|
Post by kate1 on Jul 18, 2017 5:59:41 GMT -5
Does anyone have any ideas why a baby nearly over a cold, no fever, couldn't be bundled up and be driven two hours to his home where his nurse lived and with many more staff to help his mother? Particularly when his father was supposed to be in New York that night. Also when Anne "decided" to stay at Hopewell about 10 to 11 that morning, the kidnappers chose this day to drive around the entire area?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 8:17:08 GMT -5
I have always questioned this "staying over because of a cold" situation myself. It just doesn't sound like Anne to me. She much preferred Englewood and all the help of the servants. I would think this would have been especially true if Charlie were sick. She could have taken Charlie back to Englewood or, if needed, into New York to see Dr. VanIngen. I bet Dr. VanIngen would even have come out to the Hopewell House if the Lindberghs asked him too.
Here is what Detective Walsh said in his Jersey Journal article of November 15, 1932 concerning the day of March 1, 1932:
Never before March 1 had the Lindberghs stayed in their Hopewell home on a Tuesday night. They had always returned to the home of Mrs. Lindbergh's mother in Englewood after spending the week-end at the estate.
Not until 2 p.m. on the day of the kidnapping did Lindbergh know they were to stay there that (Tuesday) night. He explained this circumstance as follows:
Mrs. Lindbergh felt she was losing the motherly affection she craved from her child by the fact that he was continuously in the care and company of his nurse, Betty Gow. On this particular week-end she left Betty Gow in Englewood, and went to Hopewell with the intention of taking the exclusive care of the child. When Tuesday morning arrived she felt quite tired and decided to stay there all Tuesday and Tuesday night, during which time she planned to take a complete rest. It must be kept in mind that Mrs. Lindbergh was pregnant at this time with her second child which was born some months after the kidnapping of the first baby and which was also a boy.(bolding is mine)
A Twist of Fate
Had Mrs. Lindbergh not lengthened the week-end stay, the crime would not have happened at the time and place it did and might never have occurred. But that is one of fate's cruel and ironical twists which no human could foresee or forestall.
In accordance with her plan to remain in Hopewell and obtain a complete rest, Mrs. Lindbergh telephoned to Englewood and told Miss Gow, the baby's nurse, to proceed to Hopewell in one of the Morrow cars which she did, arriving shortly after noon. After she arrived she took charge of the baby.
If Walsh's account is accurate, then Anne made the call to stay over on Tuesday all on her own. And according to Lindbergh he knew nothing about this stay over until 2 p.m. Is that believable?? Plus there is no mention of a cold being the reason for the stay over; just Anne needing a complete rest. Yet we all know that Charlie was sick and Anne claimed this was the reason they stayed over. Why did Lindbergh tell Walsh Anne stayed over because she needed a complete rest?? Why does Lindbergh not mention Charlie's cold?? Why does he make Anne the reason for the stay over on Tuesday night??
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jul 18, 2017 9:19:16 GMT -5
I believe the basic issue here is confusion over multiple accounts and reports. There's a lot of choice there but at the end of the day, the baby was nearly over his cold, Anne had caught it and she was now sufficiently under the weather to stay over at Highfields, with Betty's assistance. This was her call. I think this particular accounting by Walsh is pretty accurate.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 18, 2017 11:19:36 GMT -5
I believe the basic issue here is confusion over multiple accounts and reports. There's a lot of choice there but at the end of the day, the baby was nearly over his cold, Anne had caught it and she was now sufficiently under the weather to stay over at Highfields, with Betty's assistance. This was her call. I think this particular accounting by Walsh is pretty accurate. Thank you. I think she had to make the decision before noon if Betty arrived at 2. But it seems the first thing she did was go for a walk. I would have expected feeling ill and in early months of a pregnancy she would have taken a nap, especially in cold, raw weather. I know it wasn't raining but seems it might at any time....makes me cold just to think about it!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jul 18, 2017 12:03:24 GMT -5
I believe the basic issue here is confusion over multiple accounts and reports. There's a lot of choice there but at the end of the day, the baby was nearly over his cold, Anne had caught it and she was now sufficiently under the weather to stay over at Highfields, with Betty's assistance. This was her call. I think this particular accounting by Walsh is pretty accurate. Thank you. I think she had to make the decision before noon if Betty arrived at 2. But it seems the first thing she did was go for a walk. I would have expected feeling ill and in early months of a pregnancy she would have taken a nap, especially in cold, raw weather. I know it wasn't raining but seems it might at any time....makes me cold just to think about it! As far as venturing outdoors for her walk while she had a cold, I think Anne was a lot tougher than most people give her credit and that she probably felt it would do her good. After all, look at what she did in an open cockpit plane in all kinds of weather and conditions!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2017 12:42:04 GMT -5
While she was seven months pregnant no less!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 12:44:46 GMT -5
I believe the basic issue here is confusion over multiple accounts and reports. There's a lot of choice there but at the end of the day, the baby was nearly over his cold, Anne had caught it and she was now sufficiently under the weather to stay over at Highfields, with Betty's assistance. This was her call. I think this particular accounting by Walsh is pretty accurate. Thank you. I think she had to make the decision before noon if Betty arrived at 2. But it seems the first thing she did was go for a walk. I would have expected feeling ill and in early months of a pregnancy she would have taken a nap, especially in cold, raw weather. I know it wasn't raining but seems it might at any time....makes me cold just to think about it! Exactly. She is so in need of rest that she cannot take care of Charlie for one more day even, so she goes for a walk down and back up that driveway (1/2 mile each direction, I believe) in raw weather but she can't manage to make an hour and a half car ride back to Englewood? To the comfort and support of her mother and all those servants? Seriously??? I think she stayed because she was told to.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 18, 2017 15:01:15 GMT -5
While she was seven months pregnant no less! Wasn't Jon born in August? So maybe four months pregnant in March?
The whole "bonding" story for the weekend at Hopewell without Betty might make sense - IF it was a quiet weekend with just the immediate family and the Whateleys.
However, wasn't the Breckenridge clan at Hopewell the entire prior weekend? Is it logical to ostensibly pursue good, quality one-on-one time with your (sick) baby while also entertaining another family in your incompletely furnished home?
I wonder when the invitation went out to the Breckenridges to visit that weekend; well in advance (and why not wait until the weather was better or at least you have some curtains on your windows!) or was it last minute, in response to some unforeseen crisis where their presence/assistance was required?
This is yet another lame story (along with pebble throwing, orange crate, sick baby, forgot the banquet, thumb guard in the drive, etc.) that is offered up to explain illogical or suspicious circumstances to support the "kidnapping" narrative...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2017 16:32:24 GMT -5
Agreed. It's ridiculous. It was Lindbergh's idea to stay in Hopewell, and, by staying there longer, Anne was doing as she was told. Or maybe, to be perfectly accurate, she was telling the story she was told to tell about staying longer due to CAL Jr.'s cold, since I think everyone in the house knew in advance that the baby was going away that night: "If anyone asks why we were here when we normally wouldn't be, we stayed an extra night because the baby was sick, okay...?" Now, he very well could have had a cold, but I think that was used as a handy excuse for staying. And yeah, Anne would've been about 3.5-4 months pregnant with Jon at the time of the kidnapping. Also, here's a photo of her going flying while seven months pregnant with CAL Jr.: At least, in several books, that's what I've seen this photo credited as. It always stuck in my head: "Damn, flying while you're pregnant? They may not have known this then, but--big no-no..." I don't know, that whole day is suspect to me. The narrative of events leading up to the kidnapping just seems... phony.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 18, 2017 18:30:35 GMT -5
Agreed. It's ridiculous. It was Lindbergh's idea to stay in Hopewell, and, by staying there longer, Anne was doing as she was told. Or maybe, to be perfectly accurate, she was telling the story she was told to tell about staying longer due to CAL Jr.'s cold, since I think everyone in the house knew in advance that the baby was going away that night: "If anyone asks why we were here when we normally wouldn't be, we stayed an extra night because the baby was sick, okay...?" Now, he very well could have had a cold, but I think that was used as a handy excuse for staying. And yeah, Anne would've been about 3.5-4 months pregnant with Jon at the time of the kidnapping. Also, here's a photo of her going flying while seven months pregnant with CAL Jr.: At least, in several books, that's what I've seen this photo credited as. It always stuck in my head: "Damn, flying while you're pregnant? They may not have known this then, but--big no-no..." I don't know, that whole day is suspect to me. The narrative of events leading up to the kidnapping just seems... phony. Gardner's new book looks deeper into the child's illness and speculates that hydrocephalus was likely the cause, as it accounts for all of the particular abnormalities (misshapen head, mobility issues, brittle skull, unclosed fontanel, etc). He clearly infers it was this high altitude flight that triggered the illness.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2017 23:59:59 GMT -5
I did read that; got it online. I'm not a doctor, but I certainly wouldn't presume to debate Gardner, and here's what I know: Rumors about CAL Jr.'s health; no photos of him for months leading up to the kidnapping; weird anomalies noted at his last physical (an unclosed fontanel, overlapping digits, an oversized head, a rickety condition--with rickets being a poor person's disease, due to vitamin D deficiency, and was the world's most famous baby poor? No, so why is he exhibiting signs of malnourishment?); and a skeleton so soft that the skull came apart "like an orange peel" during the autopsy (and, yes, the body in the woods was CAL Jr.). Okay, so there's something going on here in terms of the baby's health. And then you have a social Darwinist/eugenicist, hyper-perfectionist, publicity-conscious father, who people kowtowed to and excused like he was God come to Earth, and, to top it all off, a completely phony and obviously staged crime scene with a breadcrumb trail of evidence left behind, gifted to investigators... No, Hauptmann was involved, but not as a lone wolf, who just got it into his head one day to kidnap and kill the world's most famous child, all for a measly $50K.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jul 19, 2017 6:25:41 GMT -5
Notwithstanding all of the hyperbole that gets whipped up about this time, relative to Charles Lindbergh's evil misgivings and what Anne was and wasn't allowed to do, I think it's important to keep a little perspective here and remember Anne was made of firmer stuff. After all, wasn't she the navigator to Charles on two trans-Continental flights in 1931 and 1933, which helped to establish the future of commercial aviation routes over the Atlantic? Perhaps something to consider when concerns get raised about whether or not she needed permission to boil an egg or make the call to stay over in Hopewell an extra day.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 19, 2017 8:08:18 GMT -5
While she was seven months pregnant no less! She wasn't seven months pregnant, only about 3 1/2 months, assuming that Jon, who was born in mid-August, was at full term at that time.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 19, 2017 10:06:00 GMT -5
At 3 1/2 months pregnant she was likely well in the throws of morning sickness, wanted the extra help and didn't feel like traveling.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 19, 2017 10:30:17 GMT -5
At 3 1/2 months pregnant she was likely well in the throws of morning sickness, wanted the extra help and didn't feel like traveling. and yet by 2pm, rather than pile into a chauffeur-driven car and head for the comforts of Englewood, she's ready to go for a lengthy (by some accounts) walk in inclement weather, up to lobbing some stones at a window from the muddy yard and resigned to spend another night in the boonies?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2017 12:36:39 GMT -5
While she was seven months pregnant no less! She wasn't seven months pregnant, only about 3 1/2 months, assuming that Jon, who was born in mid-August, was at full term at that time. She was seven months pregnant with CAL Jr. when she went flying. I'm not talking about Jon, who was born more than two years later.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 19, 2017 15:05:01 GMT -5
Not really the boonies just hard to find, even today and Anne could have been having morning sickness in the morning and then felt better in the afternoon. They were rich and could afford to have the help come when they needed it is one way to look at it, although I do hold out the possibility that something happened to that baby that involved the household.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 16:30:51 GMT -5
Notwithstanding all of the hyperbole that gets whipped up about this time, relative to Charles Lindbergh's evil misgivings and what Anne was and wasn't allowed to do, I think it's important to keep a little perspective here and remember Anne was made of firmer stuff. After all, wasn't she the navigator to Charles on two trans-Continental flights in 1931 and 1933, which helped to establish the future of commercial aviation routes over the Atlantic? Perhaps something to consider when concerns get raised about whether or not she needed permission to boil an egg or make the call to stay over in Hopewell an extra day. Anne was what I call a "shadow dweller." Anne grew up in the shadow of her sister Elisabeth, who was the favorite. She envied Elisabeth and saw in her all the perfect and wonderful things she could never be. When Lindbergh came into Anne's life she then moved into his shadow. She took her confidence, identity and courage through him and what he wanted her to be. Anne loved him and wanted to be a good wife to him, even if this meant flying 7 months pregnant and ending up ill and hospitalized and then leaving your first born child behind for months while desperately missing him during the Orient Flight. She would stay the course because Lindbergh expected her to and she would never let him down. She would never ask him for consideration for herself or their children. It was always C. first. She submitted herself to his way of seeing things and then doing things as he wanted. When you read her diaries you see this clearly. Mrs. Morrow questioned why Anne didn't return to Englewood like she always did on a Monday after staying the weekend in Hopewell. I don't think Anne made any choice on her own to stay in Hopewell. She stayed because CAL told her to.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 20, 2017 0:09:27 GMT -5
Notwithstanding all of the hyperbole that gets whipped up about this time, relative to Charles Lindbergh's evil misgivings and what Anne was and wasn't allowed to do, I think it's important to keep a little perspective here and remember Anne was made of firmer stuff. After all, wasn't she the navigator to Charles on two trans-Continental flights in 1931 and 1933, which helped to establish the future of commercial aviation routes over the Atlantic? Perhaps something to consider when concerns get raised about whether or not she needed permission to boil an egg or make the call to stay over in Hopewell an extra day. Anne was what I call a "shadow dweller." Anne grew up in the shadow of her sister Elisabeth, who was the favorite. She envied Elisabeth and saw in her all the perfect and wonderful things she could never be. When Lindbergh came into Anne's life she then moved into his shadow. She took her confidence, identity and courage through him and what he wanted her to be. Anne loved him and wanted to be a good wife to him, even if this meant flying 7 months pregnant and ending up ill and hospitalized and then leaving your first born child behind for months while desperately missing him during the Orient Flight. She would stay the course because Lindbergh expected her to and she would never let him down. She would never ask him for consideration for herself or their children. It was always C. first. She submitted herself to his way of seeing things and then doing things as he wanted. When you read her diaries you see this clearly. Mrs. Morrow questioned why Anne didn't return to Englewood like she always did on a Monday after staying the weekend in Hopewell. I don't think Anne made any choice on her own to stay in Hopewell. She stayed because CAL told her to. Amy that's such an astute description. Also a description of the expectations of women of that time. I wonder at what point she realized what her marriage to him really was. I agree about her diaries and wonder about their publication.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 20, 2017 0:22:44 GMT -5
She wasn't seven months pregnant, only about 3 1/2 months, assuming that Jon, who was born in mid-August, was at full term at that time. She was seven months pregnant with CAL Jr. when she went flying. I'm not talking about Jon, who was born more than two years later. Thanks for the clarification. Like others in the forum, I thought that the frame of reference for the discussion was the day of the "kidnapping."
Two important points regarding the flying that Mrs. Lindbergh did during her first pregnancy:
(1) You can't really criticize her for being reckless because aviation was still in its early stages at the time and there was no science available to show that pregnant mothers who fly might do harm to their fetuses.
(2) Even at that, you can't be anywhere confident of a direct cause-and effect relationship between Anne's flying and Charlie's rickety condition. We have discussed before on these threads that Charlie might have been suffering from Vitamin D resistant rickets, which is a rare genetic disorder which causes an impairment in the body's capability of metabolizing ingested Vitamin D and enzymatically converting it to its active form. That problem would be extremely unlikely to be the result of an environmental insult to the fetus at seven months gestation.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 20, 2017 0:40:03 GMT -5
She was seven months pregnant with CAL Jr. when she went flying. I'm not talking about Jon, who was born more than two years later. Thanks for the clarification. Like others in the forum, I thought that the frame of reference for the discussion was the day of the "kidnapping."
Two important points regarding the flying that Mrs. Lindbergh did during her first pregnancy:
(1) You can't really criticize her for being reckless because aviation was still in its early stages at the time and there was no science available to show that pregnant mothers who fly might do harm to their fetuses.
(2) Even at that, you can't be anywhere confident of a direct cause-and effect relationship between Anne's flying and Charlie's rickety condition. We have discussed before on these threads that Charlie might have been suffering from Vitamin D resistant rickets, which is a rare genetic disorder which causes an impairment in the body's capability of metabolizing ingested Vitamin D and enzymatically converting it to its active form. That problem would be extremely unlikely to be the result of an environmental insult to the fetus at seven months gestation.
I certainly wouldn't criticize her for flying while not knowing the effects but she did fly and I don't think oxygen depreivaton caused rickets! I think the effects would be much more profound. I would think that lack of oxygen to a developing brain might have caused some degree of mental developmental disorder from slight to profound. She says how miserable she was during that flight and she had to be carried from the plane afterward.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 20, 2017 0:42:46 GMT -5
(1) I'm not criticizing Anne for being reckless at all. As you say, she wouldn't have known.
(2) I'm not sure that the high-altitude flights would've caused the rickets, but I do think it's a fair assumption that the flights could have resulted in some serious health problems. The rickets could've been incidental to this, making the whole situation worse--or the rickets could've been made worse by the preexisting condition (to the point where the skull had the postmortem consistency of orange peel). Either way, it seems there was something wrong with CAL Jr., and it wasn't getting better.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2017 7:57:23 GMT -5
(1) I'm not criticizing Anne for being reckless at all. As you say, she wouldn't have known. (2) I'm not sure that the high-altitude flights would've caused the rickets, but I do think it's a fair assumption that the flights could have resulted in some serious health problems. The rickets could've been incidental to this, making the whole situation worse--or the rickets could've been made worse by the preexisting condition (to the point where the skull had the postmortem consistency of orange peel). Either way, it seems there was something wrong with CAL Jr., and it wasn't getting better.
And what exactly was wrong enough with CALjr, other than suffering from a moderate case of rickets that would inspire his father to stage a kidnapping, and in doing so, welcome the police, press and the world to the front doorstep of a very private individual? Well-to-do families were not immune to having rickets afflicting their children due a lack of proper treatment procedures in the early 1930's. Clearly this "staging" would have had to have involved the cooperation of everyone within that household. And do you really believe under such a scheme to remove him from their lives, that CALjr would actually have ended up half-eaten and half-buried in the brush, only four miles from Highfields after the "kidnappers" were paid "an extra $50,000" because they got greedy? Right.. I can just hear the Lindberghs, Betty and the Whateleys under this scenario, "Yeah! We did it! He's finally gone.. well half of him anyways.." And the duplicitous kidnappers? No problem.. you guys are free to carry on, spending CAL's hard earned money, in the Bronx where the ransom negotiations went down and free of any retribution. I find it amazing how easily anything in this case that's even remotely perceived to be a dark shadow, can become so entrenched within a conspiracy agenda, when a bunch of huge red flags that seriously challenge it from the very beginning, can so easily be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 20, 2017 8:33:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 20, 2017 9:04:30 GMT -5
Is this the same "very private individual" that became the spokesman for the America First Movement, giving speeches in large venues to thousands? Getting involved in politics isn't behavior usually associated with people who crave privacy. CAL had become media savvy enough by 1932 to use them when it suited his agenda.
As for the staging involving the "cooperation of everyone within that household" what are we talking about - four people, three of whom were employees? Wilentz was able to get more people than that to lie and/or perjure themselves as "witnesses" at BRH's trial, with far less leverage. CAL would have had significantly more power and influence over his small retinue in coercing them to give false testimony in support of the kidnapping narrative. Their "cooperation" amounted to merely telling investigators a simple, consistent story, claiming the baby was alive and present in the house later than was actually the case - not a particularly complex cover story to maintain, especially with CAL restricting access to the staff who were reassured with his promises of using his considerable prestige to ensure their protection.
The condition of the corpse was an unfortunate byproduct of the faux abduction; the body was meant to be found much earlier than it was and the consumption and desecration was the result of that protracted discovery timeframe.
The extortion for the ransom, never originally intended to be paid, was one possible outcome when you introduce a criminal element into your midst. As the saying goes "lay with dogs, you get fleas" - and in having to pay the ransom to end the increasing ransom demands CAL got fleeced...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2017 10:48:13 GMT -5
Is this the same "very private individual" that became the spokesman for the America First Movement, giving speeches in large venues to thousands? Getting involved in politics isn't behavior usually associated with people who crave privacy. CAL had become media savvy enough by 1932 to use them when it suited his agenda.
As for the staging involving the "cooperation of everyone within that household" what are we talking about - four people, three of whom were employees? Wilentz was able to get more people than that to lie and/or perjure themselves as "witnesses" at BRH's trial, with far less leverage. CAL would have had significantly more power and influence over his small retinue in coercing them to give false testimony in support of the the kidnapping narrative. Their "cooperation" amounted to merely telling investigators a simple, consistent story, claiming the baby was alive and present in the house later than was actually the case - not a particularly complex cover story to maintain, especially with CAL restricting access to the staff who were reassured with his promises of using his considerable prestige to ensure their protection.
The condition of the corpse was an unfortunate byproduct of the faux abduction; the body was meant to be found much earlier than it was and the consumption and desecration was the result of that protracted discovery timeframe.
The extortion for the ransom, never originally intended to be paid, was one possible outcome when you introduce a criminal element into your midst. As the saying goes "lay with dogs, you get fleas" - and in having to pay the ransom to end the increasing ransom demands CAL got fleeced...
Are you implying that getting involved in a cause and speaking out about is, is strictly the domain of extroverted arm-wavers? I suggest you look up a few biographies of well known public figures who cherished their personal privacy, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Ghandi, Warren Buffet and Charles Lindbergh, for starters.
Yes, four other people in the house, including the child's very own mother who adored him and wept for his return, as well as the child's nurse who, despite the dirt Michael has dug up about her in his book, was thoroughly devoted to his wellbeing. And what have you got implicating the Whateleys as murder accomplices? This "code of conformity and silence" you imply that CAL exacted on the entire household would have been so transparent to investigators at large and anyone in that family, that you don't even seem to recognize the possibility of it's existence.
But the ransom did get paid didn't it? And CALjr ended up in a makeshift grave four miles from the house.. was that also planned by Lindbergh even after he went the extra distance and coughed up "another $50,000?" Where's your realization these fauxnappers would have been dead ducks within days, by anyone else's deduction?
I'm amazed that this lame excuse of a conspiracy, in one form or another, has been sitting in the corner spinning it's wheels for over 85 years.. unfortunately there seem to be no end in sight.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 20, 2017 11:03:35 GMT -5
There is something I read in Gardner regarding time line according to Lanphier(?) the event was earlier. I agree with A&M taking a look at the timeline that the event probably occurred over the entire leap year weekend Feb 27 through Mar 1 1932. But I don't believe Col Lindbergh was fleeced. He was given resources by JP Morgan which funds were available 24/7 and CAL said to Agent Irey he didn't want the money traced. The selling off of his bonds, or whatever they were was another ploy to gain sympathy to his plight from the public so much the better for confusing the real issue
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 20, 2017 13:03:46 GMT -5
(1) I'm not criticizing Anne for being reckless at all. As you say, she wouldn't have known. (2) I'm not sure that the high-altitude flights would've caused the rickets, but I do think it's a fair assumption that the flights could have resulted in some serious health problems. The rickets could've been incidental to this, making the whole situation worse--or the rickets could've been made worse by the preexisting condition (to the point where the skull had the postmortem consistency of orange peel). Either way, it seems there was something wrong with CAL Jr., and it wasn't getting better.
And what exactly was wrong enough with CALjr, other than suffering from a moderate case of rickets that would inspire his father to stage a kidnapping, and in doing so, welcome the police, press and the world to the front doorstep of a very private individual? Well-to-do families were not immune to having rickets afflicting their children due a lack of proper treatment procedures in the early 1930's. Clearly this "staging" would have had to have involved the cooperation of everyone within that household. And do you really believe under such a scheme to remove him from their lives, that CALjr would actually have ended up half-eaten and half-buried in the brush, only four miles from Highfields after the "kidnappers" were paid "an extra $50,000" because they got greedy? Right.. I can just hear the Lindberghs, Betty and the Whateleys under this scenario, "Yeah! We did it! He's finally gone.. well half of him anyways.." And the duplicitous kidnappers? No problem.. you guys are free to carry on, spending CAL's hard earned money, in the Bronx where the ransom negotiations went down and free of any retribution. I find it amazing how easily anything in this case that's even remotely perceived to be a dark shadow, can become so entrenched within a conspiracy agenda, when a bunch of huge red flags that seriously challenge it from the very beginning, can so easily be ignored. It's no more amazing than how the points I (and others) have made, alongside the huge red flags of Lindbergh's behavior, can still be so easily shrugged off.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 20, 2017 15:52:38 GMT -5
I'm sorry but hard earned money? He wanted his privacy when he wanted it. He did ride in parades! I don't think rickets was the issue but what else might have been seriously wrong. Damage to his brain from oxygen deprivation prenatally or a metabolic condition that manifested itself as rickets among other things. If there is no question about what happened that day than Waller or Fisher are sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 20, 2017 16:18:17 GMT -5
Are you implying that getting involved in a cause and speaking out about is, is strictly the domain of extroverted arm-wavers? I suggest you look up a few biographies of well known public figures who cherished their personal privacy, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Ghandi, Warren Buffet and Charles Lindbergh, for starters. Per Wikipedia: "In United States law, a public figure is a person such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader.
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to a public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established..."
Lindbergh passed the threshold of public figure many times over, from his Atlantic flight and loss of his child, to his stance against WWII and his secret second family in Germany. I'm not sure what causes Buffet and Einstein got involved with or voiced an opinion over, but if you aspire to be president, first lady or leader of a nation you probably have resigned yourself to losing much of your privacy as part of that contract. For a guy who disliked his "involuntary" public figure status, he sure found a lot of ways to keep that status fresh!
To say he couldn't possibly have staged his son's kidnapping because he "craved his privacy" isn't exactly the strongest argument for his lack of involvement...
|
|