Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2020 7:47:06 GMT -5
I started reading it yesterday also. Very interesting book, indeed. I am making notes and have some questions. Will not post anything until I complete my reading of it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2020 12:56:48 GMT -5
Received Kindle edition yesterday at one minute after midnight. Good book, but will list questions as I keep reading because there are statements she makes that I've never heard of. And if the photo of Charlie on the tricycle taken before the kidnapping is real - WOW. He was a big boy!! EDITED at 10:30 am - Forget it - that photo is NOT of Charlie. It is of CAL when he was young. Book is full of errors. Full of errors? If that's the case, this could be quite interesting, especially in light of all its apparent kudos from well-known authors who've thrown their hats into the "Lindy Did It" theme. My hardcover is enroute apparently and I'm very much looking forward to a good read. For some reason I just thought of the TV Special a couple of years ago called Mysteries At The Museum, which I think more of as Mistakes At The Museum, due to its many glaring inaccuracies. It never fails to amaze me how errors, half-baked truths and logical fallacies can be overlooked when there is some form of personal investment in a cause. Another one for the "Oh The Humanity" theme perhaps in this new book? We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2020 13:23:11 GMT -5
Full of errors? If that's the case, this could be quite interesting, especially in light of all its apparent kudos from well-known authors who've thrown their hats into the "Lindy Did It" theme. My hardcover is enroute apparently and I'm very much looking forward to a good read. For some reason I just thought of the TV Special a couple of years ago called Mysteries At The Museum, which I think more of as Mistakes At The Museum, due to its many glaring inaccuracies. It never fails to amaze me how errors, half-baked truths and logical fallacies can be overlooked when there is some form of personal investment in a cause. Another one for the "Oh The Humanity" theme perhaps in this new book? We'll see. Mistakes in the Mysteries at the Museum episode? Inaccuracies? You do know those sitting at that table represented more Archival research in one spot then ever previously assembled. As for Judge Pearlman's book, I haven't read it yet. According to Amazon I won't be getting it for a couple of weeks. However, I know many people got the kindle edition right away so feel free to discuss. Perhaps post in this thread so those who don't want to see the discussion until they've read it can avoid reading it. I know it sounds crazy, but I've had people tell me they read V3 in one day so I know there will be some who will do the same here.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 2, 2020 13:50:21 GMT -5
Hi I love DFW
If your criticism about the photo is that the kid is too big to be Charlie, Charlie was 33 inches tall at the time he disappeared. He *was* a big boy. That's why we did the research on the tricycle so people could get a good picture of how tall Charlie actually was. Whether people believe the boy is Charlie or not, is up for debate. We can't prove for sure, all we can do is share the resources we have and the information we have from people who should know if it was Charlie or not, ie the archivist of the Hoage collection and Hoage's wife who sent a letter with the photo when it was donated to the collection. But if the tricycle is the kind it appears to be, which is why we include the link to the catalog of that trike, the kid in the photo not only looked like Charlie, but was almost exactly the same height as Charlie was around the time he disappeared.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2020 13:58:47 GMT -5
Full of errors? If that's the case, this could be quite interesting, especially in light of all its apparent kudos from well-known authors who've thrown their hats into the "Lindy Did It" theme. My hardcover is enroute apparently and I'm very much looking forward to a good read. For some reason I just thought of the TV Special a couple of years ago called Mysteries At The Museum, which I think more of as Mistakes At The Museum, due to its many glaring inaccuracies. It never fails to amaze me how errors, half-baked truths and logical fallacies can be overlooked when there is some form of personal investment in a cause. Another one for the "Oh The Humanity" theme perhaps in this new book? We'll see. Mistakes in the Mysteries at the Museum episode? Inaccuracies? You do know those sitting at that table represented more Archival research in one spot then ever previously assembled. As for Judge Pearlman's book, I haven't read it yet. According to Amazon I won't be getting it for a couple of weeks. However, I know many people got the kindle edition right away so feel free to discuss. Perhaps post in this thread so those who don't want to see the discussion until they've read it can avoid reading it. I know it sounds crazy, but I've had people tell me they read V3 in one day so I know there will be some who will do the same here. I have no qualms with your observation about who was seated at that table Michael, but I also know there were inaccuracies in the program and that in a production of this kind, not everyone involved has a chance to edit them out. You didn't notice anything out of whack? For instance, how Don Wildman attempted to climb into the nursery window from a ladder that was placed well to the right of where the original ladder would have been? Would that not have made things a bit more difficult, in spite of the fact he still got through the window? I have a list of other items somewhere that I never bothered to post and I'll try to dig it out.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 2, 2020 17:20:20 GMT -5
Received Kindle edition yesterday at one minute after midnight. Good book, but will list questions as I keep reading because there are statements she makes that I've never heard of. And if the photo of Charlie on the tricycle taken before the kidnapping is real - WOW. He was a big boy!! EDITED at 10:30 am - Forget it - that photo is NOT of Charlie. It is of CAL when he was young. Book is full of errors. Hi I Love DFW, I wasn't sure if you saw my response to you on Amazon, so I thought I'd repost here just in case. Looking forward to your response. **Disclaimer: I am the lead research assistant for this book and the daughter of the author/primary researcher** Hi I Love DFW -- You say names, dates and places are wrong. Which ones? If there are any that are incorrect I will do what I can to get them fixed asap for the next batch. Thanks! If you believe the boy on the tricycle was misidentified by the Special Collections archivist who claimed it was Charlie, when you believe it is actually his father, you can compare that photo to a verified photo of Charles Sr with his grandfather in 1905, when he was about 3 years old. This photo is on page 370. You can also reach out to the Archive yourself to let them know if you have documentation that says the archivist is wrong. They will likely want to correct their records asap if they made a mistake, as they are the ones claiming the identification. This book doesn't make the claim that the boy on the trike is Charlie, it only reports what the available information is from the most primary sources available. Regarding the newspaper photos you mention, which were unattributed (meaning they were likely submitted to the newspaper by a family or house hold staff member who had access to the original photos, and not actually taken by newspaper photographers, otherwise the newspaper would likely have taken credit), there is an expert opinion about Charlie's apparent age from a professional forensic artist in ACT 5 of the book. If you haven't yet read that part, that might help you determine what is more likely to be true. Were the newspaper photos of Charlie the summer he turned one? Or eight months later, around the time he disappeared -- which is what the original newspaper caption says. We take a lot of pride in making sure there are no claims in the book that can't be supported and that all the sources are documented in the end notes or within the text itself. If you have read the entire book and find that any sources are not identified, please let me know and I will do what I can to get it corrected asap. The vast majority of the sources are primary sources, or respected biographers who had access to primary sources. If you disagree with the findings in the book, go to the sources. If this book seems like it's full of errors to you, it's quite possible that your sources are wrong, and not the other way around. So much of what has been previously published on this case, including the *official* record, was fake news and white-washed history. That's why primary sources are so important.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2020 19:26:23 GMT -5
If you believe the boy on the tricycle was misidentified by the Special Collections archivist who claimed it was Charlie, when you believe it is actually his father, you can compare that photo to a verified photo of Charles Sr with his grandfather in 1905, when he was about 3 years old. This photo is on page 370. I still don't have a copy of the book so I can't comment on it. But something I wanted to add is that there's people to this day that tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Their typical reaction is to "pull rank" by claiming to hold such positions as a doctor, lawyer, or college professor as if that means they know more about the case than I do. I'll readily admit that I was never willing to study for the MCAT or LSAT but you know what I was willing to study? This case. It makes no sense but its true. My point is anyone can be knowledgeable if they're willing to do the research and this is one of the places where you'll find such people. No one is always right, and in some cases there are multiple source documents that say different things. I'm probably preaching to the choir so I am sure you already know this but it's part of the reason why there are constant debates going on. The other thing is that we are spoiled when it comes to Archivist Mark Falzini. I say that because he throws the curve when it comes to the position and I often refer to him as a "Super-Archivist". He's also an international man of "mystery." But I digress. My point here is that even Archivists aren't immune from making mistakes. If a donation occurs, in some cases, they are sometimes "handcuffed" by what the donor tells them. Especially if it cannot possibly be verified with 100% certainty. Take UCLA collection you referenced above. On their blog they have a picture of Betty Gow misidentified as Violet Sharp. That one is pretty easy right? And yet there it is. I wrote to them YEARS ago to let them know and they still haven't fixed it. It could be a situation that I've outlined above where they are wondering who the hell I think I am. So - one might refer to this photo as Violet Sharp and have a legitimate source to back them up but they'd still be incorrect. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent but hoping it might be somewhat interesting nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 2, 2020 20:37:04 GMT -5
If you believe the boy on the tricycle was misidentified by the Special Collections archivist who claimed it was Charlie, when you believe it is actually his father, you can compare that photo to a verified photo of Charles Sr with his grandfather in 1905, when he was about 3 years old. This photo is on page 370. I still don't have a copy of the book so I can't comment on it. But something I wanted to add is that there's people to this day that tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Their typical reaction is to "pull rank" by claiming to hold such positions as a doctor, lawyer, or college professor as if that means they know more about the case than I do. I'll readily admit that I was never willing to study for the MCAT or LSAT but you know what I was willing to study? This case. It makes no sense but its true. My point is anyone can be knowledgeable if they're willing to do the research and this is one of the places where you'll find such people. No one is always right, and in some cases there are multiple source documents that say different things. I'm probably preaching to the choir so I am sure you already know this but it's part of the reason why there are constant debates going on. The other thing is that we are spoiled when it comes to Archivist Mark Falzini. I say that because he throws the curve when it comes to the position and I often refer to him as a "Super-Archivist". He's also an international man of "mystery." But I digress. My point here is that even Archivists aren't immune from making mistakes. If a donation occurs, in some cases, they are sometimes "handcuffed" by what the donor tells them. Especially if it cannot possibly be verified with 100% certainty. Take UCLA collection you referenced above. On their blog they have a picture of Betty Gow misidentified as Violet Sharp. That one is pretty easy right? And yet there it is. I wrote to them YEARS ago to let them know and they still haven't fixed it. It could be a situation that I've outlined above where they are wondering who the hell I think I am. So - one might refer to this photo as Violet Sharp and have a legitimate source to back them up but they'd still be incorrect. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent but hoping it might be somewhat interesting nevertheless. Michael -- Thanks! Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Archivists can make mistakes, and it's possible that this archivist did, but we don't claim that the boy on the trike is Charlie, my mom is careful to say that this is what the archivist of the collection claimed. And then other supporting evidence is offered. But we don't outright claim that the archivist is correct. We let people decide for themselves based on the other information provided.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 2, 2020 20:38:16 GMT -5
Just finished the book. Interesting stuff. What was most interesting to me was the description of the body and its surroundings: First, no gnawing on the bones of the corpse which would indicate no scavenging by animals, and also indications that it was somehow preserved with a chemical that reacted with water (the change in coloration of the face when police turned the corpse over). According to the book, there was also a strip of litmus paper, a 6mm mica coverslip, and a handkerchief with red stains that could've been phenol red (a dye used as a pH indicator) found near the body. Additionally, there were black rubber particles (i.e. from gloves) under the buttons of CAL Jr.'s sleeping suit. There were a few other items with the body, but taken altogether, they connect, according to the book, "both removal of the pajamas and dumping of the decomposed corpse to the staff of a high end medical laboratory." I'll leave it to everyone else to finish the book, but I don't recall hearing about these items being found near the corpse.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 2, 2020 21:39:45 GMT -5
Just finished the book. Interesting stuff. What was most interesting to me was the description of the body and its surroundings: First, no gnawing on the bones of the corpse which would indicate no scavenging by animals, and also indications that it was somehow preserved with a chemical that reacted with water (the change in coloration of the face when police turned the corpse over). According to the book, there was also a strip of litmus paper, a 6mm mica coverslip, and a handkerchief with red stains that could've been phenol red (a dye used as a pH indicator) found near the body. Additionally, there were black rubber particles (i.e. from gloves) under the buttons of CAL Jr.'s sleeping suit. There were a few other items with the body, but taken altogether, they connect, according to the book, "both removal of the pajamas and dumping of the decomposed corpse to the staff of a high end medical laboratory." I'll leave it to everyone else to finish the book, but I don't recall hearing about these items being found near the corpse. Lightning Jew -- Wow! I'm impressed you read it so quickly. All the stuff that was mentioned as found at the scene where the body was found is in the Squibb Report, which the whole 18 page document is attached as Appendix B. I don't know if you have looked at the end notes at the back of the book, but it will cite to the exact page number in the Squibb report for every item mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 3, 2020 18:06:01 GMT -5
Just finished the book. Interesting stuff. What was most interesting to me was the description of the body and its surroundings: First, no gnawing on the bones of the corpse which would indicate no scavenging by animals, and also indications that it was somehow preserved with a chemical that reacted with water (the change in coloration of the face when police turned the corpse over). According to the book, there was also a strip of litmus paper, a 6mm mica coverslip, and a handkerchief with red stains that could've been phenol red (a dye used as a pH indicator) found near the body. Additionally, there were black rubber particles (i.e. from gloves) under the buttons of CAL Jr.'s sleeping suit. There were a few other items with the body, but taken altogether, they connect, according to the book, "both removal of the pajamas and dumping of the decomposed corpse to the staff of a high end medical laboratory." I'll leave it to everyone else to finish the book, but I don't recall hearing about these items being found near the corpse. All of these findings don't mean very much if the corpse was NOT that of little Charlie, but was rather that of some other (anonymous) child. As I've posted quite a number of times previously, the toe abnormalities (overlappings) on the right foot of the corpse, as reported in Dr. Mitchell's autopsy, are inconsistent with the living Charlie's right foot toe abnormalities (overlappings) described in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Grandma Morrow. IF the corpse was indeed that of little Charlie, the discrepancy between the Van Ingen and Mitchell reports could only be explained by error in one or both of the medical reports. That's highly unlikely. The only other way to explain the discrepancy is that the child's body found in the woods was NOT Charlie. If that was indeed true, you would have to revise the theory to account for this. One such possible scenario would be Charlie taken to an institution/orphanage of some sort, while another child of approximately the same age, was either killed or already dead, and that other body was dumped at the location as a fake substitute. The perps could have provided the same flannel shirt an sleeping suit that Charlie was wearing and used it on the other child's body. IIRC, several LKC investigators endorsed such a theory, including Ellis Parker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 21:48:23 GMT -5
Well, I am still reading the book! There is a lot to take in with this book!! I do have a couple of things I want to cover to start with:
1.) In Act One, Chapter 9, it is written that Betty Gow spent New Year's Eve 1931 with the Lindberghs, Lindbergh's mother and the Whateley at the Hopewell house and that this was Betty Gow's "first trip to the isolated property and that she dreaded it." This is actually not correct. Betty Gow spent New Year's Eve back in the Englewood area with her boyfriend, Red Johnson. She did not arrive at the Hopewell house until around lunchtime on New Year's Day. This was also not Betty's first time at the Hopewell house. She had visited that house with Henry Johnson in November 1931. Johnson drove Betty down on New Year's day 1932. Betty Gow and Johnson also made a trip together to the Hopewell house on Valentine's Day, February 14, 1932. Please see Michael's book, The Dark Corners, Volume One, Chapter 10.
2) In Act One, Chapter 10, on the first page of that chapter it is written that Ollie Whateley gave unauthorized tours of the Lindbergh's home to curious fans. I could not find a source in the end notes for this statement. Is there one you can share?
3) In Act One, Chapter 10, it is written that Betty Gow sewed the special shirt she made for Charlie on a sewing machine. I have never encountered that before. I could not find a source for this claim in the end notes. Do you have one you can share?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 4, 2020 7:56:47 GMT -5
when i saw the garment it looked like it was hand sewed
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2020 8:57:01 GMT -5
Just finished the book. Interesting stuff. What was most interesting to me was the description of the body and its surroundings: First, no gnawing on the bones of the corpse which would indicate no scavenging by animals, and also indications that it was somehow preserved with a chemical that reacted with water (the change in coloration of the face when police turned the corpse over). According to the book, there was also a strip of litmus paper, a 6mm mica coverslip, and a handkerchief with red stains that could've been phenol red (a dye used as a pH indicator) found near the body. Additionally, there were black rubber particles (i.e. from gloves) under the buttons of CAL Jr.'s sleeping suit. There were a few other items with the body, but taken altogether, they connect, according to the book, "both removal of the pajamas and dumping of the decomposed corpse to the staff of a high end medical laboratory." I'll leave it to everyone else to finish the book, but I don't recall hearing about these items being found near the corpse. All of these findings don't mean very much if the corpse was NOT that of little Charlie, but was rather that of some other (anonymous) child. As I've posted quite a number of times previously, the toe abnormalities (overlappings) on the right foot of the corpse, as reported in Dr. Mitchell's autopsy, are inconsistent with the living Charlie's right foot toe abnormalities (overlappings) described in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Grandma Morrow. IF the corpse was indeed that of little Charlie, the discrepancy between the Van Ingen and Mitchell reports could only be explained by error in one or both of the medical reports. That's highly unlikely. The only other way to explain the discrepancy is that the child's body found in the woods was NOT Charlie. If that was indeed true, you would have to revise the theory to account for this. One such possible scenario would be Charlie taken to an institution/orphanage of some sort, while another child of approximately the same age, was either killed or already dead, and that other body was dumped at the location as a fake substitute. The perps could have provided the same flannel shirt an sleeping suit that Charlie was wearing and used it on the other child's body. IIRC, several LKC investigators endorsed such a theory, including Ellis Parker. There is far too much evidence which correctly identifies the corpse as Charlie, in spite of whatever confusion might have existed then or now about the toes. Have you considered the possibility of the legs having been switched around, if they had become detatched? Or even if the corpse was in a face up position one moment and face down the next? What about the inebriated condition of both Coroner Walter Swayze and Dr. Charles Mitchell during the autopsy? I understand this to be a legitimate concern from the time it arose but I think you've long since made a leap of faith about this without successfully bringing it to ground, in full and due consideration of everything else that shouts from the rooftops, this was Charlie.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2020 9:00:16 GMT -5
when i saw the garment it looked like it was hand sewed Definitely Steve, looped-through hand sewing when I saw it too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 10:04:23 GMT -5
Thanks, Steve and Joe for sharing what you both saw. I really wish I would have had the opportunity to see that piece of evidence along with all the other pieces of evidence the Lindbergh family removed from the archives.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 4, 2020 11:01:45 GMT -5
Well, I am still reading the book! There is a lot to take in with this book!! I do have a couple of things I want to cover to start with: 1.) In Act One, Chapter 9, it is written that Betty Gow spent New Year's Eve 1931 with the Lindberghs, Lindbergh's mother and the Whateley at the Hopewell house and that this was Betty Gow's "first trip to the isolated property and that she dreaded it." This is actually not correct. Betty Gow spent New Year's Eve back in the Englewood area with her boyfriend, Red Johnson. She did not arrive at the Hopewell house until around lunchtime on New Year's Day. This was also not Betty's first time at the Hopewell house. She had visited that house with Henry Johnson in November 1931. Johnson drove Betty down on New Year's day 1932. Betty Gow and Johnson also made a trip together to the Hopewell house on Valentine's Day, February 14, 1932. Please see Michael's book, The Dark Corners, Volume One, Chapter 10. 2) In Act One, Chapter 10, on the first page of that chapter it is written that Ollie Whateley gave unauthorized tours of the Lindbergh's home to curious fans. I could not find a source in the end notes for this statement. Is there one you can share? 3) In Act One, Chapter 10, it is written that Betty Gow sewed the special shirt she made for Charlie on a sewing machine. I have never encountered that before. I could not find a source for this claim in the end notes. Do you have one you can share? Hi Amy! Thank you for your questions. I don't have the answers off the top of my head, but I will send this up for review and get back to you ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2020 12:21:16 GMT -5
I unexpectedly got my book yesterday. I must admit my very first act was to immediately read both Appendix A & C. Next, I went to the picture that seemed to have stirred up some controversy - a good thing if you ask me because from it comes discussion, debate, and even more research. Unfortunately, many people here are so versed in this subject that it could lead to an analysis of almost every sentence. I'm only on page 66 because I have to flip back and forth to the end notes pages for that reason myself. Mainly, I want to see if there are new sources for certain things that I may not be aware of. Then there's areas of agreement and disagreement as well - but that's something that comes with the territory and should be expected. 2) In Act One, Chapter 10, on the first page of that chapter it is written that Ollie Whateley gave unauthorized tours of the Lindbergh's home to curious fans. I could not find a source in the end notes for this statement. Is there one you can share? My guess is that this derives from FBI Summary Report. In V1 on pages 77-81, I attack this source as inaccurate. Of course anyone can disagree with me but they'll be hard pressed once going through all the reports which support my position. Like I mentioned above, this case has many source documents that contradict so in the end, it boils down to what one personally finds more creditable. Michael -- Thanks! Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Archivists can make mistakes, and it's possible that this archivist did, but we don't claim that the boy on the trike is Charlie, my mom is careful to say that this is what the archivist of the collection claimed. And then other supporting evidence is offered. But we don't outright claim that the archivist is correct. We let people decide for themselves based on the other information provided. The main question I ask myself is whether or not there is a reason this photo is included. The answer is "yes" because there's a legitimate source (UCLA Archivist) who makes this claim. What impresses me the most is claiming it is in "dispute." So its a balanced approach that I do not think most Authors would have taken. A little background... After the child was kidnapped, people started writing letters and sending pictures to Schwarzkopf and Lindbergh almost immediately concerning toddlers they suspected was the child. This occurred over time and exploded again during the Hoffman Investigation, and even continued after Hoffman left to Col. Kimberling. Meanwhile, the FBI the entire time (all the way into the 1980s) were getting this type of information. In fact, I personally received pictures from both Aldinger and HRO and there are posts here from members (pictures included) that exemplify this point as well. This photo is one of those pictures coming from someone who suspected the child pictured was Charles Jr. and therefore still alive. Now comes the choice - am I right or is the Archivist at UCLA? So for me, it's a good issue to raise for many reasons and much can be learned from it. Another interesting mention was the suggestion that Ho-age would likely have verified this with Mrs. Morrow or Dr. Van Ingen (page 514). Here it supposes Ho-age believed it was Charles Jr.... but did he actually believe this? Next, who among the Hoffman "people" was in touch with Van Ingen? Mrs. Morrow? This interests me because I've never seen anything to suggest they were - and that includes the Governor himself. So there might be something out there I haven't seen and would most definitely like to - or it's merely a supposition. Regardless, its more food for thought all of which could lead to more research from any interested party in this specific piece of information.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 4, 2020 13:35:10 GMT -5
been a long time joe, i was there before mark took over early 90s. a njsp officer named LT DEFEO was in charge of the museum.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2020 19:04:10 GMT -5
been a long time joe, i was there before mark took over early 90s. a njsp officer named LT DEFEO was in charge of the museum. Mark was on holidays when I went to the Archives in the early 2000's as a whirlwind tour of Hopewell, Flemington and Trenton. I virtually had the museum to myself and although I didn't have a chance to go through any archive files, it was a most memorable experience and the vibe absolutely incredible, almost equal to that of my visit to Highfields. I even sat in Old Smokey and have a great shot of me somewhere with a very shocked look on my face.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 6, 2020 10:08:21 GMT -5
Steve let me borrow the book. I got it yesterday, and well I find the Alexis Carrel information disturbing!
I suppose because we are talking about a BABY!
IF it is true that an evil, despicable thing happened to that young child, shouldn't we express our compassion for him in words to show that we deeply cared about his brief life on earth?
Nobody is forced to care about anybody, but what are our lives and the purpose of writing these books if we don't come to the defense of the most defenseless?
Is there anything more beautiful than a baby?
Less clinical; more caring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 10:13:48 GMT -5
Like you, Sue, I found that whole theory of what was done to Charlie to be very shocking and disturbing. It is something that we really need to explore and discuss on this board. Glad you have the new book. I look forward to what you can add to this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 6, 2020 12:58:23 GMT -5
Well, I am still reading the book! There is a lot to take in with this book!! I do have a couple of things I want to cover to start with: 1.) In Act One, Chapter 9, it is written that Betty Gow spent New Year's Eve 1931 with the Lindberghs, Lindbergh's mother and the Whateley at the Hopewell house and that this was Betty Gow's "first trip to the isolated property and that she dreaded it." This is actually not correct. Betty Gow spent New Year's Eve back in the Englewood area with her boyfriend, Red Johnson. She did not arrive at the Hopewell house until around lunchtime on New Year's Day. This was also not Betty's first time at the Hopewell house. She had visited that house with Henry Johnson in November 1931. Johnson drove Betty down on New Year's day 1932. Betty Gow and Johnson also made a trip together to the Hopewell house on Valentine's Day, February 14, 1932. Please see Michael's book, The Dark Corners, Volume One, Chapter 10. 2) In Act One, Chapter 10, on the first page of that chapter it is written that Ollie Whateley gave unauthorized tours of the Lindbergh's home to curious fans. I could not find a source in the end notes for this statement. Is there one you can share? 3) In Act One, Chapter 10, it is written that Betty Gow sewed the special shirt she made for Charlie on a sewing machine. I have never encountered that before. I could not find a source for this claim in the end notes. Do you have one you can share? Hi Amy! Thank you so much for your questions. Here is the clarification/response: Gow/NYE: The book should have said “New Year’s weekend” which would have been the most accurate. New Year’s Eve was a Thursday. Betty arrived Friday and stayed through the weekend. This was her first work assignment at the new farmhouse. This will be fixed in upcoming corrections to the book. Gow Sewing machine vs hand sewn. Not sure of source re: sewing machine (manuscript begun a decade ago). That reference will be eliminated in corrections to be made shortly. There are a few other corrections to be made and we sincerely appreciate input from all the sleuths out there. We want the book to be as accurate as possible, recognizing there are many contemporaneous sources and later book accounts that contain “facts” of questionable reliability and some issues will remain in dispute. Olly Whateley tours Source of tours given by Olly Whateley was Falzini and Davidson, New Jersey Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial, p. 32. – This cite will be added to the endnotes. Thanks again! If you have any more questions/need for clarification, feel free to ask. --FF
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 6, 2020 13:10:57 GMT -5
Steve let me borrow the book. I got it yesterday, and well I find the Alexis Carrel information disturbing! I suppose because we are talking about a BABY! IF it is true that an evil, despicable thing happened to that young child, shouldn't we express our compassion for him in words to show that we deeply cared about his brief life on earth? Nobody is forced to care about anybody, but what are our lives and the purpose of writing these books if we don't come to the defense of the most defenseless? Is there anything more beautiful than a baby? Less clinical; more caring. Sue **These are my personal thoughts, not speaking on behalf of the book or my mother's work.** Yes, it is incredibly disturbing. What to me is most disturbing, is learning that medical professionals back then did *not* consider it disturbing and society in general, did not consider that kind of thing, at least in theory, disturbing. Once the public learned the details of it, I think most changed their minds. Carrel and others like him were publicly revered and awarded Nobel prizes for that kind of thing. That's the most disturbing to me. Carrel still has defenders even now. FF (aka Jamie) -FF
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 6, 2020 13:27:28 GMT -5
Like you, Sue, I found that whole theory of what was done to Charlie to be very shocking and disturbing. It is something that we really need to explore and discuss on this board. Glad you have the new book. I look forward to what you can add to this discussion. Amy I agree. I am just as disturbed as you and Sue are. If it's okay with you all, I would like to participate on my own behalf and share my own personal thoughts about what I found shocking and disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 6, 2020 13:58:55 GMT -5
Like you, Sue, I found that whole theory of what was done to Charlie to be very shocking and disturbing. It is something that we really need to explore and discuss on this board. Glad you have the new book. I look forward to what you can add to this discussion. Amy I agree. I am just as disturbed as you and Sue are. If it's okay with you all, I would like to participate on my own behalf and share my own personal thoughts about what I found shocking and disturbing. Hi Amy and Sue What I meant to say is I would love (?) to have this discussion with whoever wants to participate. I'm just as eager to hear about what you all think is shocking/disturbing about this book, too.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 6, 2020 16:36:45 GMT -5
(1) You can't "switch around" the legs after they become detached. They are (very approximately, and neglecting deformities for the sake of argument) symmetrical mirror images of each other. A right leg if detached from the rest of the body would not fit into the left side of the pelvis if the left leg were also detached, and vice versa.
(2) Do you have any evidence that Mitchell and Swayze were inebriated at the time of the autopsy? Mitchell was incapacitated by arthritis in hands, not, as far as I am aware, by alcohol. Therefore, the manual work for the autopsy was done largely by Swayze under Mitchell's guidance. Mitchell's autopsy report does not suggest that its author was compromised by excessive alcohol.
I submit that the police ID of the body and the resultant media certainty about that ID was premature, especially since Gow should have been viewed with suspicion in the case after her March 3 interview, therefore her ID of the child's clothing should have been considered as only one piece of a larger picture. As I said, the possibility of a clothing switch from Charlie to another child's body does not seem to have been considered in this rush to judgment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 17:11:34 GMT -5
Like you, Sue, I found that whole theory of what was done to Charlie to be very shocking and disturbing. It is something that we really need to explore and discuss on this board. Glad you have the new book. I look forward to what you can add to this discussion. Amy I agree. I am just as disturbed as you and Sue are. If it's okay with you all, I would like to participate on my own behalf and share my own personal thoughts about what I found shocking and disturbing. I welcome anything you have to share about this topic. This is all new territory for me.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 7, 2020 3:34:32 GMT -5
Hi FF (aka Jamie):
The problem is that Charles Lindbergh isn't around to testify. Even Ahlgren and Monier bring up this point in their book.
The subject (suspect) of the title of the book would have to be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 7, 2020 4:10:59 GMT -5
Hi FF:
I see that beginning on page 391 the author begins to lay out how she sees the crime happened.
I get hung up on detail some of the time. A Hopewellite named Herman Veidt may have seen Isidor Fisch and two other men in the Mount Rose woods just prior to May 12, 1932. (page 378)
What forensic evidence was found in the 14 inches of soil that was removed? Evidence, until now, that the public has not been aware of?
Herman Veidt bought the chapel of the Presbyterian Church in Hopewell in 1923, and turned the structure into his home residence.
He also had a heart attack and died while in a snowdrift a few years after the kidnapping.
Every life tells a story.
|
|