Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 17:28:28 GMT -5
When an Exxon exec was kidnapped for ransom in the late 1970's it was the first kidnapping for ransom in Morris County, New Jersey. The local authorities were out of their depth. The same with Hopewell, New Jersey - rural New Jersey was a perfect site for a ransom kidnapping. Also as I have written only New Jersey & Utah never had a lynching which would have emboldened the kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 15, 2019 15:37:38 GMT -5
I'd be curious to know which photo was taken first. As you say, they certainly look like they were taken at roughly the same time, but there is a marked difference in the features, particularly the nose.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 15, 2019 18:33:53 GMT -5
I know the last photos of CAL Jr. were taken on his first birthday—6/22/31. These look like screencaps from home movies. Do we know when those were shot? Are these images from two separate films or the same one? If they’re from the same one, the difference in facial features we’re seeing may have something to do with the motion of the subject. If they’re from two separate films, however, one shot earlier and one later...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2019 8:32:50 GMT -5
I believe all the pictures ilovedfw posted are stills taken from the film footage made of Charlie during the summer season (July-September) of 1931 while CAL and Anne were on their Orient tour and Charlie was in New Haven Maine where this footage was done. Beyond these months and the films taken at that time, I have not come across any other pictures, etc. of Charlie. If you look closely at the footage of Charlie in the carriage, you can see behind him the ocean water that surrounded the Morrow home in Maine. I thought I would post here also, a picture of CAL when he was 6 years old. This is from the Yale Lindbergh collection. Note how much CAL's hair looks like Charlie's!! yaleinsight.library.yale.edu/madid/oneItem.aspx?id=1774524&q=lindbergh&q1=&q2=&qc1=&qc2=&qf1=&qf2=&qn=&qo=&qm=15&qs=331&sid=&qx
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2019 13:08:51 GMT -5
So, given these films, it would seem there are photos of him after that first birthday. I’d seen them before, but wasn’t aware of when they were taken. I can see differences, but I think the screencaps show them even more clearly. Speaking of which, even more than these films, I think the body, on its own, makes it clear that something was physically wrong: All things being equal, bones don’t get so soft after death that a skull has an “orange-peel”-like consistency, to the point where a stick can poke through it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2019 13:54:54 GMT -5
So, given these films, it would seem there are photos of him after that first birthday. I’d seen them before, but wasn’t aware of when they were taken. I can see differences, but I think the screencaps show them even more clearly. Speaking of which, even more than these films, I think the body, on its own, makes it clear that something was physically wrong: All things being equal, bones don’t get so soft after death that a skull has an “orange-peel”-like consistency, to the point where a stick to poke through it. Agreed that Charlie had health issues that probably grew more apparent over time. The fact that the skull could come apart as easily as it did suggests that the cranial bones were not being mineralized sufficiently. This relates back to the rickets caused by a vitamin D deficiency that wasn't improving even with the Viosterol supplement and sun lamp treatments. I don't see any other way to explain the weakened condition of the skull bones since this was supposed to be the body of a child who had only just died two and a half months earlier.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2019 19:36:47 GMT -5
Agreed. I think it was a form of drug-resistant rickets called hypophosphatemic rickets. That seems to cover a lot of the points mentioned in the doctor’s report. There may have been something else going on too, considering the flights Anne Lindbergh took while pregnant. I wonder if the two are linked, if the flights/oxygen deprivation somehow caused that subsequent condition later on. Not being a doctor, I’m not sure, and I’m having trouble finding anything online as to whether there could be a link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2019 19:55:04 GMT -5
So I have a question I would like your thoughts on.
In TDC Volume I, Chapter 11, page 133, Michael quotes Betty Morrow saying:
"perhaps the condition of the baby's health bore upon this kidnapping."
This statement by Betty Morrow, made March 3, 1932, is very important. It makes clear that Charlie was indeed having health issues which must have been serious enough that she thought they might be the motive for the kidnapping.
It also shows that Betty Morrow was well aware that Charlie was not healthy.
My question is:
Why would it even be necessary for Mrs. Morrow to inquire of Dr. Van Ingen about Charlie's physical health which results in the letter Dr. Van Ingen writes to her on May 4, 1932??
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2019 22:26:54 GMT -5
I think Betty Morrow asking Van Ingen to write a report on CAL Jr. was a way to quash the rumors about his health problems, at least their severity: There were issues, but, as the doctor’s report apparently makes clear, they were very minor. So commissioning the report may have been an attempt at cleanup after letting it slip on March 3 that “perhaps the baby’s health had something to do with his disappearance.” Now, if Betty Morrow felt on March 3 that the baby’s health had something to do with the kidnapping, why would she contact Van Ingen, asking him to write something that essentially cancelled out her first observations? She wouldn’t have done that, at least not of her own volition. We know she did, though, and that being said, if you’re not doing something on your own, you’re doing it at someone else’s behest. All this is just a guess though.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 17, 2019 2:29:06 GMT -5
So, given these films, it would seem there are photos of him after that first birthday. I’d seen them before, but wasn’t aware of when they were taken. I can see differences, but I think the screencaps show them even more clearly. Speaking of which, even more than these films, I think the body, on its own, makes it clear that something was physically wrong: All things being equal, bones don’t get so soft after death that a skull has an “orange-peel”-like consistency, to the point where a stick to poke through it. Agreed that Charlie had health issues that probably grew more apparent over time. The fact that the skull could come apart as easily as it did suggests that the cranial bones were not being mineralized sufficiently. This relates back to the rickets caused by a vitamin D deficiency that wasn't improving even with the Viosterol supplement and sun lamp treatments. I don't see any other way to explain the weakened condition of the skull bones since this was supposed to be the body of a child who had only just died two and a half months earlier. Dr. Gardner theorized in his newest book from 2015 that there may have been some hydrocephalus, which could have been caused by the flight. This would explain the skull bones and the toaster box head. He also mentioned one of the first things Scotland Yard asked when they were consulted about the Kidnapping was whether the baby may have been removed due to his health (though it’s likely they were just speculating).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 17:12:05 GMT -5
I think Betty Morrow asking Van Ingen to write a report on CAL Jr. was a way to quash the rumors about his health problems, at least their severity: There were issues, but, as the doctor’s report apparently makes clear, they were very minor. So commissioning the report may have been an attempt at cleanup after letting it slip on March 3 that “perhaps the baby’s health had something to do with his disappearance.” Now, if Betty Morrow felt on March 3 that the baby’s health had something to do with the kidnapping, why would she contact Van Ingen, asking him to write something that essentially cancelled out her first observations? She wouldn’t have done that, at least not of her own volition. We know she did, though, and that being said, if you’re not doing something on your own, you’re doing it at someone else’s behest. All this is just a guess though. Thanks LJ for sharing your thoughts. I made a trip to the NJSP archives today and pulled Dr. Van Ingen's statement he gave to Assistant Attorney General Robert Peacock and Capt. John Lamb on Nov. 21, 1934. I wanted to see if he made any comments about this letter to Mrs. Morrow. Here is what Van Ingen said about the letter: "They brought him in to see me every so often and I measured him, weighed him, etc. and they called me up and wanted to know if I would send them the measurements, or identification marks- if I could send them- which I mailed to Mrs. Morrow."So, apparently that letter was at the behest of someone else, just as you say. What Van Ingen doesn't make clear is exactly who "they" are that making this request which he then fulfills through Mrs. Morrow. I suppose it could be the authorities (NJSP) making this request. Charlie would have been missing for like two months at this point so the police might have been contemplating the need to be able to identify a dead Charlie at some future time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 17:43:53 GMT -5
Dr. Gardner theorized in his newest book from 2015 that there may have been some hydrocephalus, which could have been caused by the flight. This would explain the skull bones and the toaster box head. He also mentioned one of the first things Scotland Yard asked when they were consulted about the Kidnapping was whether the baby may have been removed due to his health (though it’s likely they were just speculating). So the theory is that if the high altitude flight was responsible for some hydrocephalus, would this mean that the condition would have been present at birth or does Dr. Gardner thinks this condition developed later? Dr. Van Ingen, in his Nov. 21, 1934 statement, attributes Charlie's square head to a moderate rickety condition. Hydrocephalus is a very distinct condition. It would certainly have been recognizable to Dr. Van Ingen. Yet he doesn't say anything like hydrocephalus. I am not criticizing Dr. Gardner in any way. He is so very knowledgeable about this case. I am just confused that something as serious as hydrocephalus could have been missed or misdiagnosed by Dr. Van Ingen. I think it is interesting that Scotland Yard asked if the baby had been removed due to his health. The Lindberghs/Morrows were rich, prominent people and the removal of unhealthy children from those types of households was quite normal at this period in time.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 17, 2019 19:06:02 GMT -5
What I’m not sure of is why this request for information about CAL Jr. would’ve been fulfilled through Betty Morrow, unless she’s the one who asked for it. And why would she ask for it if she already had some idea he was unwell?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 19:46:42 GMT -5
What I’m not sure of is why this request for information about CAL Jr. would’ve been fulfilled through Betty Morrow, unless she’s the one who asked for it. And why would she ask for it if she already had some idea he was unwell? Perhaps the request for Dr. Van Ingen to put Charlie's last physical examination info in writing was made by Lindbergh or Mrs. Morrow. They could be the "they" Van Ingen is talking about. Do you think Schwarzkopf might have asked Lindbergh for the information from Dr. Van Ingen? Would Schwarzkopf be that bold to ask such a thing from Lindbergh? Or would he have been more comfortable asking Mrs. Morrow? I can't figure out why Betty Morrow would need this for herself. There is no way she wouldn't know that Charlie had a serious health issue, especially if it was anything as pronounced as what Dr. Gardner has theorized. Not everyone believed the corpse found was actually Charlie. I guess if you were going to use a fake corpse to be found to end the any further extortion attempts plus bring that whole Curtis affair to an end, you would need those measurements to pull off such a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 17, 2019 20:53:50 GMT -5
It could also be that, whatever her suspicions about the baby’s health being the motivation behind the kidnapping, Betty Morrow decided the health issues were a private matter and, after what she let slip on March 3, she was, as I said, attempting a sort of cleanup by asking the doctor to write a report in which physical issues were noted but downplayed as very minor.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 17, 2019 21:13:43 GMT -5
Attached are two photos of CAL Jr that must have been some of the last taken. Compare them - look how much different he looks in the "Last Pic" than in the "Compare" pic. Square head, even his nose flattened out. Also he looks older which is strange because it is still summer in the photos, so it could only be over a few weeks or a couple of months. What does everyone think? Switch the photos around - the cuter one in the crib should be first. ilovedfw, If it helps, these two photos are at Yale University. The first one... ... has this written on the back: "C.A.L. Jr. Summer 1931" The second one... ... has this written on the back: "North Haven August 31st 1931 Aunt Alice's Movie" FYI, Yale has the last known photos, taken in September and October of 1931, but to my knowledge no one has seen them since they were donated to Yale. The four photos in October are, apparently, the last ever taken of him. I've said it before, but there is an October photo of Charlie walking toward the camera. And his hair is crazy wild... a cross between Harpo Marx and an over-watered Chia Pet. Cute as hell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 21:41:57 GMT -5
I've said it before, but there is an October photo of Charlie walking toward the camera. And his hair is crazy wild... a cross between Harpo Marx and an over-watered Chia Pet. Cute as hell. Wayne, I have only seen one picture of Charlie running. It is in the very beginning of Jim Fisher's book "The Lindbergh Case". I wonder if it is the October picture you are referring to. Charlie looks so cute in that picture, even with the messy hair. One other thing I did note in this picture is that the shoe on Charlie's right foot has a very thick sole. The left foot and shoe are not as clear to see in that picture. Is this the same picture that you are talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 17, 2019 22:10:55 GMT -5
Wayne, I have only seen one picture of Charlie running. It is in the very beginning of Jim Fisher's book "The Lindbergh Case". I wonder if it is the October picture you are referring to. Charlie looks so cute in that picture, even with the messy hair. One other thing I did note in this picture is that the shoe on Charlie's right foot has a very thick sole. The left foot and shoe are not as clear to see in that picture. Is this the same picture that you are talking about? Amy, You are good! I've never noticed that photo before in Fisher's book, I am embarrassed to say. Fisher credits the photo to the NJSP. I'll have to ask Mark more about it tomorrow. I don't think I'm at liberty to show the October 1931 photos without Yale's permission, but like I said, I don't think anyone has seen them after they were donated to Yale. What seems a little strange is that while the Fisher photo is NOT among the October photos at Yale, Charlie appears to be wearing the same outfit, socks, and shoes. The face looks different though (in the Yale photos) and his hair looks much longer and wilder. Very strange. Where did the NJSP get the Fisher photo?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 17, 2019 22:20:54 GMT -5
Wayne, I have only seen one picture of Charlie running. It is in the very beginning of Jim Fisher's book "The Lindbergh Case". I wonder if it is the October picture you are referring to. Charlie looks so cute in that picture, even with the messy hair. One other thing I did note in this picture is that the shoe on Charlie's right foot has a very thick sole. The left foot and shoe are not as clear to see in that picture. Is this the same picture that you are talking about? Amy, You are good! I've never noticed that photo before in Fisher's book, I am embarrassed to say. Fisher credits the photo to the NJSP. I'll have to ask Mark more about it tomorrow. I don't think I'm at liberty to show the October 1931 photos without Yale's permission, but like I said, I don't think anyone has seen them after they were donated to Yale. What seems a little strange is that while the Fisher photo is NOT among the October photos at Yale, Charlie appears to be wearing the same outfit, socks, and shoes. The face looks different though (in the Yale photos) and his hair looks much longer and wilder. Very strange. Where did the NJSP get the Fisher photo? How does his head and skull look, beyond the hair, in the October photos from Yale?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 17, 2019 22:58:09 GMT -5
How does his head and skull look, beyond the hair, in the October photos from Yale? Trojanusc, Sadly, most of the photos are a bit out of focus. The couple of photos not out of focus seem to show two golf-ball-sized bumps on Charlie's forehead. As for the shape of the skull, in my opinion, it's hard to say because of all the hair which is fairly long and thick on the sides and back. I think you can see the two bumps on Charlie's forehead here--
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2019 0:09:34 GMT -5
How do we know when these photos were taken? And if these are post-birthday photos, where did it come from that there are no photos of CAL Jr. after his first birthday?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 9:16:00 GMT -5
How do we know when these photos were taken? And if these are post-birthday photos, where did it come from that there are no photos of CAL Jr. after his first birthday? Lightningjew, Good question. The photos at Yale were donated by Charles and Anne, along with a TON of their writings. CAL himself itemized the photos he donated: We know when the photos were taken because of this list and the fact that many of the photos are dated on the back with comments from Mrs. Morrow. A good example is a photo taken by CAL of a proud-looking Mrs. Morrow holding Charlie and on the back she wrote: "Princeton June 30th Charles & I think this is lovely. C. is very proud of his skill as photographer & he says note resemblance!" As for where did it come from from that no photos were taken after his birthday, I think the simple fact is that no one has ever bothered to go to Yale. I simply lucked out when I requested them. Also after the kidnapping CAL lied about the dates of many of the photos saying that some were 2 weeks old when in fact they were 6 months old! And CAL was definitely lying to the police and media about these photos because he was the one who took the photos! As Michael always says, research is key and it takes time. On that note, I leave you with the fact that Fisher spent less than a week at the NJSP Museum looking at documents -- the same place Michael has spent around 20 years doing his research.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2019 10:07:47 GMT -5
As for where did it come from from that no photos were taken after his birthday, I think the simple fact is that no one has ever bothered to go to Yale. I simply lucked out when I requested them. Also after the kidnapping CAL lied about the dates of many of the photos saying that some were 2 weeks old when in fact they were 6 months old! And CAL was definitely lying to the police and media about these photos because he was the one who took the photos! As Michael always says, research is key and it takes time. Excellent research Wayne! Just another example which proves we don't know what we don't know - right? Shows that good solid research is key so its important not to paint oneself into a corner by "thinking" something doesn't exist and confusing that to mean it actually does not. That way if new research emerges we can properly evaluate what it means instead of trying to quickly dismiss it in order to defend a favorite position formulated without all of the facts to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 10:53:06 GMT -5
What are those bumps on his forehead? Excellent question Ilovedfw. I seriously encourage everyone here to show that photo to a pediatrician and ask what he/she says. If you do, please share here and I will share with the pediatricians I have talked to.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2019 12:03:30 GMT -5
Is it possible to get permission to post these photos?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 12:11:01 GMT -5
Hey Wayne? Look at photos of CAL Sr. and see if you can see those same type lumps on his forehead. Sometimes I see them, in other photos I don't. They could be genetic. Let me know what you see. . . Interesting Ilovedfw. I have to admit I've never looked before! Hmmm.... Can you please send the photos you think resemble Charlie's bumps?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 12:12:17 GMT -5
Is it possible to get permission to post these photos? I'll contact Yale. If I remember correctly, I have to get permission from the Lindbergh estate, but I will confirm this. It may take some time.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 18, 2019 13:12:16 GMT -5
To me, the biggest mystery of the Yale photos is the last line of CAL's photo inventory (the handwritten line). What does everyone here think it means? FYI, all of the photos at Yale had their negatives with them. There are no negatives for any "February 1932" photos, I checked. It really looks like photos were taken of Charlie in February 1932 at Englewood. What does "all blanks" mean?
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 18, 2019 13:22:11 GMT -5
Hey Wayne? Look at photos of CAL Sr. and see if you can see those same type lumps on his forehead. Sometimes I see them, in other photos I don't. They could be genetic. Let me know what you see. . . Interesting Ilovedfw. I have to admit I've never looked before! Hmmm.... Can you please send the photos you think resemble Charlie's bumps? Sorry to interfere here ... I had the same feeling as Ilovedfw, there is something on CAL’s forehead just a moment before. It was the photo used in Scathma’s avatar...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2019 14:15:27 GMT -5
To me, the biggest mystery of the Yale photos is the last line of CAL's photo inventory (the handwritten line). What does everyone here think it means? FYI, all of the photos at Yale had their negatives with them. There are no negatives for any "February 1932" photos, I checked. It really looks like photos were taken of Charlie in February 1932 at Englewood. What does "all blanks" mean? I believe Amy and I had a previous discussion on this. "All blanks" = No description of activity provided, as CAL does for other photos, ie. as seen in Photos 18. and 19. And possibly no location provided. My thoughts.
|
|