Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 16:14:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure who typed this list...whether CAL, or Anne, or even Mrs. Morrow, but take a look at the last entry on Page 2. The handwritten one. Does it imply that photos were taken in February 1932 but are missing or not developed? That is fascinating that it mentions February 1932 pictures. Troubling that it says "all blanks". It is also written in pencil. Someone added it but for what reason if the pictures weren't there. I really need to go through my notes. Somewhere I had read (maybe Berg or Hertog??) that Anne wanted a family picture taken of her and CAL with Charlie. Then the kidnapping happened so I don't know if that was ever done. I wonder if that written reference could be about such a picture.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 20, 2017 16:24:51 GMT -5
Maybe they were given the undeveloped film and none of the pictures came out?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 20, 2017 17:04:03 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, I hope the February 1932 photos exist! What exactly does "blank" mean? And I agree with Amy, I'm convinced the "Charlie with Bogey, Peter, Skean and Pim" photos were taken on either "September 14th or 15th 1931" in New Haven (according to the typed listing). In addition to your link, here's another one that you were talking about - Also, I stand corrected. There 8 photos from October 1931 which have not been seen before. I need to check with Yale to see if I can post them. A couple are out of focus, one is of Charlie with Betty and Skean (I think it's Skean), and another is of Charlie pushing Skean in his baby carriage. By October Charlie's hair was in full Harpo Marx mode. Stella, that’s certainly an option. Perhaps the camera was opened and the roll was exposed and ruined before it could be developed, something like that. I will tell you this, all of the photos at Yale have their negative counterparts with them and I found no negatives that were not developed. Amy, can you please find where Anne said she wanted a family photo? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 20, 2017 19:47:31 GMT -5
Wayne, that's very interesting re: the mention of February 1932 photos and I hope you find them!
Regarding the North Haven photo taken in October of 1931, would this one have been in similar surrounding, same clothes., etc.? shsmo.org/historicmissourians/name/l/lindbergh/images/large/005809.jpg
There is another photo showing him standing on the bench with all four dogs, Bogey, Peter, Skean and Pim, so I would assume that one also would have been from October 1931, as he was walking at 17 months. I don't think he was standing in the photo. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but what evidence do you have that he was "walking" normally? The doctor couldn't even get him to stand up to measure him. Likely his disease was regressing though, so possible his progress he made quickly backtracked.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 20, 2017 20:26:37 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, here's the photo I think Joe is referencing-
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 20, 2017 20:45:49 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, here's the photo I think Joe is referencing- Cute photo. It's interesting that the family only chose to use older photos. Also curious that whatever ailments the baby had seemed to have gotten worse with age, as is common in certain childhood illnesses. As mentioned above, the doctor couldn't even get the baby to stand up for a measurement.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jul 21, 2017 6:56:31 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, here's the photo I think Joe is referencing- Cute photo. It's interesting that the family only chose to use older photos. Also curious that whatever ailments the baby had seemed to have gotten worse with age, as is common in certain childhood illnesses. As mentioned above, the doctor couldn't even get the baby to stand up for a measurement.
I think we're getting a little off-topic from the original theme of this thread. Do you have the reference to this specific claim by Dr. Van Ingen that he couldn't get Charlie to stand up and were there any extenuating circumstances during this particular visit that may have temporarily limited his mobility, which you've been able to determine? I think I've seen this recently but can you upload the report?
From Bookrefuge's post in "The Case Against a Eugenics-Motivated Murder," Anne Lindbergh's diary entries:
November 1931 (17 months) (Anne and Charles have returned from the extended trip to the Orient):
“And oh, the baby! He is a boy, a strong independent boy swaggering around on his firm little legs.”
February 1932 (19 months):
“C. Jr. is trying to stand on his head and look at me upside down through his legs!...Wahgoosh and the baby play together wildly, chasing one another around the room.”
I'm not a doctor, but this doesn't sound like a child who is having trouble standing up or who has severe diabilities. And for what reasons are you concluding any ailments the child had, were getting worse with age?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jul 21, 2017 7:20:23 GMT -5
I'm wondering if the "blank" notation is a reference to there being no actual description written or typed on the back of the photo.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 21, 2017 13:06:22 GMT -5
Joe, that's certainly a valid explanation. I just find it maddening that someone took the time to hand-write the notation and yet neither photos or negatives are there while ALL the rest on the list are there. And here's the VanIngen statement-- Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedSee Page 2, second answer. Is he saying Charlie "couldn't" stand or was he just being a normal 20-month-old who didn't want to stand and be measured?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 21, 2017 15:33:29 GMT -5
Cute photo. It's interesting that the family only chose to use older photos. Also curious that whatever ailments the baby had seemed to have gotten worse with age, as is common in certain childhood illnesses. As mentioned above, the doctor couldn't even get the baby to stand up for a measurement.
I think we're getting a little off-topic from the original theme of this thread. Do you have the reference to this specific claim by Dr. Van Ingen that he couldn't get Charlie to stand up and were there any extenuating circumstances during this particular visit that may have temporarily limited his mobility, which you've been able to determine? I think I've seen this recently but can you upload the report?
From Bookrefuge's post in "The Case Against a Eugenics-Motivated Murder," Anne Lindbergh's diary entries:
November 1931 (17 months) (Anne and Charles have returned from the extended trip to the Orient):
“And oh, the baby! He is a boy, a strong independent boy swaggering around on his firm little legs.”
February 1932 (19 months):
“C. Jr. is trying to stand on his head and look at me upside down through his legs!...Wahgoosh and the baby play together wildly, chasing one another around the room.”
I'm not a doctor, but this doesn't sound like a child who is having trouble standing up or who has severe diabilities. And for what reasons are you concluding any ailments the child had, were getting worse with age?
Where does she mention the "moderate rickety condition" and the slinky baby syndrome that prevented him from standing up to be examined?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 21, 2017 18:42:14 GMT -5
Joe, I believe the photos used on that wanted poster are stills from Alice Morrow's filming she did of Charlie during the summer of 1931 while the Lindberghs were on their Orient flight. These stills were also used in news paper articles at the time of the kidnapping. You would think they would have had more current photos of their son to share in helping to find him. Plus they should have told the police and the newspapers that Charlie's hair had been cut short only a week before the kidnapping. Everyone was looking for a child with a head of golden curls. Those curls had been cut off. njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2014/ Lindbergh allowed all sources to believe he looked just like those photos. He obviously did not. All pictures I've ever seen were when the weather was warm. Most were outside when trees were full.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 21, 2017 18:52:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure who typed this list...whether CAL, or Anne, or even Mrs. Morrow, but take a look at the last entry on Page 2. The handwritten one. Does it imply that photos were taken in February 1932 but are missing or not developed? That is fascinating that it mentions February 1932 pictures. Troubling that it says "all blanks". It is also written in pencil. Someone added it but for what reason if the pictures weren't there. I really need to go through my notes. Somewhere I had read (maybe Berg or Hertog??) that Anne wanted a family picture taken of her and CAL with Charlie. Then the kidnapping happened so I don't know if that was ever done. I wonder if that written reference could be about such a picture. There was the picture of Anne with the baby and her mother and grandmother when he was very young
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2017 8:20:13 GMT -5
Joe, that's certainly a valid explanation. I just find it maddening that someone took the time to hand-write the notation and yet neither photos or negatives are there while ALL the rest on the list are there. Wayne, I think this may also be the answer, that the notation "all blanks" does indeed refer to no description being attached to the back of the February 1932 photos. If you follow the format for this list, the first line notes the location and date, the second line adds a reference to the specific occasion. For the final photos, there is no description on the reverse, so "All blanks" was written to confirm that. I believe this list was typed by Charles Lindbergh, for a number of reasons which include the fact that he was pretty anal about making lists for everything, and as well that, that this is his personal letterhead. Next, it seems pretty clear to me that Anne has updated it to include the February 1932 photos. I've included a sample of her handwriting. There are a number of commonalities between the two documents, which include: - the more characteristically distinctive letters "k" and "b",
- her tendency to use the capital "E" at times within the body of word, alternating between this one and the traditional cursive form of the letter "e",
- her two different stylings of the letter "s", and when she uses the letter "s" (in its "figure 8 form") to pluralize a word, as a stand-alone letter, as compared to her usual use of the traditional cursive form of the letter "s". (compare the word "blanks" from the description of Charlie photos and the word "days" from the second last line of the letter)
- comparison of the stand-alone letter grouping "ary" from both "January" in the letter and "February" in the list of Charlie photos.
If I were to conclude anything here it would be that this list was most likely, originally created by Charles to maintain control over the photos which were taken of his son, based on his fear of any such photos being somehow leaked to the press. Anne has added the final entry in her own handwriting. I think this might answer the question as to why there appear to be no readily available photos of Charlie just prior to the kidnapping, but as everyone else here seems to be, I'm mystified as to why at least one of these photos did not end up on the "Wanted Poster."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2017 8:33:21 GMT -5
Anne is writing in her diary, not a medical journal, so why would she have to mention his official medical condition in light of the fact that he was carrying on like a normally developing child all around her, throughout this time?
Regarding your conclusion that Dr. Van Ingen could not get him to stand up because he had "slinky baby syndrome," I'm curious as to how you arrived at this, based on what Charlie's doctor actually wrote in the statement Wayne posted. It sounds to me, as though Charlie was simply resisting, as a child in the range of the "terrible twos" might typically demonstrate, and based on the fact Van Ingen termed him as "spoiled."
And Wayne, thanks for posting the Dr. Van Ingen statement!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 11:28:50 GMT -5
Anne is writing in her diary, not a medical journal, so why would she have to mention his official medical condition in light of the fact that he was carrying on like a normally developing child all around her? Regarding your conclusion that Dr. Van Ingen could not get him to stand up because he had "slinky baby syndrome," I'm curious as to how you arrived at this, based on what Charlie's doctor actually wrote in the statement Wayne posted. It sounds to me, as though Charlie was simply resisting, as a child in the range of the "terrible twos" might typically demonstrate, and based on the fact Van Ingen termed him as "spoiled." And Wayne, thanks for posting the Dr. Van Ingen statement! Having children that's what I would think too, thus the "spoiled child" notation. He was being resistive toward someone who probably gave him " shots". I do think it was odd that Anne published her diaries because this family was almost paranoid about privacy. Just my thoughts about the diaries.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2017 12:07:27 GMT -5
Her diary wasn't actually published until 1973, which was just a year before CAL died, so that may be telling in itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 12:13:31 GMT -5
]All pictures I've ever seen were when the weather was warm. Most were outside when trees were full. I believe most(but possibly not all) of the home movies were done by Alice Morrow at the North Haven, Maine home of the Morrow family. Some of the movies have Charlie in a sleeveless undershirt and some, especially those taken of him in the stroller show him with long sleeves. It would depend on what month it was and what the weather was like the day the movies were filmed. You can see all these movies on the Remember Charlie thread. They are contained in the very first post of that thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 13:04:20 GMT -5
Is he saying Charlie "couldn't" stand or was he just being a normal 20-month-old who didn't want to stand and be measured? From the way the sentence is structured, I would say that he is implying that the measurement was difficult to take because the child was spoiled and not being cooperative. A couple of things about that Van Ingen statement: The first answer Van Ingen gives on page 1; he mentions that he was contacted by the Coroner or Physician and asked to send the measurements or identification marks of the Lindbergh child. Dr. Van Ingen said he did so, sending them to Mrs. Morrow. Now, the letter Van Ingen sent to Mrs. Morrow containing the last physical examination findings was dated May 4, 1932!! That is 8 days before the body was even found!!! What is going on here??? On page two, the first answer Van Ingen gives to the question about the length of the child, he is clear about the 33" and Charlie's birth date but gets Charlie's age wrong at 2-1/2 years old. Charlie was almost 20 months old at the time Van Ingen examined him. Interesting that Dr. Van Ingen mentions the small toe of each foot being turned in towards the big toe (bottom of page 1). He does not say anything in that answer about the first and second toes on the right foot overlapping the large toe, like was seen on the corpse. I still find this whole toe issue to be very troubling.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 22, 2017 13:39:28 GMT -5
Is he saying Charlie "couldn't" stand or was he just being a normal 20-month-old who didn't want to stand and be measured? From the way the sentence is structured, I would say that he is implying that the measurement was difficult to take because the child was spoiled and not being cooperative. A couple of things about that Van Ingen statement: The first answer Van Ingen gives on page 1; he mentions that he was contacted by the Coroner or Physician and asked to send the measurements or identification marks of the Lindbergh child. Dr. Van Ingen said he did so, sending them to Mrs. Morrow. Now, the letter Van Ingen sent to Mrs. Morrow containing the last physical examination findings was dated May 4, 1932!! That is 8 days before the body was even found!!! What is going on here??? On page two, the first answer Van Ingen gives to the question about the length of the child, he is clear about the 33" and Charlie's birth date but gets Charlie's age wrong at 2-1/2 years old. Charlie was almost 20 months old at the time Van Ingen examined him. Interesting that Dr. Van Ingen mentions the small toe of each foot being turned in towards the big toe (bottom of page 1). He does not say anything in that answer about the first and second toes on the right foot overlapping the large toe, like was seen on the corpse. I still find this whole toe issue to be very troubling. While it's certainly possible he was referring to the child's temperament, he gave further details at the pre-trial deposition, "He had a square head which went with a moderate rickety condition,” and “it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight in order to measure him." Whatever the cause, the larger head and "rickety condition" were almost certainly detrimental to his mobility.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2017 14:46:48 GMT -5
I'm surprised that so many normally sound researchers appear to be buying into this "holocaust at home" solution. Just looking at the basics, do you realize what these people whose names are just tossed about would be risking? Can you imagine CAL approaching Breckenridge with the notion, "hey Henry I want to get rid of my formerly cute kid, now known as 'toaster head' - I know you're rich and famous, but will you and your also rich and famous wife help me?"
Not is not evidence. Just because there were no recent pictures of Charlie doesn't mean he was a puddle in a crib. Friends of the Lindberghs had recently seen him and commented positively. If you looked for pictures of anybody from say fourteen months to eighteen months how conclusively would you come up with anything. Think of yourself and what would you get? Mine would probably be zero.
Remember, this kidnapping happened and came out of nowhere, so no publicist was able to set up the situation.
So would Henry Breckenridge and his famous wife (did you know she was the first woman to fly a machine solo?) risk their nice and socially beneficial lives to help a buddy with an unusual problem? I'd think Henry would give him some good advice to keep it under your hat and Aida would get outta Dodge and on to her next philanthropy.
Perhaps whoever's behind all this should realize that they are too big of an influence an these thinkers(?) and maybe in the interest of new people looking on this site and wanting to present everyone as sane, should temper the crowd a bit. I proved a while back that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime, so let his spirit and his famous friends spirits rest in peace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 15:02:43 GMT -5
While it's certainly possible he was referring to the child's temperament, he gave further details at the pre-trial deposition, "He had a square head which went with a moderate rickety condition,” and “it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight in order to measure him." Whatever the cause, the larger head and "rickety condition" were almost certainly detrimental to his mobility. Unfortunately, Van Ingen fails to link the square head and moderate rickety condition as the cause for having difficulty measuring Charlie. Instead he says Charlie is "a rather spoiled youngster and it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight in order to measure him." It places it as a behavioral issue. I certainly get your point that the large head and rickety condition could have caused mobility issues. Van Ingen fails to include them as a reason for the difficulty in measuring Charlie. Why?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2017 15:18:33 GMT -5
Amy - jeez we're talking about a two year old kid. His normal reports probably mostly included what he said as "spoiled kid" - did anyone ever check that? The guy was the best doctor, but was a realist and people looking at him and are not.
You and I have been over this before, yes, I remember. and I wonder about you.
OK - you ask why??? Who gives a (bleep)? Ever read doctor reports? If you do you're the only one!
Are you the one who's hyping this crap? Why? Just to put another possible solution out there like Hoffmann tried to do? It won't work, because there is truth. and that's what you don't have.
I used to like you until you stole my material and posted it on line - now I see you've got a lot of followers, but what are they following? I'd think it would be kind of smelly!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2017 15:32:05 GMT -5
A note to Amy:
Just a moment wondering - you're pretty famous for repeating posts and then as the conversations go on, they are considered as your own. I could come up with examples but the people I'm talking about know who who I'm talking about. I'd say what you normally do is an attempt to be a superior character on this site, and I'd like you to present just one originonal idea which you've ever presented on here - I admit you've got a way of being a nobody in the background, but you mess with us, me anyway, and we(I) don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 15:33:52 GMT -5
I'm surprised that so many normally sound researchers appear to be buying into this "holocaust at home" solution. Just looking at the basics, do you realize what these people whose names are just tossed about would be risking? Can you imagine CAL approaching Breckenridge with the notion, "hey Henry I want to get rid of my formerly cute kid, now known as 'toaster head' - I know you're rich and famous, but will you and your also rich and famous wife help me?" Not is not evidence. Just because there were no recent pictures of Charlie doesn't mean he was a puddle in a crib. Friends of the Lindberghs had recently seen him and commented positively. If you looked for pictures of anybody from say fourteen months to eighteen months how conclusively would you come up with anything. Think of yourself and what would you get? Mine would probably be zero. Remember, this kidnapping happened and came out of nowhere, so no publicist was able to set up the situation. So would Henry Breckenridge and his famous wife (did you know she was the first woman to fly a machine solo?) risk their nice and socially beneficial lives to help a buddy with an unusual problem? I'd think Henry would give him some good advice to keep it under your hat and Aida would get outta Dodge and on to her next philanthropy. Perhaps whoever's behind all this should realize that they are too big of an influence an these thinkers(?) and maybe in the interest of new people looking on this site and wanting to present everyone as sane, should temper the crowd a bit. I proved a while back that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime, so let his spirit and his famous friends spirits rest in peace. Maybe Breckenridge wouldn't have but I bet Schwarzkopf would!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 15:37:17 GMT -5
Note to Amy....thank you for all the help you've shown me since I began posting here. You've been very sweet and given me tons of information. It is so appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 15:40:03 GMT -5
Note to Amy....thank you for all the help you've shown me since I began posting here. You've been very sweet and given me tons of information. It is so appreciated!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2017 16:28:50 GMT -5
Aimee: I believe that you're agreeing of calling Charlie as 'toaster head' is a pretty low blow to my thoughts of you.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 22, 2017 17:02:49 GMT -5
As a grandparent, I can definitely say that toddlers are often uncooperative at doctors offices. If Van Ingen thought Charlie had something else wrong with him other than those noted in his report, I think he would have been honest and stated it. I'm wondering why he's being seen so often though.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2017 17:41:29 GMT -5
I'm surprised that so many normally sound researchers appear to be buying into this "holocaust at home" solution. Just looking at the basics, do you realize what these people whose names are just tossed about would be risking? Can you imagine CAL approaching Breckenridge with the notion, "hey Henry I want to get rid of my formerly cute kid, now known as 'toaster head' - I know you're rich and famous, but will you and your also rich and famous wife help me?" Not is not evidence. Just because there were no recent pictures of Charlie doesn't mean he was a puddle in a crib. Friends of the Lindberghs had recently seen him and commented positively. If you looked for pictures of anybody from say fourteen months to eighteen months how conclusively would you come up with anything. Think of yourself and what would you get? Mine would probably be zero. Remember, this kidnapping happened and came out of nowhere, so no publicist was able to set up the situation. So would Henry Breckenridge and his famous wife (did you know she was the first woman to fly a machine solo?) risk their nice and socially beneficial lives to help a buddy with an unusual problem? I'd think Henry would give him some good advice to keep it under your hat and Aida would get outta Dodge and on to her next philanthropy. Perhaps whoever's behind all this should realize that they are too big of an influence an these thinkers(?) and maybe in the interest of new people looking on this site and wanting to present everyone as sane, should temper the crowd a bit. I proved a while back that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime, so let his spirit and his famous friends spirits rest in peace. (Jack) Jack, as Fisher says, it's extremely hard to disprove a negative. And there's probably someone out there who believes Charlie was abducted by aliens. Why? Because not one person who lived in or around Hopewell and was interviewed in the days and weeks following the kidnapping, did not say that they didn't witness a spaceship hovering over Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2017 18:38:38 GMT -5
Amy - jeez we're talking about a two year old kid. His normal reports probably mostly included what he said as "spoiled kid" - did anyone ever check that? The guy was the best doctor, but was a realist and people looking at him and are not. Yes, normal kids might be "spoiled." However, what's amazing to me is that so many people forget the strict counter-measures Lindbergh took to prevent this child from becoming that way. Also was it typical for children who eat right and get plenty of sun, like Charles Jr. did, to come down with rickets for lack of both? I don't think so. Perhaps having a rickety condition came from something else or is that too much of a stretch? a moment wondering - you're pretty famous for repeating posts and then as the conversations go on, they are considered as your own. I could come up with examples but the people I'm talking about know who who I'm talking about. I'd say what you normally do is an attempt to be a superior character on this site, and I'd like you to present just one originonal idea which you've ever presented on here - I admit you've got a way of being a nobody in the background, but you mess with us, me anyway, and we(I) don't like it. This is a strange post Jack. Maybe a joke of some sort? I personally think Amy is famous for being both intelligent and a free thinker. There's plenty of us who have ideas that overlap. There's too much information for that not to happen.
|
|