|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2019 20:55:07 GMT -5
Wow, thanks Wayne. Can't wait to start browsing.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 19, 2019 21:17:28 GMT -5
Thumb-sucking has been frowned upon for a long time, just like the controversy surrounding whether to use a pacifier or not. I had a daughter who could climb out of her crib like a pro at 18 months, so they may have been trying to keep him still and from from climbing. I don't think they were worried about him hurting himself while standing because there is that photo of him standing on the bench at about a year old with the Skean and Wagoosh, they are trusting him not to fall off the bench and from the distances in the photo it would seem that no one is close enough to catch him if he does. It may be that his health declined seriously after a year and was no longer able to stand, hopefully these October 1931 photos from Yale will give us a clue. Wasn't it in the Doctor's report that the baby had great trouble standing up on his own? There has to be some explanation for the highly unusual "pinning." Whatever Charlie was suffering from, it seemed to only be getting worse, not better. His teeth were not normal and while thumb sucking was certainly always frowned upon, it seems they may have taken extra precautions due to this.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2019 21:44:29 GMT -5
I think Dr. Van Ingen said he wouldn't stand and was "spoiled". That sounds like the terrible twos to me. He was also described as well developed for his age with a mild case of rickets. Either, Van Ingen is lying about the extent of Charlie's health issues to save face for the Lindberghs or he was relatively normal. Is Van Ingen someone who would hide the truth? I don't know.
Pinning him down to the mattress is really strange. Does anyone know if this was something that was done in the 1930s?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2019 23:27:50 GMT -5
Hi Wayne, I'm familiar with the photo your talking about. CAL Jr. with Evangeline Lindbergh, not Betty Morrow. If it's the photo I think you mean, it's in 'Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead'.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 20, 2019 0:27:47 GMT -5
Hi Wayne, I'm familiar with the photo your talking about. CAL Jr. with Evangeline Lindbergh, not Betty Morrow. If it's the photo I think you mean, it's in 'Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead'. Hi LJ! Very good! It's not that exact photo, but it was one taken right before or right after the one you're talking about. CAL's mother, Charlie, ball, and white picket fence.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 20, 2019 2:05:24 GMT -5
That's the one. He looks okay there and, given the hair length, it seems to be right around the time of the first birthday--so June 30 makes sense. I'm still dying to see these later photos, though...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2019 10:18:15 GMT -5
Wayne, we can't look at these photos? Nothing comes up when I try. The "digital" resources available can be browsed here: images.library.yale.edu/madid/advancedSearch.aspxI think access to the Yale Archive requires permission from the family but Wayne would know more about that. I have benefited from both Wayne and Bill Norris who both shared some of their findings made there with me. There's also material at Princeton University as well for anyone interested. Some of this material requires a visit (or a call to the Archivist) while others have been digitized. findingaids.princeton.edu/
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 20, 2019 10:23:05 GMT -5
Wayne, we can't look at these photos? Nothing comes up when I try. Ilovedfw, Those links are indexes to ALL the documents and photos at Yale. They are not links to the actual documents or photos. You have to get permission to view them there. Yale does have strict copyright rules on what photos and documents I can share -- Conditions Governing Use
Copyright has been transferred to Yale University for unpublished materials authored or otherwise produced by the Charles Augustus Lindbergh. Copyright has been assigned to Reeve Morrow Lindbergh by Anne Morrow Lindbergh for materials Anne Morrow Lindbergh authored or otherwise produced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 10:32:35 GMT -5
The Lindbergh collection at Yale (both CAL and Anne) is MASSIVE! It covers their entire lives. Reading over the guide for CAL's collection, I saw in the his section "The Kidnapping and Hauptmann Trial, 1932-1935" that the following boxes - 3 and 3A are closed to research until January 1, 2023!! Well now, I wonder what might be contained in those boxes about the kidnapping that they would be excluded for another four years! I wonder if there will be anything about Charlie and things we don't know about the actual kidnapping that might be very sensitive material. So, Wayne and Michael - Please, Please, Please, say you will get to those archives in January of 2023 and look at the material in those restricted boxes!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 20, 2019 10:49:48 GMT -5
Reading over the guide for CAL's collection, I saw in the his section "The Kidnapping and Hauptmann Trial, 1932-1935" that the following boxes - 3 and 3A are closed to research until January 1, 2023!! Well now, I wonder what might be contained in those boxes about the kidnapping that they would be excluded for another four years! I wonder if there will be anything about Charlie and things we don't know about the actual kidnapping that might be very sensitive material. So, Wayne and Michael - Please, Please, Please, say you will get to those archives in January of 2023 and look at the material in those restricted boxes!!!!! Ha! Amy, I noticed that last night too! What the heck is that about? I've added that to my list of questions I'm asking the Yale archivist tomorrow... along with Owen Root's movie reel. And Michael, I'll also ask and get some clarification on what I can share and what I can't. I was told that some of the material had to be cleared with either Yale University itself (primarily for CAL related docs and photos) and/or with Reeve Lindbergh (primarily for Anne related docs and photos). I'll confirm as as soon as I hear from them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 11:01:28 GMT -5
Amy, I noticed that last night too! What the heck is that about? I've added that to my list of questions I'm asking the Yale archivist tomorrow... along with Owen Root's movie reel. I don't know, Wayne. It reminds about the JFK assassination and the material that was withheld from researchers and the public concerning this tragic episode in American history. I still don't think everything has been released about that sensitive material. Looks like there is still more to know about the LKC. No matter what you think of Hauptmann, he got it right when he said "This book it will never close"!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 20, 2019 11:27:21 GMT -5
I don't know, Wayne. It reminds about the JFK assassination and the material that was withheld from researchers and the public concerning this tragic episode in American history. I still don't think everything has been released about that sensitive material. Looks like there is still more to know about the LKC. No matter what you think of Hauptmann, he got it right when he said "This book it will never close"! Amy, this reminded me of the JFK files as well. I'm pretty sure that some of the Lindbergh files (2002-M-079, boxes 3 and 3A) that won't be opened until 2023 are files that pertain to CAL's German family. Where do you see "his section "The Kidnapping and Hauptmann Trial, 1932-1935" that the following boxes - 3 and 3A are closed to research until January 1, 2023"? Is that part of 2002-M-079, boxes 3 and 3A?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2019 11:32:07 GMT -5
So, Wayne and Michael - Please, Please, Please, say you will get to those archives in January of 2023 and look at the material in those restricted boxes!!!!! I think by 2023 I'll be done. If I was given access there's no way I could ever stop at those two. So what would happen is I'd wind up moving up there. Who knows? You've given me something to think about at least. And Michael, I'll also ask and get some clarification on what I can share and what I can't. I was told that some of the material had to be cleared with either Yale University itself (primarily for CAL related docs and photos) and/or with Reeve Lindbergh (primarily for Anne related docs and photos). I'll confirm as as soon as I hear from them. I know you have to be careful with this particular material so you don't have anything to explain to me. I think everyone else understands now if they didn't before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 13:50:46 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that some of the Lindbergh files (2002-M-079, boxes 3 and 3A) that won't be opened until 2023 are files that pertain to CAL's German family. Where do you see "his section "The Kidnapping and Hauptmann Trial, 1932-1935" that the following boxes - 3 and 3A are closed to research until January 1, 2023"? Is that part of 2002-M-079, boxes 3 and 3A? You could be right and it might only be about the German families Lindbergh had, but again, maybe not JUST that. Why have that notation in that section of CAL's papers if it doesn't include anything about the kidnapping and/or trial?? The German families happened much later in CAL's life. What could they possibly have to do with the kidnapping case? Maybe boxes 3 and 3A are some kind of general depository for sensitive information that CAL wanted control over and felt that 2023 would be a safe time for researchers to be able to look at these papers?? Yes! the restricted boxes are a part of "Accession 2002-M-079. Click on the Lindbergh correspondence link (second one) that you posted for Stella7. On the right side you will see the navigation box with titles in blue. Select "The Kidnapping and Hauptmann Trial, 1932-1935" on that list. Once in there, you will see the notation printed about restricted until 2023. I said "his section" just to distinguish it from Anne's correspondence link that you also provided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 14:02:17 GMT -5
I think by 2023 I'll be done. If I was given access there's no way I could ever stop at those two. So what would happen is I'd wind up moving up there. Who knows? You've given me something to think about at least. Michael, YOU, DONE?? Please!!! That will give me nightmares. I totally understand not being able to stop at just two boxes. Maybe, please, you could start with these boxes first and then work on the rest of the collection later in 2023. Don't even consider putting your writing pen down!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 20, 2019 16:36:14 GMT -5
Wayne, I am putting together print outs of toes and head and asking my neighbor, who is a nurse at Texas Children's Hospital what she thinks. Perfect! Thanks Ilovedfw. Can't wait to hear what she says. I think the main thing about the toes (the one's taken of the corpse) is would Charlie have had trouble walking with such overlapping toes? Again, thank you Ilovedfw!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 17:06:21 GMT -5
Wasn't it in the Doctor's report that the baby had great trouble standing up on his own? There has to be some explanation for the highly unusual "pinning." Whatever Charlie was suffering from, it seemed to only be getting worse, not better. His teeth were not normal and while thumb sucking was certainly always frowned upon, it seems they may have taken extra precautions due to this. Here is what Dr. Van Ingen said to Assistant District Attorney Peacock on 11/21/1934, concerning Charlie not standing up properly so he could measure him: "This boy, born June 22, 1930, was only 2-1/2 years old and a rather spoiled youngster and it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight in order to measure him. He was 29" in June and the following February was 33"."
So apparently, Charlie was 29" inches tall in June of 1931 and had grown to 33" inches by February 1932 as best as Van Ingen was able to measure him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2019 18:58:29 GMT -5
YOU, DONE?? Please!!! That will give me nightmares. I totally understand not being able to stop at just two boxes. Maybe, please, you could start with these boxes first and then work on the rest of the collection later in 2023. Thanks Amy. I've always had it in my head to look into 3X and then Hall-Mills ... both of which I already have unique information on. I still find it fascinating that George Curtis was connected to the 3X investigation (see V1 page 304). BTW I am also adding a crazy connection with this case and Hall-Mills no one would ever guess - not even in their wildest dreams. But I suppose stuff like this is more interesting to me than most? I'm not sure but I've got to add it regardless. Anyway with this case I cannot see going beyond V4. I guess we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 20, 2019 19:13:34 GMT -5
Hall-Mills is creepy, but it always seemed fairly clear what happened: Hall's wife got her cousin or brother or somebody to kill him and his girlfriend (Mills), because they were having an affair. Interesting case nonetheless, filled with crazy characters--the so-called "Pig Lady", for one...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 20, 2019 19:25:15 GMT -5
Thanks Amy. I've always had it in my head to look into 3X and then Hall-Mills ... both of which I already have unique information on. I still find it fascinating that George Curtis was connected to the 3X investigation (see V1 page 304). BTW I am also adding a crazy connection with this case and Hall-Mills no one would ever guess - not even in their wildest dreams. But I suppose stuff like this is more interesting to me than most? I'm not sure but I've got to add it regardless. Anyway with this case I cannot see going beyond V4. I guess we'll see what happens. Michael & LJ, Didn't both Harry Walsh and John Lamb work the Hall-Mills case? They did a good job with that case too, huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 19:35:20 GMT -5
I've always had it in my head to look into 3X and then Hall-Mills ... both of which I already have unique information on. I still find it fascinating that George Curtis was connected to the 3X investigation (see V1 page 304). BTW I am also adding a crazy connection with this case and Hall-Mills no one would ever guess - not even in their wildest dreams. But I suppose stuff like this is more interesting to me than most? I'm not sure but I've got to add it regardless. Anyway with this case I cannot see going beyond V4. I guess we'll see what happens. 3X and Hall-Mills are both great crimes to write about. You would certainly do fantastic with both of them! I will certainly buy and read anything you ever write about. I am super interested in 3X myself, ever since you started a thread on this board about this case. I am always looking for stories about the 3X case and have quite a few news articles concerning this case. There were a number of suspects over the years but the crimes remain unsolved. You still have much to write about with the Lindbergh kidnapping case though and I am so looking forward to your next volume and beyond!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2019 19:41:19 GMT -5
Didn't both Harry Walsh and John Lamb work the Hall-Mills case? They did a good job with that case too, huh? Yes. There's a lot of "cross-over" material. Like LJ mentioned the "Pig-Lady" or "Pig-Woman." That was Mrs. Gibson from Hall-Mills but in the LKC the Press called Antonia Cholewsky the "Pig Woman" too. I even have some stuff about Ellis Parker and that case. A Trooper who investigated was actually bribed by the first prosecutor to skedaddle ... Deikman I believe but I'd have to dive into my material and at this point I'd rather not or I'll loose focus on what I am currently working on. And no! It's not "age" ... I've always been like this. I swear... You still have much to write about with the Lindbergh kidnapping case though and I am so looking forward to your next volume and beyond! Thanks again Amy. Just wishful thinking I suppose. Anyway, I shouldn't be putting the cart before the horse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 21:12:39 GMT -5
I still find it fascinating that George Curtis was connected to the 3X investigation (see V1 page 304). I will not turn this thread into a 3X discussion. Since you mentioned George Curtis, I thought I would post a link to a newspaper article that mentions George Curtis being picked up. bklyn.newspapers.com/image/57396130/?terms=3X%2BMurders
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2019 8:58:22 GMT -5
I hope I didn't throw cold water on this thread by diverting the topic! I do have to add that I was always interested in pursuing the Meaney case too but thankfully Mark beat me to it. His book covers everything and of all the great ones he's written this is my absolute favorite: www.amazon.com/Siege-at-Jutland-Mark-Falzini/dp/1491725079So we can now get back on topic and hopefully hear about ILDFW turns up!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 23, 2019 10:42:25 GMT -5
I studied that case to, I went to all the sites with sue Campbell and last year a historical society wrote a book on it I bought it. it seems to me ellis parkers fight with the njsp might have started with that case. another book I have is fatal tryst a book on the case, and minister and the quoir singer the old book on the case.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 23, 2019 10:44:17 GMT -5
whats the childs sickness have anything to do with this case? saying Lindbergh did this is the dumbest thing I ever heard
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 23, 2019 10:45:41 GMT -5
your right joe, until sue dug the program up and it didn't have his name on the speech list
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 23, 2019 13:48:17 GMT -5
whats the childs sickness have anything to do with this case? saying Lindbergh did this is the dumbest thing I ever heard CALjr's health issues have been wildly overstated here for a long time, while a major error like Lloyd Gardner's "Viosterol Megadose Oops," get quietly downplayed and swept under the rug. No one here seems willing to relinquish the fist bumping speculative good times, and draw upon truly professional opinion, not only within the context of the child's physical and mental health and wellbeing but also within the context of the parent - child emotional and empathic connection, ie. was he a wanted child? It's been little more than a steady Goebbel's-like drip.. drip.. of lame "Sick Charlie" news here for a long time with very little else of value to show. Another factor, perhaps equally important, is the notion that Charles Lindbergh would have dreamed up a faux kidnapping, in spite of the obvious fallout and implications. Yes, the same analytically critical-thinking Charles Lindbergh. I repeat myself, for the benefit of ayone who seriously considers the above "other factor." Would the "major players" in this case, those being Charles (presumably the mastermind) and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Breckinridge, Elmer Irey, Norman Schwarzkopf, J. Edgar Hoover, John Condon and possibly the Whateleys, Al Reich and Alexis Carrel, (have I missed anyone?) essentially decided from the beginning, or at some point thereafter depending on their point of entry into the case, to summarily defraud and deceive not only themselves and their immediate and extended families, but also all of the state and federal law enforcement agencies who would ultimately have had even an investigative brush with this case, every American as well as foreign news agency that reported on this crime, the governments of affected states and the entire political structure of the United States, all the way up to the office of the president and finally, an entire planet of sympathetic and everyday people, who were shocked and revolted by the relative enormity and strangeness of this crime? I believe it’s a question every LKC researcher has to ask themselves in order to try and maintain true objectivity, in what they uncover or read towards establishing a responsible, personal conclusion. Personally, I don’t feel Charles Lindbergh or anyone else above mentioned, had it in them to stage or even support the notion of something this criminally insane. And just to show I'm not being one-sided or shrugging anything off here.. Within this discussion board, there is an excellent informational source and mill for developing theories, and there's no questioning the dedication and abilities of those who research here and are so willing to share information. At the same time though, and as you say Steve.. some very bad detectives at work here!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 23, 2019 13:50:12 GMT -5
whats the childs sickness have anything to do with this case? saying Lindbergh did this is the dumbest thing I ever heard Hey Wolf, Lindbergh giving the New York Times a photo for their March 3rd edition and telling them that the photo was taken "about two weeks ago" when Lindbergh knew the photo was 8 months old (because he took it on Charlie's birthday) -- how do you explain that? Gotta admit, that's right up there with some of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2019 14:46:40 GMT -5
CALjr's health issues have been wildly overstated here for a long time, while a major error like Lloyd Gardner's "Viosterol Megadose Oops," get quietly downplayed and swept under the rug. No one here seems willing to relinquish the fist bumping speculative good times, and draw upon truly professional opinion, not only within the context of the child's physical and mental health and wellbeing but also within the context of the parent - child emotional and empathic connection, ie. was he a wanted child? It's been little more than a steady Goebbel's-like drip.. drip.. of lame "Sick Charlie" news here for a long time with very little else of value to show. Hey Joe. Who swept it under the rug? It's been fully acknowledged here after Wayne (and the help of others here) assisted in proving it a mistake. That was just one factor contained within the theory and in no way supposedly proves the child did not have an issue. Does it erase Lindbergh's beliefs in eugenics? I don't think so and in truth that's the Elephant in the room that is constantly being swept under the rug. So I think the argument can go both ways. Its as if someone who holds these strict beliefs only hold them in some places. They can "come and go" if need be. Its also as if we aren't "allowed" to consider these beliefs when we all absolutely know they existed. Why not? Why should any fact be ignored? Another factor, perhaps equally important, is the notion that Charles Lindbergh would have dreamed up a faux kidnapping, in spite of the obvious fallout and implications. Yes, the same analytically critical-thinking Charles Lindbergh. Once again - apply this thought everywhere. Does Lindbergh appear to care? Once the truth is learned - like the fake news reports that he was "hurting" at the Morgue. No - He was more worried about looking "weak" than anything else. There's those beliefs again. Can't escape them if one "looks." I repeat myself, for the benefit of ayone who seriously considers the above "other factor." Would the "major players" in this case, those being Charles (presumably the mastermind) and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Breckinridge, Elmer Irey, Norman Schwarzkopf, J. Edgar Hoover, John Condon and possibly the Whateleys, Al Reich and Alexis Carrel, (have I missed anyone?) essentially decided from the beginning, or at some point thereafter depending on their point of entry into the case, to summarily defraud and deceive not only themselves and their immediate and extended families, but also all of the state and federal law enforcement agencies who would ultimately have had even an investigative brush with this case, every American as well as foreign news agency that reported on this crime, the governments of affected states and the entire political structure of the United States, all the way up to the office of the president and finally, an entire planet of sympathetic and everyday people, who were shocked and revolted by the relative enormity and strangeness of this crime? I believe it’s a question every LKC researcher has to ask themselves in order to try and maintain true objectivity, in what they uncover or read towards establishing a responsible, personal conclusion. All of those people do not have to be "involved." Putting together a list of everyone as if they are all required doesn't make it so. As I've proven via the source material, no one was above doing or saying something they shouldn't have. The purpose for which were many and to varying degrees. In short - people were lying all over the place and your argument is that no one would lie or be untruthful? The key is to determine who wasn't telling the truth and the "whys" behind it. "Knowing" or "suspecting" about the crime something is different than "being" an actual participant. Protecting someone is different from being an actual participant. Lying about ransom delivery so one doesn't get disbarred is different also. So would one lie for something bigger? That's the key to it. Whateley knew something, or at the very least, believed he did. Just look at how he reacted time and time again. He'd let something slip then get scared and excuse himself and hurry away. It all has to be considered. How someone could spend so much time researching and NOT consider it is what's most perplexing to me. All of the factors which people say "could not exist" all happened during the Meaney Case. Read Mark's book. It's proof positive that these things occurred. And if they took place there then of course they could somewhere else - to any varying degree.
|
|