|
Post by stella7 on Dec 4, 2018 17:07:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 8:07:28 GMT -5
If the baby's body had been in the woods all along, the odor of decomp would have been present once it started warming up a little by mid-April. Also, the searches widened to five miles in all directions immediately after the "kidnapping", so CAL Jr. would have been found. Amy - is St. Michael's still in the area? I mean the building itself. My position is that CAL Jr. wasn't laying in that spot from the night of March 1, 1932. I do think the body was buried elsewhere and then put there sometime after the ransom payment was made. Stella posted a great link about how the St. Michael's Orphanage area is today. She is correct that it was torn down in 1973. The land was eventually purchased by D & R Greenway Trust in 2010 for $11,000,000. Wilentz had a woman employee from the orphanage, Mrs. Elmira Dormer, testify that all the children being cared for at St. Michael's were accounted for and present before and after the kidnapping. She also testified that the orphanage had a dog that roamed the property daily. However, she also testified that this dog was tied to the chicken coops every night when it would get dark and was not roaming free on the grounds. Do you have some thoughts about that orphanage and the body found across the road as possibly being connected?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 12:17:16 GMT -5
It is just that huge buildings like St. Michaels, out in the middle of nowhere, creep the hell out of me. Just wondered what happened to such a massive building. How close was it to Highfields? It was closer to where the body was found, correct? The orphanage was definitely closer to where the body was found. The orphanage building itself was located just outside the city limits of Hopewell proper. It was within a 4+ something mile radius from Highfields. The body of Charlie was found further south of the orphanage building on Hopewell-Princeton Road but directly across from the open land that was part of the orphanage property. I am going to link a video presentation done by a gentleman by the name of Jack Koeppel. He is involved with the Hopewell Valley Historical Society and did a wonderful but lengthy program on the St. Michael's Orphanage. At about 11:55 minutes into this presentation you will see a photograph of the St. Michael's land area and he points out where the orphanage building was situated on all that acreage. Hope this link works! vimeo.com/187102990
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 5, 2018 15:16:55 GMT -5
Well, I went by the fact that turkey buzzards would have easily located the body and grouped, and have been impossible for the locals not to see. Yes, that's right on the S. edge of buzzard territory, but I'm also on the S. edge, and have many around here. They used to follow a little dog that i'd walk for a lady. Spooky!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 5, 2018 15:23:23 GMT -5
The way the body's face peeled off the ground, I think, meant that it had been there for a long time - longer than just a couple weeks. It was pristine and hadn't been moved around, but it's interesting to think the body was inaccessable until after the ransom was paid, but doesn't appear to have been buried - with a leg and arm sticking out?
Wish this spell-ck would correct!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 5, 2018 17:16:26 GMT -5
There are tons of turkey buzzards in the area so they would have taken care of it for sure. Also, you have Hervey Hill saying that's generally where he walked his hunting dogs and they would have come across it if it had been there.
|
|
truthseeker777
Recruit
Trying again after almost three years. Can someone guide me?
Posts: 8
|
Post by truthseeker777 on Feb 12, 2019 21:10:32 GMT -5
Yes. I believe the body was that of a child who had died at St.Michael's and was procured by/or for a pathologist friend of Lindbergh, to be evidence for the staged kidnapping set up by Lindbergh himself to cover for his child being taken and secretly dropped off at an institution for the "feeble-minded"located in the boondocks of Georgetown Delaware. During that time people were known to simply drop off their child, no questions asked because times were tough. The child didn't even need to be mentally challenged, just not wanted. I believe the child was taken by boat to Cape Henlopen from New Jersey and was transported the short trip to the facility in Georgetown. I'm not sure of the original name, but at some point the place was named "Home for the Feeble-minded" then "Delaware Colony", then "Stockley Center." It is a state facility now. Lindbergh involved some of the staff in his plan for March 1, 1932 and swore them to secrecy so as not to let Anne know. Things got complicated and it's too much for me to share on this one post, but I have a very plausible theory as well as something I was told by my aunt who worked at Stockley Center for many years. Pieces of the puzzle remain blank but there is much to ponder considering the lying, controlling and deceptive nature we have discovered about Charles Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 13, 2019 9:44:46 GMT -5
Yes. I believe the body was that of a child who had died at St.Michael's and was procured by/or for a pathologist friend of Lindbergh, to be evidence for the staged kidnapping set up by Lindbergh himself to cover for his child being taken and secretly dropped off at an institution for the "feeble-minded"located in the boondocks of Georgetown Delaware. During that time people were known to simply drop off their child, no questions asked because times were tough. The child didn't even need to be mentally challenged, just not wanted. I believe the child was taken by boat to Cape Henlopen from New Jersey and was transported the short trip to the facility in Georgetown. I'm not sure of the original name, but at some point the place was named "Home for the Feeble-minded" then "Delaware Colony", then "Stockley Center." It is a state facility now. Lindbergh involved some of the staff in his plan for March 1, 1932 and swore them to secrecy so as not to let Anne know. Things got complicated and it's too much for me to share on this one post, but I have a very plausible theory as well as something I was told by my aunt who worked at Stockley Center for many years. Pieces of the puzzle remain blank but there is much to ponder considering the lying, controlling and deceptive nature we have discovered about Charles Lindbergh. Interesting theory, truthseeker. Others here have proposed similar ideas, but no one has geographically located or specified a particular institution to which CAL Jr. may have been taken. Just wondering whether there might be contemporaneous records from Stockley Center regarding CAL Jr. being a resident there. It's quite possible that they would give him a new name at the time to cover up what was going on. So what did your aunt tell you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 19:21:48 GMT -5
Things got complicated and it's too much for me to share on this one post, but I have a very plausible theory as well as something I was told by my aunt who worked at Stockley Center for many years. Pieces of the puzzle remain blank but there is much to ponder considering the lying, controlling and deceptive nature we have discovered about Charles Lindbergh. Truthseeker, you have a very interesting theory. I do hope that you will share more of it with us. I did a little research into a few of the things you mention in your post. I can understand Stockley Center being a part of your theory if you believe that Lindbergh was having his son institutionalized. Stockley Center was actively involved with Eugenics so that would certainly fit with CAL. This link about the state of Delaware and its Eugenics activities mentions Stockley Center. www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/DE/DE.htmlI also found your inclusion of Cape Henlopen as a docking point to take Charlie to Stockley Center as very feasible. There had been a light house at this cape for many years. It was damaged in 1920 by a storm and abandoned in 1924, then finally being collapsed in April 1926. There was nothing there in 1932. At night, this would be a perfect place to land unnoticed. Georgetown, Delaware (location of Stockley Center) is not that far of a drive from the cape. Thanks for sharing. I hope you will make additional posts about your theory.
|
|
truthseeker777
Recruit
Trying again after almost three years. Can someone guide me?
Posts: 8
|
Post by truthseeker777 on Feb 16, 2019 21:41:50 GMT -5
I believe the child was left anonymously. As I said there was no paper work involved when people just abandoned children there. Other family members of mine who worked there in the 50's and on said many people were not even "mentally challenged" or as it was called "feeble-minded" then "retarded".My aunt told me she knew exactly where Charles Jr. was and could take me to him, but when she told me this back in the 80s I was ignorant of most of the story about the kidnapping. When I questioned her later she was deeply regretful she had told me anything and didn't want to talk about it any further. For a time, working at Stockley, she was involved in placing "functional" "mildly retarded" kids and young adults with people in the area. At that time, as you may know, there were lots of farms in the area and families needing workers. My guess is that is what happened .My aunt even said something about a lady in black coming from time to time. You need to know that this information she shared came as we were playing a game of Trivial Pursuit at our beach place in lower Delaware. A question came up about the name of the person who kidnapped and killed the Lindbergh baby. My aunt blurted out in her country manner "No he never!" I asked no who never what. 'He never killed him. I can take you to him right now and place my hand on him." Sadly out of ignorance, it took me years, until after seeing "The Airman and The Carpenter" movie, to get interested in pursuing more. She refused to discuss it and died in the nineties. I won't make this response any longer by going into all I have done over the years to try to get help with this. I am haunted by the thought that an innocent man was executed for a crime he did not commit.
|
|
truthseeker777
Recruit
Trying again after almost three years. Can someone guide me?
Posts: 8
|
Post by truthseeker777 on Feb 16, 2019 21:51:26 GMT -5
ONE MORE THING. I BELIEVE IT WAS ON THE DAY THE BODY WAS FOUND, MAYBE NOT, BUT WASN'T CHARLES OUT ON A BOAT HIMSELF SUPPOSEDLY LOOKING FOR HIS SON WHO WAS RUMORED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON A BOAT?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 17, 2019 12:00:26 GMT -5
I believe the child was left anonymously. As I said there was no paper work involved when people just abandoned children there. Other family members of mine who worked there in the 50's and on said many people were not even "mentally challenged" or as it was called "feeble-minded" then "retarded".My aunt told me she knew exactly where Charles Jr. was and could take me to him, but when she told me this back in the 80s I was ignorant of most of the story about the kidnapping. When I questioned her later she was deeply regretful she had told me anything and didn't want to talk about it any further. For a time, working at Stockley, she was involved in placing "functional" "mildly retarded" kids and young adults with people in the area. At that time, as you may know, there were lots of farms in the area and families needing workers. My guess is that is what happened .My aunt even said something about a lady in black coming from time to time. You need to know that this information she shared came as we were playing a game of Trivial Pursuit at our beach place in lower Delaware. A question came up about the name of the person who kidnapped and killed the Lindbergh baby. My aunt blurted out in her country manner "No he never!" I asked no who never what. 'He never killed him. I can take you to him right now and place my hand on him." Sadly out of ignorance, it took me years, until after seeing "The Airman and The Carpenter" movie, to get interested in pursuing more. She refused to discuss it and died in the nineties. I won't make this response any longer by going into all I have done over the years to try to get help with this. I am haunted by the thought that an innocent man was executed for a crime he did not commit. Truthseeker, this is about the most fascinating story I've ever seen on these threads. As you know, there have been quite a number of grown-up men over the years who claimed to be CAL Jr. In this case, if what you learned from your aunt is essentially true, I would say that CAL Jr. would also have had to be given some alternative name or names somewhere along the way. One would think that even if there were no paperwork involved in the presentation of a new child to the Stockley facility, there would be rosters of residents that were kept and updated from time to time. This was a STATE facility, and would usually be expected to keep such records, just like a state prison or a state hospital. Also, the release of a resident for farm employment might have triggered a paper record as well. So it seems as if further research regarding these documents might be an important avenue of investigation. Now what about your aunt? How old was she in 1932? Was she generally an honest person or was she prone to telling embellished stories to grab the attention of her listeners.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 17, 2019 12:27:40 GMT -5
ONE MORE THING. I BELIEVE IT WAS ON THE DAY THE BODY WAS FOUND, MAYBE NOT, BUT WASN'T CHARLES OUT ON A BOAT HIMSELF SUPPOSEDLY LOOKING FOR HIS SON WHO WAS RUMORED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON A BOAT? Yes, this is true. Lindbergh was searching off the south New Jersey coast with John Hughes Curtis (shortly thereafter arrested, then tried and convicted for perpetrating a hoax on law enforcement). What's noteworthy, one might think, is that Lindbergh did not arrive at the funeral parlor to which his son's body (or purportedly his son's body) was removed until the following day. What took him so long?
|
|
truthseeker777
Recruit
Trying again after almost three years. Can someone guide me?
Posts: 8
|
Post by truthseeker777 on Feb 18, 2019 19:31:08 GMT -5
Believe me I have tried to solicit help to investigate Stockley's records, even to contacting Anna Hauptmann's lawyer Robert Bryan, many years ago. I told him my story over the phone and he even said it very well could be true, but I needed to bring him more evidence-----THAT"S what I needed HIM for!! He said he was busy in California, ironically involved with a capital punishment case. Remember this was before the internet. I contacted Mike Holfeld a reporter on WKMG in Florida who was examining and discussing evidence regarding the Lindbergh case. I invited him to Delaware to see if he could obtain any records from Stockley. He didn't think the chances were good enough. I have been in touch with JT Townsend a famous crime investigative author who has written much about the case. He seems to think it's "too cold" and is busy with many other book projects he has going. Oh yes, I have prayed about this and racked my brain for decades now, to no avail. My aunt did not work at Stockley until the fifties. She would have known Charlie as a young adult. My guess is he has probably died by now wherever he was. Had I gotten a source of help in the nineties there may have been a better chance of uncovering something. I have talked with other of my family members about my aunt and no one was ever told what she told me, my husband, my now deceased step-mother, and deceased step-father when we ere playing the game that night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 8:43:19 GMT -5
I believe the child was left anonymously. As I said there was no paper work involved when people just abandoned children there. Truthseeker, Your belief is that Charlie was left anonymously with Stockley Center. In the shout box you say that, as best as you remember, your Aunt started working at Stockley Center around mid to late 1940's. So this would be approximately 13 plus years after Charlie would have been abandoned there. Charlie would have been in his teens at this point in time. So my question is how did your Aunt come to know that it was, indeed, CAL Jr. at that facility if he had been left there anonymously in 1932? Sounds like someone would have needed to know something about this child's identity in order for your Aunt to acquire this knowledge years later.
|
|
truthseeker777
Recruit
Trying again after almost three years. Can someone guide me?
Posts: 8
|
Post by truthseeker777 on Feb 22, 2019 21:56:11 GMT -5
Of course it is logical that others at Stockley had to have known the true identity of Charlie. I also tend to think the secret was so well kept out of fear because of the power of the Lindbergh family. My aunt was regretful (perhaps also fearful) that she had told me what she did and as I have posted, refused to talk about it any further. Incidentally, at the time she told me she had recently retired after several decades of service at Stockley.,
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Feb 23, 2019 9:54:52 GMT -5
Of course it is logical that others at Stockley had to have known the true identity of Charlie. I also tend to think the secret was so well kept out of fear because of the power of the Lindbergh family. My aunt was regretful (perhaps also fearful) that she had told me what she did and as I have posted, refused to talk about it any further. Incidentally, at the time she told me she had recently retired after several decades of service at Stockley., There's a lot of speculative theory here, that simply flies in the face of all of the positive points of identification which connect the body found on the Mt. Rose Highway with that of CALjr.
|
|
|
Post by john on Feb 23, 2019 15:50:02 GMT -5
I have a difficult time believing that the body in the woods wasn't that of CAL. Jr. due to the extreme unlikelihood of there being two similar male babies "on the loose" in the vicinity shortly after the time of the kidnapping. How did that "other" baby get there, and why? There would have to have been a vast conspiracy of some sort behind it all. By this I mean that CAL, Jr. was kidnapped, taken somewhere else,--whether dead or alive is another matter--while a dead, conveniently similar baby was placed in the woods as a substitute CAL, Jr., and at a time favorable to discovery (enter William Allen).
Then there's the issue of why Allen chose that particular spot to relieve himself. If Allen had been tipped off (paid off?) to do this it would likely have brought a neat closure to the question of what happened to the child, which indeed is what happened. Yet there's something too fantastic about this for it to be credible to me: two missing babies? Does this mean two murders as well? Or did CAL, Jr. survive. If so, who on earth would be behind such a mad scheme?
I can't see how someone would profit from this unless CAL the Elder, in league with someone else, was able to have found or learned about the dead baby beforehand, then planned the fake kidnapping so as to rid himself of his unwanted son (via adoption?) without having to kill anyone. This makes for a good Ellery Queen-like mystery story but for various problems that might have arisen, such as the child's body not being identified as his son,--though CAL's own I.D. seemed to settle that one--there's always doubt. Then there was the risk of the presumably alive and well real CAL, Jr. being discovered, which one may as well call the Olson-Aldinger hypothesis.
Fortunately for CAL none of these alternate scenarios emerged, seriously anyway, in his lifetime. But then, even as he successfully got rid of his unwanted child, the matter of CAL's willingness to identify and then testify against Hauptmann, which strikes me as too pathological even for CAL. On the other hand, there may have been issues with Hauptmann, even suspicion/evidence that he had killed a child himself, which accounts for the body in the woods, but this is getting too convoluted to be credible, although stranger things have happened; and the matter of "if the body in the woods isn't CAL, Jr.'s, whose body is it?". This raises the further issue of whether Hauptmann, if part of some larger criminal scheme, had somehow "procured" the body, which casts yet another dark shadow on the hapless German carpenter.
|
|
truthseeker777
Recruit
Trying again after almost three years. Can someone guide me?
Posts: 8
|
Post by truthseeker777 on Feb 23, 2019 16:38:27 GMT -5
And by whom were the positive points of identification made? If Lindbergh could control the police dept. and the entire trial, could he not have also controlled the rest?
|
|
|
Post by john on Feb 24, 2019 0:44:21 GMT -5
A doctor other than Van Ingen, I would imagine. This is, it seems to me, a gray area in the LKC, and not just to me. Respect for the grieving father was a likely factor in this (I suspect, in addition to Lindbergh's massive prestige as a public figure); and his word was as "good as gold" at the time. The word closure wasn't widely used back then, but this is, I suspect, what the "authorities" were seeking; and for the entire Lindbergh family as much as for CAL himself.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 24, 2019 12:31:49 GMT -5
I have a difficult time believing that the body in the woods wasn't that of CAL. Jr. due to the extreme unlikelihood of there being two similar male babies "on the loose" in the vicinity shortly after the time of the kidnapping. How did that "other" baby get there, and why? There would have to have been a vast conspiracy of some sort behind it all. By this I mean that CAL, Jr. was kidnapped, taken somewhere else,--whether dead or alive is another matter--while a dead, conveniently similar baby was placed in the woods as a substitute CAL, Jr., and at a time favorable to discovery (enter William Allen). Then there's the issue of why Allen chose that particular spot to relieve himself. If Allen had been tipped off (paid off?) to do this it would likely have brought a neat closure to the question of what happened to the child, which indeed is what happened. Yet there's something too fantastic about this for it to be credible to me: two missing babies? Does this mean two murders as well? Or did CAL, Jr. survive. If so, who on earth would be behind such a mad scheme? I can't see how someone would profit from this unless CAL the Elder, in league with someone else, was able to have found or learned about the dead baby beforehand, then planned the fake kidnapping so as to rid himself of his unwanted son (via adoption?) without having to kill anyone. This makes for a good Ellery Queen-like mystery story but for various problems that might have arisen, such as the child's body not being identified as his son,--though CAL's own I.D. seemed to settle that one--there's always doubt. Then there was the risk of the presumably alive and well real CAL, Jr. being discovered, which one may as well call the Olson-Aldinger hypothesis. Fortunately for CAL none of these alternate scenarios emerged, seriously anyway, in his lifetime. But then, even as he successfully got rid of his unwanted child, the matter of CAL's willingness to identify and then testify against Hauptmann, which strikes me as too pathological even for CAL. On the other hand, there may have been issues with Hauptmann, even suspicion/evidence that he had killed a child himself, which accounts for the body in the woods, but this is getting too convoluted to be credible, although stranger things have happened; and the matter of "if the body in the woods isn't CAL, Jr.'s, whose body is it?". This raises the further issue of whether Hauptmann, if part of some larger criminal scheme, had somehow "procured" the body, which casts yet another dark shadow on the hapless German carpenter. You don't seem to take into account the possibility that the child whose body was found in the woods had been a resident of an orphanage or other institurion , not necessarily in the immediate area, who either (1) died by natural causes followed by mutilation and/or cannibalization or (2) had been taken out of his residence, then brutally murdered and mutilated and/or cannibalized. If the deceased had no family and the administration of the facility at which he resided was told to keep quiet, these events could have escaped all public attention. In addition, I have pointed out that the toe deformities on the right foot of the living Charlie (as per Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow) DIFFER significantly from those described in the autopsy report on the body found in the woods. This alone clearly distinguishes them. Unless there is some error in either the Van Ingen letter or the autopsy report, the corpse found in the woods could not have been that of CAL Jr.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 25, 2019 9:44:20 GMT -5
joe, I have a extra copy if you want me to send it to you
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 18, 2019 15:06:48 GMT -5
I have a difficult time believing that the body in the woods wasn't that of CAL. Jr. due to the extreme unlikelihood of there being two similar male babies "on the loose" in the vicinity shortly after the time of the kidnapping. How did that "other" baby get there, and why? There would have to have been a vast conspiracy of some sort behind it all. By this I mean that CAL, Jr. was kidnapped, taken somewhere else,--whether dead or alive is another matter--while a dead, conveniently similar baby was placed in the woods as a substitute CAL, Jr., and at a time favorable to discovery (enter William Allen). Then there's the issue of why Allen chose that particular spot to relieve himself. If Allen had been tipped off (paid off?) to do this it would likely have brought a neat closure to the question of what happened to the child, which indeed is what happened. Yet there's something too fantastic about this for it to be credible to me: two missing babies? Does this mean two murders as well? Or did CAL, Jr. survive. If so, who on earth would be behind such a mad scheme? I can't see how someone would profit from this unless CAL the Elder, in league with someone else, was able to have found or learned about the dead baby beforehand, then planned the fake kidnapping so as to rid himself of his unwanted son (via adoption?) without having to kill anyone. This makes for a good Ellery Queen-like mystery story but for various problems that might have arisen, such as the child's body not being identified as his son,--though CAL's own I.D. seemed to settle that one--there's always doubt. Then there was the risk of the presumably alive and well real CAL, Jr. being discovered, which one may as well call the Olson-Aldinger hypothesis. Fortunately for CAL none of these alternate scenarios emerged, seriously anyway, in his lifetime. But then, even as he successfully got rid of his unwanted child, the matter of CAL's willingness to identify and then testify against Hauptmann, which strikes me as too pathological even for CAL. On the other hand, there may have been issues with Hauptmann, even suspicion/evidence that he had killed a child himself, which accounts for the body in the woods, but this is getting too convoluted to be credible, although stranger things have happened; and the matter of "if the body in the woods isn't CAL, Jr.'s, whose body is it?". This raises the further issue of whether Hauptmann, if part of some larger criminal scheme, had somehow "procured" the body, which casts yet another dark shadow on the hapless German carpenter. You don't seem to take into account the possibility that the child whose body was found in the woods had been a resident of an orphanage or other institurion , not necessarily in the immediate area, who either (1) died by natural causes followed by mutilation and/or cannibalization or (2) had been taken out of his residence, then brutally murdered and mutilated and/or cannibalized. If the deceased had no family and the administration of the facility at which he resided was told to keep quiet, these events could have escaped all public attention. In addition, I have pointed out that the toe deformities on the right foot of the living Charlie (as per Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow) DIFFER significantly from those described in the autopsy report on the body found in the woods. This alone clearly distinguishes them. Unless there is some error in either the Van Ingen letter or the autopsy report, the corpse found in the woods could not have been that of CAL Jr. Fair enough, but can you offer a motive for why the body was placed in the woods in the first place? Was it put there to be a fake CAL, Jr. or did someone deposit it there in a hurry,--maybe from the orphanage--and then the discovery, unrelated to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping? I find the location of the child's body a puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 18, 2019 18:04:19 GMT -5
My own feeling on the subject is that body wasn't placed where it was found. I think it was left in the pulloff on the road, for a quick discovery and closure to the case, but probably within a few hours of being dumped and before it could be discovered in the pulloff, animals got a hold of the body and scavenged it, dragging it back into the woods where it was eventually found.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2019 8:46:57 GMT -5
joe, I have a extra copy if you want me to send it to you Steve, just saw your post here. Which report do you have?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 21, 2019 8:39:53 GMT -5
the huddleson report
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 22, 2019 11:09:30 GMT -5
Thanks for offering Steve, I'm only missing pages 15 and 17. Do you have them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 21:10:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Apr 16, 2019 14:15:04 GMT -5
I have been thinking the same thing. A chloroformed baby would be much more "manageable" and quiet than a wide awake cranky baby with a cold. If he really did have a cold. And if the baby was chloroformed that's an inside job so the baby could have literally been stuffed in a bag and handed out the window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 17:28:54 GMT -5
Interesting! I have considered that Charlie could have been given cough medicine as an agent that would have put him into a heavy sleep allowing him to be removed from the crib with no resistance. Betty Gow said she stopped at a drug store on her way to the Hopewell house on March 1, 1932 to pick up something Anne asked her to get. Charlie was supposed to have a cold that had moved to his chest and no doubt would have caused some coughing. Back in 1932 cough medicine often had codeine in it to relieve coughing and would also act as a sleeping agent on young children. A good dose of cough medicine and Charlie would have been out for hours!
|
|