|
Post by xjd on Dec 30, 2019 19:14:33 GMT -5
this is also one of my burning questions about this case. does not make sense for wealthy people not to have tons of pictures of the first-born.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2019 18:25:43 GMT -5
Why are there no photos of Charlie after the summer of 1931? Why are there no photos of his Christmas in 1931? Why did CAL hand out baby photos (i.e., when Charlie was ONE) to the press to "help find him? He looked nothing like he did when he was one. People were looking for a baby when he was almost two years old. It makes no sense at all. After the summer of 1931 - no photos of Charlie. Hate to belabor the point, but this issue has been raised quite a number of times on this site. The most common answer as to why no new photos or videos were taken after the first birthday is that Charlie was beginning to show signs of some gross physical abnormality, and so it was deemed advisable by his eugenicist father not to let the public see any visual evidence of such abnormality or deformity. Public knowledge of his son's abnormality would be by something that CAL Sr. couldn't tolerate emotionally.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 31, 2019 18:58:12 GMT -5
Why are there no photos of Charlie after the summer of 1931? Why are there no photos of his Christmas in 1931? Why did CAL hand out baby photos (i.e., when Charlie was ONE) to the press to "help find him? He looked nothing like he did when he was one. People were looking for a baby when he was almost two years old. It makes no sense at all. After the summer of 1931 - no photos of Charlie. IloveDFW, Just so you know, the latest photos of Charlie (that we know about) are at Yale University. The last photos of Charlie were taken in October 1931, 4 months before the kidnapping. After that, nada.
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 3, 2020 22:47:08 GMT -5
When were these photos taken? They look like toddler photos to me - not baby pictures. Attachment DeletedWasn't the kidnapping on March 1, 1932?
This page is from the March 4, 1932 New York Daily News.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 4, 2020 3:17:28 GMT -5
When were these photos taken? They look like toddler photos to me - not baby pictures. Wasn't the kidnapping on March 1, 1932?
This page is from the March 4, 1932 New York Daily News.
CAL said the photos given to the press were "a few weeks old," when in reality they were all taken over the summer 1931.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 4, 2020 3:18:10 GMT -5
Why are there no photos of Charlie after the summer of 1931? Why are there no photos of his Christmas in 1931? Why did CAL hand out baby photos (i.e., when Charlie was ONE) to the press to "help find him? He looked nothing like he did when he was one. People were looking for a baby when he was almost two years old. It makes no sense at all. After the summer of 1931 - no photos of Charlie. IloveDFW, Just so you know, the latest photos of Charlie (that we know about) are at Yale University. The last photos of Charlie were taken in October 1931, 4 months before the kidnapping. After that, nada. Do you have copies of those photos to share?
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 4, 2020 10:36:26 GMT -5
When were these photos taken? They look like toddler photos to me - not baby pictures. Wasn't the kidnapping on March 1, 1932?
This page is from the March 4, 1932 New York Daily News.
CAL said the photos given to the press were "a few weeks old," when in reality they were all taken over the summer 1931. It is your opinion that these photos are of a 12-13-14 month old child?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 4, 2020 13:06:56 GMT -5
When were these photos taken? They look like toddler photos to me - not baby pictures. Wasn't the kidnapping on March 1, 1932?
This page is from the March 4, 1932 New York Daily News.
All of those were taken during the summer of 1931 when he was one. He was three feet tall at the time of the "kidnapping". His hair was darker too He'd also gotten a haircut.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 4, 2020 13:07:49 GMT -5
CAL said the photos given to the press were "a few weeks old," when in reality they were all taken over the summer 1931. It is your opinion that these photos are of a 12-13-14 month old child? Not my opinion. Comparisons to photos and videos taken over the summer of 1931 show about the same level of growth. Perhaps you're thinking of earlier photos.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 4, 2020 14:05:04 GMT -5
IloveDFW, Just so you know, the latest photos of Charlie (that we know about) are at Yale University. The last photos of Charlie were taken in October 1931, 4 months before the kidnapping. After that, nada. Do you have copies of those photos to share? Hi tojanusc, There were a total of 8 photos taken of Charlie in October 1931 (FYI, written on the back of two of the photos is: "October 1931 North Haven"). Unfortunately, I can't post any of the photos without permission from Yale University. However... Amy35 brought it to my attention that Jim Fisher (somehow!)was able to get his hand on one of the 8 photos taken in October and he published it on the Frontispiece of his book The Lindbergh Case. Take a look. I tried to attach it here, but I just got the error message: Error: This forum has exceeded its attachment space limit. Your file cannot be uploaded
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 4, 2020 14:09:48 GMT -5
When were these photos taken? They look like toddler photos to me - not baby pictures. Wasn't the kidnapping on March 1, 1932?
This page is from the March 4, 1932 New York Daily News.
notchaslatall, These photos are from a film strip. Stills from the movie are at Yale University and handwritten on the back of several is: "North Haven August 31st 1931 Aunt Alice's Movies"
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 4, 2020 14:29:18 GMT -5
Thanks. I saw a reference to film strip somewhere else. So 14 months old in those photos.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 4, 2020 16:24:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 4, 2020 21:29:07 GMT -5
Hi Ziki, No, the #4 photo from Fisher's website shows a 9-month-old Charlie in a highchair, taken sometime in March 1931. This photo is also at Yale and on the back is hand-written: "Ab 9 months Taken at Princeton" (If you check the crime scene photos of the nursery, you can see this highchair at Highfields at the foot of the crib.) Ziki, if you want to send me a PM and give me your email address, I will send you the October 1931 photo of Charlie from Fisher's book. I would attach it here, but I'm still unable to attach anything: Error: This forum has exceeded its attachment space limit. Your file cannot be uploaded
Is anyone else having problems attaching docs or photos?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 4, 2020 21:30:14 GMT -5
Thanks. I saw a reference to film strip somewhere else. So 14 months old in those photos. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 7, 2020 13:09:42 GMT -5
Hi Wayne, Amy posted the photo you mention somewhere on this site a few months ago! Hi IloveDFW, Michael just notified me that I can now post photos (thanks Michael), so here's the photo that Amy35 posted from the front of Fisher's book. Again, this was one of eight photos taken in October 1931 and are the last that we know of that were taken of Charlie: Here's a blowup of the above photo: Now here are the two photos that CAL gave to the NJSP to put on the Missing Poster (both of these photos were taken 6 months before the kidnapping): The day after the kidnapping, CAL gave the NYT a photo of Charlie claiming it was taken "about two weeks ago." In fact, it was taken 8 months earlier on Charlie's birthday. The photo was taken by CAL. Simply question. Why wouldn't CAL give the NJSP and the press more recent photos?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 7, 2020 14:58:42 GMT -5
Great find. That Fisher photo is rare. I found it in an Amazon preview of the book and tried posting a screencap of it the other day, but got that "attachment limit" message. Anyway, I think what these Oct. '31 photos show is that there was nothing wrong with CAL Jr. that was physically apparent, at least not 5 months prior to the kidnapping. He could obviously walk at that point, so it seems he hadn't developed the overlapping toe condition we see in photos of the corpse, a condition that would make walking difficult, if not impossible. But we still have the soft, post-mortem orange-peel consistency of the skull and the "rickety condition" to explain, since, all things being equal, bones don't get mushy after death and wealthy (that is, well-nourished) children are not susceptible to rickets. And your question also still remains: Why would Lindbergh give earlier photos to the police, ones that didn't have the most up-to-date likeness of the subject, and then lie by claiming otherwise? I think to ask that question is to answer it, and part of that answer doesn't have to be that there was something monstrously wrong that would be seen in a more recent photograph.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 7, 2020 16:10:25 GMT -5
Simply question. Why wouldn't CAL give the NJSP and the press more recent photos? Probably not because poor Charlie was stung in face by wasp few minutes before taking this photograph and got an allergic reaction, but maybe because his hair wasn’t combed for week or more and there are some "dreadlocks" beginning to form? But why take a photo in such a moment at all?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 7, 2020 17:48:07 GMT -5
Well, there are some candids of me running around like this as a little kid, looking somewhat upset as CAL Jr. does here, so I don't know that there's anything necessarily strange about the photo. But the nature of the corpse's decomposition, the rickety condition, and the fact that Lindbergh gave earlier photos to the police and claimed they were much more recent than they were--all that's very odd. As to combing CAL Jr.'s hair: You've reminded me of a passage in 'Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead' where Anne Lindbergh wrote something about a dream in which she was having trouble combing CAL Jr.'s hair, as if it had to be done just so and she couldn't do it "right".
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 10, 2020 10:34:11 GMT -5
Great find. That Fisher photo is rare. I found it in an Amazon preview of the book and tried posting a screencap of it the other day, but got that "attachment limit" message. Anyway, I think what these Oct. '31 photos show is that there was nothing wrong with CAL Jr. that was physically apparent, at least not 5 months prior to the kidnapping. He could obviously walk at that point, so it seems he hadn't developed the overlapping toe condition we see in photos of the corpse, a condition that would make walking difficult, if not impossible. But we still have the soft, post-mortem orange-peel consistency of the skull and the "rickety condition" to explain, since, all things being equal, bones don't get mushy after death and wealthy (that is, well-nourished) children are not susceptible to rickets. And your question also still remains: Why would Lindbergh give earlier photos to the police, ones that didn't have the most up-to-date likeness of the subject, and then lie by claiming otherwise? I think to ask that question is to answer it, and part of that answer doesn't have to be that there was something monstrously wrong that would be seen in a more recent photograph. With respect to the difficulties encountered in trying to reconcile the living Charlie's appearance and capabilities when alive with the anatomical features of the corpse found in the woods, remember that there is (and was back at the time) a credible theory that the body found in the woods was NOT that of Charlie but that of another child. This, in fact, is about the only conclusion one can draw if one notes that overlapping toes on the right foot of the corpse occurrerd medially (as per the Mitchell autopsy report and photos) while the overlapping toes on the living Charlie's right foot occurred laterally (Van Ingen letter to Mrs. Morrow and "four generations" photo). Since the large toe is much more important to balance and ambulation than the smaller toes, the corpse's toe deformities would be predicted to have caused more serious problems for that child than the living Charlie was reported to have experienced. It should also be noted that despite pressure from prosecutors and police, Dr. Van Ingen refused to make a positive identification of the corpse as CAL Jr. And the question of the identity of the corpse could well have been a blockbuster issue at the Hauptmann trial. As discussed in Michael's "The Dark Corners" Volume III, pp. 489-492, the Hauptmann defense team was planning to present an argument for the corpus delecti not being that of Charlie, when the inebriated and demented Edward Reilly conceded without prompting that the body was Charlie's. This tactic by Reilly infuriated the other defense attorneys, because the prosecution could not have shown Hauptmann to be the killer of CAL Jr. without definitive identification of CAL Jr.'s body.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 10, 2020 14:13:29 GMT -5
Great find. That Fisher photo is rare. I found it in an Amazon preview of the book and tried posting a screencap of it the other day, but got that "attachment limit" message. Anyway, I think what these Oct. '31 photos show is that there was nothing wrong with CAL Jr. that was physically apparent, at least not 5 months prior to the kidnapping. He could obviously walk at that point, so it seems he hadn't developed the overlapping toe condition we see in photos of the corpse, a condition that would make walking difficult, if not impossible. But we still have the soft, post-mortem orange-peel consistency of the skull and the "rickety condition" to explain, since, all things being equal, bones don't get mushy after death and wealthy (that is, well-nourished) children are not susceptible to rickets. And your question also still remains: Why would Lindbergh give earlier photos to the police, ones that didn't have the most up-to-date likeness of the subject, and then lie by claiming otherwise? I think to ask that question is to answer it, and part of that answer doesn't have to be that there was something monstrously wrong that would be seen in a more recent photograph. It's obvious in the photo that his head is oddly shaped and too big, but the hair covers that to some degree. Further, there are some conditions which would mimic some of the rickety symptoms, but become much more serious, both visually and otherwise, around age 2 - hydrocephalus being one.
|
|