meat helps to prevent things like iron deficient anemia. My guess is that the lack of meat in the diet was because of Charlie's dental issues. Rickets slows the development of the teeth and also the quality of those teeth. Charlie may have had chewing issues because of that so his diet being predominately softer foods may be a reflection of his oral condition.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 12, 2016 20:28:39 GMT -5
Will Rodgers was a real champion for his friend, Lindbergh, during this tragic time. He did want America to see the Lindbergh family and Charlie as a happy family and Charlie just like other 19 month old children. Yet we know that he wasn't. Rogers must have known this also. So then Rogers must be doing this by design to help the Lindberghs. Does this make Rogers an accessory to the crime?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2016 20:59:28 GMT -5
Does this make Rogers an accessory to the crime? I know this question isn't directed at me but I believe the best way to answer it would be to ask another question. Would all of the thousands of people who said Mike Brown was a non-violent "gentle giant" be an accessory to his robbery of the convenience store where he assaulted the clerk? How about those who went crazy because the video was released proving he actually was a violent person? Neither prove or disprove he was legitimately shot by the Police Officer, however, by accepting the description he actually was 'gentle' would be a flawed position.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 13, 2016 9:15:08 GMT -5
Does this make Rogers an accessory to the crime? Would all of the thousands of people who said Mike Brown was a non-violent "gentle giant" be an accessory to his robbery of the convenience store where he assaulted the clerk? We're not talking about "thousands" of strangers, we're talking about a close personal friend.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2016 9:18:12 GMT -5
We're not talking about "thousands" of strangers, we're talking about a close personal friend. By that argument, you seem to be saying none of the thousands weren't close personal friends of Brown or his family. I don't think I need to research it to find some were. Again, none of this means Lindbergh was involved. But I've always found that finding all of the truths, no matter what they were, may assist in discovering the greater one. Too often I find that people shrug off what they don't like but embrace what they do ... even when on equal ground. I say accumulate them all then let the chips fall where they may. If they don't apply that will eventually reveal itself by and through more research.
|
|