|
Post by Jamie on Nov 12, 2020 17:18:58 GMT -5
Hi Michael What I meant to say is that the above post is in rebuttal to your assertion that Hitner and Nosovitsky were two different people. I have many sources that indicate they very well could be the same person. -- Jamie Arthur Hitner died in Colorado on April 22, 1941. He is buried at Roselawn Cemetery in Pueblo. Jacob Nosovitzky filled out a WWII Draft Registration Card in 1942. How can Ms. Pearlman, a retired judge, disseminate such misinformation and stand by it in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary? It is incomprehensible and reprehensible. Unless the assertion is based on sloppy research, which is inexcusable as well. Hi Guest Suspect No. 1 doesn't claim that Hitner and Nosovitsky were the same person, only that they could be, based on multiple commonalities from authoritative sources my mother and I came across. Thank you for informing me about the WWII draft registration card.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 13, 2020 8:13:43 GMT -5
mike id like to hear your replies on the other books on the case that are really bad. anns sister did it, brother, hauptman being so framed, lindbergh doing it which is so absurd i cant believe a retired judge is so one sided, and gardners nonsense that lindbergh did it. your side is very unstable
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 13, 2020 10:00:33 GMT -5
I totally agree with Wolfman's comments. The problem in research occurs in many areas whether literary or historical. One person develops a sudden theory and then looks for clues to support it while ignoring the evidence that does not. A researcher needs to looks for the facts and then make a conclusion based on them to form the whole picture. The solving of the Lindbergh baby's kidnapping is more difficult because there are so many false clues, stories invented by those who were looking for attention or monetary reward. The challenge is, at least in large part, trying to discover what accounts are true and which are false. The problem is exacerbated even now when so many would-be detectives introduce yet another theory with shaky foundations.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2020 12:19:35 GMT -5
mike id like to hear your replies on the other books on the case that are really bad. anns sister did it, brother, hauptman being so framed, lindbergh doing it which is so absurd i cant believe a retired judge is so one sided, and gardners nonsense that lindbergh did it. your side is very unstable Well, I have always been of the opinion that all possibilities should be explored. Of course I’ve done that myself and in doing so, I’ve learned quite a bit along the way. It’s also why I continue to research and search for new material to consider. Now as to the various books. Most contain a mix of fact, mistakes, and opinion. And of course there are always some points that can be both proven and disproven simultaneously by using different sources for either side. So it’s important to be familiar with those sources in order to draw a conclusion about the dispute. The other thing is that some mistakes have been repeated so often history records them as “facts” when they aren’t. That’s the hard part for me... to hear some tell others exactly what to believe based upon their own flawed positions. And it’s why I’ve always encouraged others to read, research, and debate themselves into a place where they feel comfortable with their own position so they won’t have to fall for someone else telling them what to think or what not to believe.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 13, 2020 17:26:04 GMT -5
i know what you mean, ive been at it since 1991
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 16, 2020 10:15:12 GMT -5
i know what you mean, ive been at it since 1991 That's why its so special for me to know that I can still teach you a thing or two. Actually, its bringing a tear to my eye just thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 16, 2020 19:42:53 GMT -5
teach me what?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 16, 2020 19:46:36 GMT -5
your right joe i thought the program was terrible, my friend frank pizzachello was missing he helped organize the police museum back in the day with doloris and others. you notice they dont have hauptmanwas guilty peole on these shows anymore its all one sided
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 19, 2020 8:34:32 GMT -5
your right joe i thought the program was terrible, my friend frank pizzachello was missing he helped organize the police museum back in the day with doloris and others. you notice they dont have hauptmanwas guilty peole on these shows anymore its all one sided Steve, are you referring to "Mysteries at the Museum?" I made notes when I watched it, but misplaced them. There were quite a few inaccuracies I thought, including where Don Wildman placed and climbed the ladder into the nursery. Too far to the right. Is the program still available somewhere on the internet? I'm finding Suspect No. 1 to be the toughest read ever in a LKC book. The only comment I'll throw out there now is that if this book was written by a retired judge, I don't think I'd ever want to take my chances before her in a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 19, 2020 10:12:50 GMT -5
Yes Joe that program. That book is so one sided I'm surprised being a former judge she wasn't partial. I saw the American experience program on eugenicist and the history. Now I know what that's all about
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 19, 2020 11:18:01 GMT -5
Steve, it seems most authors don’t really understand the nuts and bolts of the circumstantial physical evidence as a whole, or just don’t want to, and are too easily led down a path made up for the most part, by Charles Lindbergh's personal legacy. Pearlman is too quick to jump all over a plot that brings in a lot of peripheral characters as participants willing to kill the most famous baby on the planet for medical research, while just glossing over crucial evidence like the ladder and wood connection. Inferring Charles Lindbergh threw some crating boards together at Skillman is her answer here. And Lindbergh's trait of being a life-long prankster is evidence of his ability to navigate through one of the most convoluted kidnapping processes imaginable, almost single-handedly.. This book, that I paid over $80 CDN for, is beyond unbelievable. Hauptmann has got to be smiling somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 20, 2020 13:28:41 GMT -5
Joe, I found your last post very interesting. As to Lise Pearlman, her bio indicates that her experience as a California State Judge was with the State Bar Court which involved discipline/misconduct cases against practicing attorneys in the State of California. I mention this just to indicate that her Judicial experience was not as a Criminal Court Judge who has presided over hundreds of criminal cases like the LKC. Her bio also list teaching at Stanford Law School, 13 years as a business litigator, a private arbitrator & mediator, and co-producing two films. A very talented career, but no indication of any Attorney/Judge experience in criminal law. If I am incorrect on this I'm sure I'll be corrected. Her LKC book appears to be from research, not from seeing people like Hauptmann in court on a daily basis.
I just received her Suspect No. 1 book. My plan is to read her book with an open mind, but I intend to use a yellow highlighter to highlight everything that I deem to be pure speculation. My gut tells me I may need more than one yellow highlighter while implementing this plan.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 21, 2020 10:32:27 GMT -5
I'm finding Suspect No. 1 to be the toughest read ever in a LKC book. The only comment I'll throw out there now is that if this book was written by a retired judge, I don't think I'd ever want to take my chances before her in a court of law. Due to the amount of research we all do here, there are going to be things we don't agree with ... in any book written. But I think disagreement can get reckless if it carries over like you've done here Joe. It's not a fair thing to do for so many reasons I don't think I need to elaborate - but I will somewhat anyway. First and foremost Judges aren't clones of one another. Next, as an example, check out the section in V2 where I believe I was able to demonstrate (with thanks to Rab of course) that the sleeping suit was actually mailed from Stamford (pages 133 thru 136). While I haven't asked Steve about this, my guess is that he won't agree. So since he worked for the Post Office, would it be a fair thing for me to say I'm glad he never delivered my mail? Again and again I say that most people evaluate what they have in front of them. If you or anyone else has more or something different it could change that perspective - and vice versa. Of course, I say "could" because some will never change their position no matter what.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 22, 2020 10:39:08 GMT -5
I'm finding Suspect No. 1 to be the toughest read ever in a LKC book. The only comment I'll throw out there now is that if this book was written by a retired judge, I don't think I'd ever want to take my chances before her in a court of law. Due to the amount of research we all do here, there are going to be things we don't agree with ... in any book written. But I think disagreement can get reckless if it carries over like you've done here Joe. It's not a fair thing to do for so many reasons I don't think I need to elaborate - but I will somewhat anyway. First and foremost Judges aren't clones of one another. Next, as an example, check out the section in V2 where I believe I was able to demonstrate (with thanks to Rab of course) that the sleeping suit was actually mailed from Stamford (pages 133 thru 136). While I haven't asked Steve about this, my guess is that he won't agree. So since he worked for the Post Office, would it be a fair thing for me to say I'm glad he never delivered my mail? Again and again I say that most people evaluate what they have in front of them. If you or anyone else has more or something different it could change that perspective - and vice versa. Of course, I say "could" because some will never change their position no matter what. Michael, while you’re considering my argument to be reckless, are you telling me you’re not seeing anything at all within Suspect No. 1 that might qualify as such? I ran out of Post-It flags identifying mistruths, leading assertions, innuendo, confirmation bias, fallacious arguments and myriad “could have’s” and “might have’s” within, and I'll gladly comment and rebut. I’m just not going to even attempt to come up with a leading list, because I’ve already got a full time job. Perhaps in retirement though.. I believe you're simply defaulting to a position of defense behind Pearlman’s book here for a number of reasons: a) you’re a fellow author promoting a similar theme and observing that misplaced code of honour and protection, b) you were hyping the pre-release of Suspect No. 1, ostensibly for its glowing reviews by fellow conspiracist authors and don’t want to back down now, despite much of its absurdity, c) this is basically good for perpetuation of the ‘Lindy-Did-It’ conspiracy business at large. The old CON does not equal OOK, huh.. lol? Connecticut and Brooklyn.. I’ve no idea why you’re even bringing this up as it was basically put to bed years ago. And yes, thanks to Rab for confirming this alternate view of the historical record. As for the segue to the abyss through your analogy to the post office, I'll take a pass, as the comparison makes little sense to me. As an aside, from personal experience with over 600 items shipped and received over the years without a failed delivery, I love your USPS, and so you’re not going to hear any complaints from me, even though Newman might try to convince me otherwise! Sort out (no pun intended) your concern with Steve if you wish, and I’m sure he’ll have something to say.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2020 18:18:15 GMT -5
Michael, while you’re considering my argument to be reckless, are you telling me you’re not seeing anything at all within Suspect No. 1 that might qualify as such? I ran out of Post-It flags identifying mistruths, leading assertions, innuendo, confirmation bias, fallacious arguments and myriad “could have’s” and “might have’s” within, and I'll gladly comment and rebut. I’m just not going to even attempt to come up with a leading list, because I’ve already got a full time job. Perhaps in retirement though.. I believe you're simply defaulting to a position of defense behind Pearlman’s book here for a number of reasons: a) you’re a fellow author promoting a similar theme and observing that misplaced code of honour and protection, b) you were hyping the pre-release of Suspect No. 1, ostensibly for its glowing reviews by fellow conspiracist authors and don’t want to back down now, despite much of its absurdity, c) this is basically good for perpetuation of the ‘Lindy-Did-It’ conspiracy business at large. The old CON does not equal OOK, huh.. lol? Connecticut and Brooklyn.. I’ve no idea why you’re even bringing this up as it was basically put to bed years ago. And yes, thanks to Rab for confirming this alternate view of the historical record. As for the segue to the abyss through your analogy to the post office, I'll take a pass, as the comparison makes little sense to me. As an aside, from personal experience with over 600 items shipped and received over the years without a failed delivery, I love your USPS, and so you’re not going to hear any complaints from me, even though Newman might try to convince me otherwise! Sort out (no pun intended) your concern with Steve if you wish, and I’m sure he’ll have something to say. Whoa! In New Jersey they refer to this type of rebuttal as " talking out of your ass." First and foremost, my only "complaint" concerns attacking someone's ability at their profession based on disagreements concerning this case. Hence, the analogy I used to exemplify this point ... which I believe went right over your head. No matter. Outside of that any book is fair game. Which brings me to your list of multiple choices. As anyone could see, I promoted TWO new books neither of which I read before I did this. I was excited at the prospect of seeing information coming from sources I've never seen myself. Is that wrong? Since there isn't much I haven't seen I don't think so. Next, I already offered opposing positions to three separate issues from "Suspect No. 1": The photo of the child on the bike, the animal involvement concerning the corpse, and the Hitner/Nosovitsky suggestion. Your other idea about what some people think as actually having influence over how I think is not only baffling its laughable. Since the day I was born, if I disagreed with someone, I let them know about it. Its who I am. Some people hated me for it, and others rewarded me for it. But neither changed me. My books speak for themselves and the information in them is real and supported by actual source documentation. Everyone is free to agree, disagree, remain neutral, or some other position I can't think of right now. Judge Pearlman obviously agrees in some places but disagrees in others. So please take all the above into consideration when suggesting I am "protecting" anyone. Yes, that sleeping suit was mailed from Stamford. And it would be really cool if Steve moved down here. We could talk about the case over that six pack he owes me.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 23, 2020 9:05:42 GMT -5
where mike
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 24, 2020 8:44:16 GMT -5
Michael, while you’re considering my argument to be reckless, are you telling me you’re not seeing anything at all within Suspect No. 1 that might qualify as such? I ran out of Post-It flags identifying mistruths, leading assertions, innuendo, confirmation bias, fallacious arguments and myriad “could have’s” and “might have’s” within, and I'll gladly comment and rebut. I’m just not going to even attempt to come up with a leading list, because I’ve already got a full time job. Perhaps in retirement though.. I believe you're simply defaulting to a position of defense behind Pearlman’s book here for a number of reasons: a) you’re a fellow author promoting a similar theme and observing that misplaced code of honour and protection, b) you were hyping the pre-release of Suspect No. 1, ostensibly for its glowing reviews by fellow conspiracist authors and don’t want to back down now, despite much of its absurdity, c) this is basically good for perpetuation of the ‘Lindy-Did-It’ conspiracy business at large. The old CON does not equal OOK, huh.. lol? Connecticut and Brooklyn.. I’ve no idea why you’re even bringing this up as it was basically put to bed years ago. And yes, thanks to Rab for confirming this alternate view of the historical record. As for the segue to the abyss through your analogy to the post office, I'll take a pass, as the comparison makes little sense to me. As an aside, from personal experience with over 600 items shipped and received over the years without a failed delivery, I love your USPS, and so you’re not going to hear any complaints from me, even though Newman might try to convince me otherwise! Sort out (no pun intended) your concern with Steve if you wish, and I’m sure he’ll have something to say. Whoa! In New Jersey they refer to this type of rebuttal as " talking out of your ass." First and foremost, my only "complaint" concerns attacking someone's ability at their profession based on disagreements concerning this case. Hence, the analogy I used to exemplify this point ... which I believe went right over your head. No matter. Outside of that any book is fair game. Which brings me to your list of multiple choices. As anyone could see, I promoted TWO new books neither of which I read before I did this. I was excited at the prospect of seeing information coming from sources I've never seen myself. Is that wrong? Since there isn't much I haven't seen I don't think so. Next, I already offered opposing positions to three separate issues from "Suspect No. 1": The photo of the child on the bike, the animal involvement concerning the corpse, and the Hitner/Nosovitsky suggestion. Your other idea about what some people think as actually having influence over how I think is not only baffling its laughable. Since the day I was born, if I disagreed with someone, I let them know about it. Its who I am. Some people hated me for it, and others rewarded me for it. But neither changed me. My books speak for themselves and the information in them is real and supported by actual source documentation. Everyone is free to agree, disagree, remain neutral, or some other position I can't think of right now. Judge Pearlman obviously agrees in some places but disagrees in others. So please take all the above into consideration when suggesting I am "protecting" anyone. Yes, that sleeping suit was mailed from Stamford. And it would be really cool if Steve moved down here. We could talk about the case over that six pack he owes me. The irony within the realization you have long treated the works of certain authors with kid gloves, and others such as Fisher's with an iron gauntlet, based on the bottom line message each is conveying, is inescapable. I'd love to talk about this case over a cold one, and that offer I made fifteen years ago of a 24 of great Canadian beer like Steam Whistle or Muskoka, delivered to your door when you can convince me Lindy-Did-It, still stands.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 24, 2020 10:42:20 GMT -5
As you drive through any of the five boroughs, simply follow the U-Haul trucks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 24, 2020 10:52:56 GMT -5
The irony within the realization you have long treated the works of certain authors with kid gloves, and others such as Fisher's with an iron gauntlet, based on the bottom line message each is conveying, is inescapable. I'd love to talk about this case over a cold one, and that offer I made fifteen years ago of a 24 of great Canadian beer like Steam Whistle or Muskoka, delivered to your door when you can convince me Lindy-Did-It, still stands. I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. I call it as I see it Joe. You act as though I should scold someone in places I agree with them. Simply not saying something doesn't mean I agree or disagree either. Next, I also respond in kind meaning that if someone takes the gloves off I usually do too. So if I am armed with facts but still called a "Revisionist" either directly or indirectly, I will give it back. Sorry but the "Revisionists" are people who continue to repeat information that I've personally debunked. Regardless, do you think I've crossed that line in any of my books where other authors are mentioned? Any examples of "Iron Gauntlet" within the pages directed specifically at anyone? Joe, if the Millennium was upon us and Jesus Christ himself told you Lindbergh was behind it you still wouldn't send me that beer. Although I do admit all of this talk about a cold one is quite appealing. Too bad its only 11:00AM!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 24, 2020 11:40:20 GMT -5
The irony within the realization you have long treated the works of certain authors with kid gloves, and others such as Fisher's with an iron gauntlet, based on the bottom line message each is conveying, is inescapable. I'd love to talk about this case over a cold one, and that offer I made fifteen years ago of a 24 of great Canadian beer like Steam Whistle or Muskoka, delivered to your door when you can convince me Lindy-Did-It, still stands. I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. I call it as I see it Joe. You act as though I should scold someone in places I agree with them. Simply not saying something doesn't mean I agree or disagree either. Next, I also respond in kind meaning that if someone takes the gloves off I usually do too. So if I am armed with facts but still called a "Revisionist" either directly or indirectly, I will give it back. Sorry but the "Revisionists" are people who continue to repeat information that I've personally debunked. Regardless, do you think I've crossed that line in any of my books where other authors are mentioned? Any examples of "Iron Gauntlet" within the pages directed specifically at anyone? Joe, if the Millennium was upon us and Jesus Christ himself told you Lindbergh was behind it you still wouldn't send me that beer. Although I do admit all of this talk about a cold one is quite appealing. Too bad its only 11:00AM! Michael, I think you're attempting to shift the baseline here. In this case, try first viewing Fisher's works with absolute objectivity vs. what is now known in truth. As you've demonstrated for the most part, errors, omissions and liberties taken by him are then naturally exposed in the light of day, right? Now apply the same standard of truth-seeking to Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgren and Monier, Behn and other more recent conspiracy authors like Pearlman. You should be able to come up with long lists of fallacious material. Yet, you seem hesitant to go at them with the same vigour and force you accord Fisher. And that is why I say based on the bottom-line message each is conveying, your criticism seems partial and selective. I'm flattered that you think Jehoshua would speak to me directly, and I can assure you if I truly believed it was his voice and not that of my own deceived consciousness, I'd be on your side in a heartbeat. Then we'd all sit down and have those cold ones together.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 24, 2020 12:35:54 GMT -5
Michael, I think you're attempting to shift the baseline here. In this case, try first viewing Fisher's works with absolute objectivity vs. what is now known in truth. As you've demonstrated for the most part, errors, omissions and liberties taken by him are then naturally exposed in the light of day, right? Now apply the same standard of truth-seeking to Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgren and Monier, Behn and other more recent conspiracy authors like Pearlman. You should be able to come up with long lists of fallacious material. Yet, you seem hesitant to go at them with the same vigour and force you accord Fisher. And that is why I say based on the bottom-line message each is conveying, your criticism seems partial and selective. I'm flattered that you think Jehoshua would speak to me directly, and I can assure you if I truly believed it was his voice and not that of my own deceived consciousness, I'd be on your side in a heartbeat. Then we'd all sit down and have those cold ones together. In the days prior to my books, I had both the time and the will to correct mistakes found in other works. Nowadays, since my books are out there, I've already done that. Where I haven't I continue to work on another book. As I've previously stated (and I believe I've been consistent) if message board posts were enough I would never have needed to put anything in print. Even now my books are still ignored - just look at my chapter on the wood in V3! I left no stone unturned and it's like it doesn't even exist. But at least there's something for someone to point to if they decide to challenge or clarify something. That way if someone was to ever suggest the wood "needs to be addressed" people who actually read my book can point them directly to it so each and every question they have can be answered.
Anyway, this idea that I should go line by line in each and every book then make it known where I disagree in all places is a little nutty. I've never done that and have even stopped reading certain books after seeing stupid claims, or mistake after mistake which can drive me crazy if there's enough of them. And so I take a deep breath, close the book, and only go back to it if I need to see a perspective on a certain issue I may want to later rebut. If asked here I always attempt to answer honestly. So if someone points to something wrong about "Fisher" and I back that up what's the issue? I can't then inject something wrong about Kennedy in order to placate others who wished I hadn't. Bring up Kennedy and we'll talk about it. See my point? So there's nothing to (that I realize anyway) what you are accusing me of.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Dec 20, 2020 8:37:00 GMT -5
Book Review - Suspect No. 1. www.mhsnj.org/page-18154Medical History Society of New Jersey Lise Pearlman, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1: The Man Who Got Away,(Berkeley, California: Regent Press, 2020). Reviewer: Vincent J. Cirillo, PhD September 26, 2020 Since the mid-1970s, numerous revisionists have sought to exonerate Bruno Richard Hauptmann of the kidnapping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., the 20 month-old child of the famous aviator and his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Subsequent conspiracy theories have seen Colonel Lindbergh evolve from victim to suspect, from hero to villain. In their 1993 book, Crime of the Century, co-authors Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier claimed that Lindbergh killed his own son accidentally when one of his sadistic practical jokes went awry. The authors presented no hard evidence to support their charge and, in fact, confessed, “There is no smoking gun here.”1 In Lise Pearlman’s Suspect No. 1, revisionism has been transmogrified into full-fledged conspiracy theory. She asserts that, with malice aforethought, Colonel Lindbergh deliberately murdered his own son to harvest the toddler’s internal organs for scientific experiments, orchestrated a phony kidnapping to hide the truth, and then usurped command of the police investigation to railroad an innocent man into the electric chair. Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in Manhattan was a real life Jekyll and Hyde. On the one hand, he was a lifesaving surgeon who won the 1912 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his brilliant work in vascular suturing and organ transplantation, and on the other, a life-damning fanatical eugenicist. Especially dangerous was Carrel’s belief that to create a superior race, misfits – even sickly infants – had to be eliminated from the gene pool. The eugenic ideas advanced in Carrel’s non-fiction bestseller, Man, the Unknown (1935; German edition 1936), foreshadowed and fueled Hitler’s Final Solution. Lindbergh met Carrel in November 1930 and over time, the latter exercised “tremendous influence” over the Lone Eagle, “not all for the good.”2 While deeply impressed by Carrel’s vision, Lindbergh did not share the Frenchman’s zeal for such radical theories as euthanizing people with disabilities by gassing. Lindbergh and Carrel supposedly concocted a plan whereby Lindbergh would hand off his sedated son on March 1, 1932 to unnamed accomplices, who would then deliver the child to the Rockefeller Institute’s satellite laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, located fifteen miles from Lindbergh’s home, in Hopewell. There, Carrel would harvest the boy’s internal organs for their experiments in organ culture, utilizing the revolutionary perfusion pump invented by Lindbergh. Pearlman writes, “Lindbergh might well have felt like Abraham offering the Almighty his son Isaac – not to the Biblical God but to the God of Science with Carrel as the chosen instrument” (p. 391). “Motive is the Achilles heel of bogus true crime books.”3 Lindbergh’s motive, Pearlman opines, lay in his embrace of eugenics, insinuating he could not abide siring an imperfect child. The “Little Eaglet’s” imperfections are described in the book as an oversized head (hydrocephalic?), an unclosed anterior fontanelle, and overlapping toes. Actually, Little Charlie was a handsome boy with blue eyes and a crop of golden curls, was tall for his age, swaggered about, in Anne’s words, “on his firm little legs,” and was possessed of a remarkable vocabulary indicative of normal mental development. Rather than portend hydrocephalus, the delayed ossification of the fontanelles is a known consequence of rickets, a vitamin D deficiency, for which Little Charlie was being treated with viosterol (synthetic vitamin D). At the time, rickets was common in the United States among children under four years of age, regardless of family income. A few months before the kidnapping/murder, Anne had written to her mother-in-law: “C. Jr. and Sr. have a wonderful time together [playing pillow fights];” “[C.] was quite proud of him;” “[C.] began to take such interest in the baby – playing with him, spoiling him by giving him cornflakes and toast and sugar and jam off his plate in the morning and tossing him up in the air. After he’d done that once or twice, the boy came toward him with outstretched arms: ‘Den!’ (Again!);” “C. admits the boy is ‘good-looking’ and ‘pretty interesting.’”4 Lindbergh called the boy “Buster” every time he saw him – a term for a rough and tough kid, not a congenital weakling. This does not sound like a man who so despised his offspring as to sacrifice his life a couple of months later to the “God of Science.” After rehashing what is known about the Lindbergh kidnapping case in the first 39 0 pages of the book, the author’s assertions are finally revealed in a chapter titled “Reconstructing the Crime.” This thesis should have appeared at the beginning, so that Pearlman could have clarified along the way which information had supporting evidence, which was reasonably assumed, and which was purely conjectural. Some of Pearlman’s most outrageous statements -- with zero corroborating documentation – are as follows: “Carrel suggested to Lindbergh that one of the first human sacrifices in the perfusion device be Lindbergh’s son” (p.391); “Lindbergh and [his lawyer Henry] Breckinridge hit upon the idea of a fake kidnapping . . .” (p. 391); “Lindbergh purposefully made sure Skean was left elsewhere at either Englewood or a Princeton kennel” (p. 394); and “It was Lindbergh’s plan all along to have the corpse found at some point to put an end to the convoluted ransom scheme” (p. 399). Clearly, every statement above is based on conjecture, not hard evidence. Pearlman admits that no one witnessed Lindbergh hand off the toddler to his accomplices (p. 395). In short, as was the case with Ahlgren and Monier, “There is no smoking gun here.”
In a number of instances, Pearlman’s interpretation of factual events can be construed otherwise. For example, she views the cremation of the toddler’s remains soon after autopsy as an obstruction of justice, implying that Lindbergh acted to destroy incriminating evidence and clues. An equally rational, but far less sinister, interpretation is that the body was cremated to prevent souvenir hunters from desecrating Little Charlie’s grave.
Even though Lindbergh has fallen from grace because of his antisemitism, his sympathy for the prewar Nazi regime, and his fathering of five children with two women out of wedlock, I venture to say that Pearlman’s ghoulish hypothesis will be a hard pill to swallow for most readers. It is simply too fiendish, as though Lindbergh and Carrel “had been obscene demons, marketing the corpse itself.”5
1. Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier, Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax (Boston: Branden Books, 1993), p. 202. 2. Walter S. Ross, The Last Hero: Charles A. Lindbergh (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 242. 3. Jim Fisher, The Ghosts of Hopewell: Setting the Record Straight in the Lindbergh Case (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), p. 96. 4. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead: Diaries and Letters of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, 1929-1932 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973), pp. 204, 224, 225. 5. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol in Prose: Being a Ghost Story of Christmas (London: Chapman & Hall, 1843). Facsimile Reprint. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956, p. 135.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 20, 2020 12:29:13 GMT -5
Book Review - Suspect No. 1. www.mhsnj.org/page-18154Medical History Society of New Jersey Lise Pearlman, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1: The Man Who Got Away,(Berkeley, California: Regent Press, 2020). Reviewer: Vincent J. Cirillo, PhD September 26, 2020 Since the mid-1970s, numerous revisionists have sought to exonerate Bruno Richard Hauptmann of the kidnapping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., the 20 month-old child of the famous aviator and his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Subsequent conspiracy theories have seen Colonel Lindbergh evolve from victim to suspect, from hero to villain. In their 1993 book, Crime of the Century, co-authors Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier claimed that Lindbergh killed his own son accidentally when one of his sadistic practical jokes went awry. The authors presented no hard evidence to support their charge and, in fact, confessed, “There is no smoking gun here.”1 In Lise Pearlman’s Suspect No. 1, revisionism has been transmogrified into full-fledged conspiracy theory. She asserts that, with malice aforethought, Colonel Lindbergh deliberately murdered his own son to harvest the toddler’s internal organs for scientific experiments, orchestrated a phony kidnapping to hide the truth, and then usurped command of the police investigation to railroad an innocent man into the electric chair. Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in Manhattan was a real life Jekyll and Hyde. On the one hand, he was a lifesaving surgeon who won the 1912 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his brilliant work in vascular suturing and organ transplantation, and on the other, a life-damning fanatical eugenicist. Especially dangerous was Carrel’s belief that to create a superior race, misfits – even sickly infants – had to be eliminated from the gene pool. The eugenic ideas advanced in Carrel’s non-fiction bestseller, Man, the Unknown (1935; German edition 1936), foreshadowed and fueled Hitler’s Final Solution. Lindbergh met Carrel in November 1930 and over time, the latter exercised “tremendous influence” over the Lone Eagle, “not all for the good.”2 While deeply impressed by Carrel’s vision, Lindbergh did not share the Frenchman’s zeal for such radical theories as euthanizing people with disabilities by gassing. Lindbergh and Carrel supposedly concocted a plan whereby Lindbergh would hand off his sedated son on March 1, 1932 to unnamed accomplices, who would then deliver the child to the Rockefeller Institute’s satellite laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, located fifteen miles from Lindbergh’s home, in Hopewell. There, Carrel would harvest the boy’s internal organs for their experiments in organ culture, utilizing the revolutionary perfusion pump invented by Lindbergh. Pearlman writes, “Lindbergh might well have felt like Abraham offering the Almighty his son Isaac – not to the Biblical God but to the God of Science with Carrel as the chosen instrument” (p. 391). “Motive is the Achilles heel of bogus true crime books.”3 Lindbergh’s motive, Pearlman opines, lay in his embrace of eugenics, insinuating he could not abide siring an imperfect child. The “Little Eaglet’s” imperfections are described in the book as an oversized head (hydrocephalic?), an unclosed anterior fontanelle, and overlapping toes. Actually, Little Charlie was a handsome boy with blue eyes and a crop of golden curls, was tall for his age, swaggered about, in Anne’s words, “on his firm little legs,” and was possessed of a remarkable vocabulary indicative of normal mental development. Rather than portend hydrocephalus, the delayed ossification of the fontanelles is a known consequence of rickets, a vitamin D deficiency, for which Little Charlie was being treated with viosterol (synthetic vitamin D). At the time, rickets was common in the United States among children under four years of age, regardless of family income. A few months before the kidnapping/murder, Anne had written to her mother-in-law: “C. Jr. and Sr. have a wonderful time together [playing pillow fights];” “[C.] was quite proud of him;” “[C.] began to take such interest in the baby – playing with him, spoiling him by giving him cornflakes and toast and sugar and jam off his plate in the morning and tossing him up in the air. After he’d done that once or twice, the boy came toward him with outstretched arms: ‘Den!’ (Again!);” “C. admits the boy is ‘good-looking’ and ‘pretty interesting.’”4 Lindbergh called the boy “Buster” every time he saw him – a term for a rough and tough kid, not a congenital weakling. This does not sound like a man who so despised his offspring as to sacrifice his life a couple of months later to the “God of Science.” After rehashing what is known about the Lindbergh kidnapping case in the first 39 0 pages of the book, the author’s assertions are finally revealed in a chapter titled “Reconstructing the Crime.” This thesis should have appeared at the beginning, so that Pearlman could have clarified along the way which information had supporting evidence, which was reasonably assumed, and which was purely conjectural. Some of Pearlman’s most outrageous statements -- with zero corroborating documentation – are as follows: “Carrel suggested to Lindbergh that one of the first human sacrifices in the perfusion device be Lindbergh’s son” (p.391); “Lindbergh and [his lawyer Henry] Breckinridge hit upon the idea of a fake kidnapping . . .” (p. 391); “Lindbergh purposefully made sure Skean was left elsewhere at either Englewood or a Princeton kennel” (p. 394); and “It was Lindbergh’s plan all along to have the corpse found at some point to put an end to the convoluted ransom scheme” (p. 399). Clearly, every statement above is based on conjecture, not hard evidence. Pearlman admits that no one witnessed Lindbergh hand off the toddler to his accomplices (p. 395). In short, as was the case with Ahlgren and Monier, “There is no smoking gun here.”
In a number of instances, Pearlman’s interpretation of factual events can be construed otherwise. For example, she views the cremation of the toddler’s remains soon after autopsy as an obstruction of justice, implying that Lindbergh acted to destroy incriminating evidence and clues. An equally rational, but far less sinister, interpretation is that the body was cremated to prevent souvenir hunters from desecrating Little Charlie’s grave.
Even though Lindbergh has fallen from grace because of his antisemitism, his sympathy for the prewar Nazi regime, and his fathering of five children with two women out of wedlock, I venture to say that Pearlman’s ghoulish hypothesis will be a hard pill to swallow for most readers. It is simply too fiendish, as though Lindbergh and Carrel “had been obscene demons, marketing the corpse itself.”5
1. Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier, Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax (Boston: Branden Books, 1993), p. 202. 2. Walter S. Ross, The Last Hero: Charles A. Lindbergh (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 242. 3. Jim Fisher, The Ghosts of Hopewell: Setting the Record Straight in the Lindbergh Case (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), p. 96. 4. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead: Diaries and Letters of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, 1929-1932 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973), pp. 204, 224, 225. 5. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol in Prose: Being a Ghost Story of Christmas (London: Chapman & Hall, 1843). Facsimile Reprint. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956, p. 135.
Thanks for the post, Joe.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Dec 20, 2020 12:58:58 GMT -5
You're welcome Wayne, and you really have Sue to thank for this one. By the way, another fellow researcher also reminded me that Lindbergh's perfusion pump wasn't really perfected to fully functional form until 1935 so I believe Pearlman may have jumped the gun a bit here. The notion of Lindbergh offering his son up to Carrel, the "God of Science" three years prior to that date might have been just a bit too risky!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Dec 20, 2020 19:50:02 GMT -5
Thanks Joe and Sue for posting the Cirillo review of Ms. Pearlman's book. In my opinion this review was excellent. As I read this book, I became so tired of highlighting words like "may have", "might have", "must have", "could have", "likely", "quite possibly", "doctored evidence", etc., etc. that I finally just stopped highlighting. Even with my limited knowledge of the LKC compared to many others on this forum, I became very frustrated with what I believe to be distortions of facts and severe speculations as to what occurred. The book was most definitely a difficult read.
I particularly take issue with some of the statements Ms. Pearlman made concerning my Great Uncle Harry Wolfe. Unless there are written statements that I am unaware of, I call major BS on the following statements that she makes:
1. Harry Wolfe was "excluded" from the investigation by NJSP/Lindbergh (pages 111 and 396) and "at Lindbergh's instigation, Hopewell's Police Chief was immediately removed from the case" (page 415). According to my mother (who, as I have previously posted, was extremely close to her Uncle Harry) he (Harry) knew from day one that this was not his investigation. He knew that his geographical law enforcement jurisdiction was the Borough of Hopewell. Although he offered all support that the NJSP needed, he never felt "excluded" or "removed" from the investigation. Nor did he ever express resentment towards the NJSP or Lindbergh.
2. Harry Wolfe was "open to infanticide as a possible motive" (page 118). Although Uncle Harry believed that there was an "inside" aspect to this case, he NEVER expressed anything to my mother about infanticide or Lindbergh as a suspect in his son's death.
3. Harry Wolfe felt that the kidnappers "had help from locals" (page 124). Again, although Uncle Harry believed that there was an inside help/information angle, he never related to my mother that he felt locals were invoved in the kidnapping.
4. It was "unlikely" that Harry Wolfe and other LE's could identify the child's remains on Mt Rose Hill as that of the Lindbergh baby (page 168-169). As I have previously posted, Harry Wolfe went to his grave blieving that Hauptmann was guilty of the crime and that the child's remains found on Mt Rose Hill was that of the Lindbergh child.
As I read Ms. Pearlman's book, all I could think of was Dragnet's Sergeant Joe Friday's famous line "just the facts ma'am, please just the facts".
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Dec 21, 2020 14:25:46 GMT -5
Thank you for your review Lurp, as well as your personal insights into the role played by your Great Uncle Harry Wolfe.
One of the biggest challenges I experienced in my attempt to simply get through Suspect No. 1, (which I’m still working on) is the almost-constant tendency on the part of Ms. Pearlman's to so deftly connect the dots of her choice, based on some truly shallow research findings. At the same time, I find it almost inconceivable that a person with the legal, courtroom and arbitration credentials the author has acquired over the years, has shown herself capable of making some of the most ill-informed and outrageous judgments, up to and including full on character assassination.
Fabricated from heavens-knows-what source and with absolutely no corroborating evidence, is a working kidnap gang comprised of Arthur Hitner, Isidor Fisch and Gaston Means, mysteriously conscripted by the likes of Wild Bill Donovan, Henry Breckinridge, and with Lindbergh at the helm of course, blindly under the spell of the “God of Science,” Alexis Carrel. The motive? Rid the world of the famous aviator’s “weakling child” while offering a worthy sacrifice to the advancement of the human race through the doctrines of Eugenics. Nowhere is the dastardly Richard Hauptmann even mentioned as an integral part of the kidnapping and extortion schemes, of which he most clearly was.
Lindbergh has a seeming obsession with the Skillman Home for Epileptics, where much of his fake kidnapping plan is carried out and shadowy figures are harboured. And it’s here that he apparently fashioned the kidnap ladder out of old “crating boards,” notwithstanding the airtight case for Rail 16 having come out of Hauptmann’s attic. Lindbergh’s car, apparently borrowed from “someone” at Skillman and one which bears a remarkable resemblance to that automobile owned by Hauptmann is the same one, the author claims, that was seen by the Conovers on Featherbed Lane around 7:00 pm. Out of this maelstrom of misinformation, the author fails to understand this is not the same roadway as the “featherbed” or provisional road on the Lindbergh property, about which the real kidnappers’ retreating footprints were traced.
Time and time again, you can almost sense the author’s self-congratulatory message at having figured out yet another riddle within the enigma that is this case, when she simply comes up firing blanks at clouds. The book is so full of errors, baseless innuendo, leading assertions, confirmation bias and fallacious arguments, it’s a wonder she actually received pre-release praise from others in the “Lindy-Did-It Authors” support group.
Suspect No. 1 doesn’t need further editions “in the interest of clarifying certain inaccuracies.” It requires a full rotisserie restoration and rebuild before being worthy of widescale publication again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2020 10:37:09 GMT -5
I think its interesting to see the different approaches to this case and its research. Lurp for example, searching for definite facts and not conjecture. Joe rejecting anything that has even a hint of Lindbergh being involved while embracing just the opposite approach toward anything that excludes him. I see things a little differently. First, I consider Judge Pearlman's position overall as a theory. In presenting it we see the combination of facts, disputed information, and speculation. Speculation is unavoidable in any situation. Even Fisher uses it although much is disguised as fact. This apparently fools quite a number of people it seems so that style appears to have worked for the most part. So it does boil down to both style and approach. There are some who reject anything outside of what occurred in the courtroom. I've had one person say to me after I wrote V1 that where I cited Michael Keaten was "irrelevant" because it didn't come from Lt. Keaten to my ears. And so, in essence, anything said to someone else shouldn't be considered? I reject that position. For example, I printed out Lurp's post and placed it in my "Wolfe" file. Obviously this type of information needs to be considered. Although his source isn't his uncle his mother is the next best thing (and we're lucky to have access to it). Outright dismissal is foolish in my opinion. Can mistakes occur when considering recollections? Sure its possible, and that's all part of the process. I know, for example, that picture of the child on the bike in Judge Pearlman's book is not Charles Jr. However, her source is the Archivist at UCLA who was told by Ho-age's wife that's who it is. But here I am, someone who never met Ho-age, and I know beyond all doubt his wife was mistaken. I understand how she could have become confused, and why the Archivist took that information at face value, but this demonstrates the possibility at least. That is of course unless one thinks "I" am mistaken or unreliable. See my point? So there are choices to make but without certain pieces its harder or even impossible to do so. I am a huge fan of revealing all the information possible. I'm fine with speculation, just as long as it isn't done in the way Fisher does it. Even the way he presented certain "facts" rub me the wrong way knowing they aren't factual and rooted in mistakes. Despite this, I want someone's point of view, to include Fisher's, so that I might consider it myself too. If I'm not aware of it then chances are I might not ever come to that place myself. (Not really but you get my point). I'm currently in the middle of V4 and I'm about to explain a rumor at the time. Whether its true or not is less important to me. But if I did not reveal what I know I don't think it will ever be known. It will, in essence, reside in the dark corners forever, and might actually disappear for good. So getting out there is interesting, its food for thought, and the bonus might be that someone grabs a hold of it to either prove or disprove it by doing their own research about it. Now I actually read Dr. Cirillo's rebuttal the day it came out. I still have "Google Notify" and although it no longer exists apparently those that had it still receive the benefits of it. I think its well written and I think his point of view is a valuable tool - to a certain extent. He's making a comparison to A&M's book considering both are motivated by a theory. Again, I have no problem with this. As we read we can see what's what. Next, I wanted to point out a couple of things in his rebuttal to comment on: The word "revisionism" is something I have a real problem with. It comes from fans of Fisher's books. As I've written above, if one wants to talk about "revisionism," in the true sense of the word, I could easily destroy many of the "facts" contained in those books. So for me, if information in a book accusing people of being "Revisionists" can be shown as false, or disguised as facts, there's a degree of hypocrisy here that disqualifies it as a legitimate source and has earned no right to do so. Unfortunately, this is what most people rely on in order to criticize others. This is speculation. We know he was controlling, had a sick sense of humor, and by most accounts quite odd. He considered "defectives" a drain on society. He married based on genes and heredity. And he was a Eugenicist. At what point does someone with these beliefs pull back from a precipice - or instead jump off? No one knows really, how could they? People were in awe of the man and dare not consider what pointed to the possibilities. Even to this day outrage ensues. Ask yourself why? If it had been anyone else would the reaction be the same? Quoting Fisher. Believe me now? Selective observation. As to the "rickets," it has a cause. Rich children lacking vitamin D. Here we have one with a specific diet supplemented by viosterol. And the child supposedly still had it. Next we have animals who selectively devoured certain organs on his corpse but left the heart and liver untouched. I suppose that was common "at the time" too? Actually Lindbergh called his son " It." (V3 pages 37-8). So we can see how his very own argument can now be used against his position. We know that Lindbergh left Skean behind. That is a fact. (V1 page 58 AND V2 pages 6-7). It is speculative to suggest it was done on purpose. But upon considering the totality of all the circumstances, when considering the multiple things that Lindbergh did, by act or omission, then is it so far-fetched? No. There's a difference but context matters. How is this one or the other? As I wrote, Schwarzkopf believed the child would be dug up. Next, one should consider Lindbergh's actions at the morgue, the speed by which the child was incinerated, and Breckinridge's account of Lindbergh's reaction to it. (V1 pages 315-20)
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 24, 2020 9:25:35 GMT -5
Happy Holidays everyone! As the primary research assistant for Suspect No. 1, I want to correct a serious misimpression about the extent that my mother, retired judge Lise Pearlman brought criminal law expertise to her analysis of the 1935 murder trial. Judge Pearlman brought to bear on the subject far more knowledge of applicable constitutional law and professional ethics rules than perhaps anyone else who has written about the trial. Judge Pearlman’s own background included clerking for the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court in 1976 working solely on criminal cases. The State Bar Court attorney discipline cases she later oversaw included review of criminal court records in which attorneys were accused of misconduct. As Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court she was also responsible for the compliance of all of its judges with ethics rules for judges. In addition, she taught courses in professional ethics in law schools, videotaped programs on ethics for the State Bar and gave scores of accredited lectures to practicing attorneys that included the ethical obligations of criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors. After her tenure as a judge, for three years, she served on a statewide panel of experts appointed by the State Bar to publish opinions to guide CA attorneys on their ethical obligations. She also served on the original Public Ethics Commission of Oakland, was the principal author of its rules and served as its second Chair. More recently, she authored five critically-acclaimed legal history books researching and analyzing famous American criminal trials, the first of which won international awards for books on law and U.S. History. Specifically with respect to Suspect No. 1, Judge Pearlman did extensive research on the case that included reading numerous books and in-depth articles on the trial. She also had her manuscript reviewed before publication by current criminal law experts. As noted in the acknowledgments, her consultants included retired Federal Judge Lowell Jensen, the former Asst. Atty. General who headed the U.S. Criminal Division of the Atty. General’s Office during President Reagan’s administration. Judge Jensen described the book as involving “astounding research” and “thorough and insightful analysis.” Suspect No. 1 has since been reviewed by a number of attorneys including veteran criminal defense lawyer Greg Ahlgren and former police chief, Stephen Monier, authors of their own book on the Lindbergh kidnapping/murder. They called Suspect No. 1 “expertly researched.” Barry Scheck, co-founder of The Innocence Project also gave the book high praise. If any commentator disagrees with any of the legal analysis in Suspect No. 1, those identified issues could be addressed by experts in a forum on the subject. But simply questioning her background does not negate her well-vetted legal conclusions. Judge Pearlman’s award-winning and highly acclaimed book -- The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1 – The Man Who Got Away is available via www.lisepearlman.com and most places books are sold. Hope you all have a Merry holiday, whichever you celebrate (we celebrate Christmas and Hannukah in my family) and a much happier New Year! --Jamie
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 24, 2020 9:31:18 GMT -5
As the chief research assistant for my mother retired Judge Lise Pearlman, I would like to respond to those who rely on Cirillo’s critical review. I ask that you read my mother’s book The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1 – The Man Who Got Away and compare the citations of authority. Cirillo finds support in Walter Ross’s biography of Lindbergh that Lindbergh himself considered highly inaccurate. (Lindbergh wrote a 78-page critique of Ross’s account now housed at MNHS). Cirillo also cites Jim Fisher’s work which often does not match the source material. In contrast, Judge Pearlman cites numerous original sources. Even so, Cirillo agreed with my mother that Dr. Carrel was capable of promoting the extreme forms of negative eugenics later adopted by Hitler. Cirillo simply could not bring himself to believe Lindbergh would go to the same lengths as his beloved mentor. This is easily refuted. David Friedman’s book The Immortalists: Charles Lindbergh, Dr. Alexis Carrel and Their Daring Quest to Live Forever? notes that the pair contemplated human vivisection experiments of “feeble-minded prospects” offered by overseers of New Jersey institutions. Friedman believed their perfusion pump experiments never got that far (at p. 81 of his book discussed in Suspect No. 1 at pp. 343-44). Friedman was wrong. Carrel reported to the Rockefeller Board in the spring of 1932 that he and his team – including Lindbergh -- did perform human as well as animal vivisections in 1931-32. This report highlighted a landmark carotid artery experiment in March of 1932, which would only have been a breakthrough if the subject was human. In 1938, the two men published a manual together, The Culture of Organs, which included mention of human vivisection experiments performed with the perfusion device that Lindbergh first designed for Carrel’s lab in December of 1930. Carrel’s experimental surgery team member Raymond C. Parker published an article in Science magazine in August 1931 called : “Human Serum, Age and Multiplication of Homologous Fibroblasts”. This article was cited in the April 1932 work report to the Rockefeller Institute board as an example of what Carrel’s experimental surgery group had been working on for the past 12 months—which included at least one human infant subject. In the introduction to Culture of Organs, Carrel specifically mentions that a month-long carotid artery experiment was performed with Lindbergh’s first pump. We now know (per Carrel’s files at Georgetown) that experiment was conducted in March/April 1932. Cirillo cites to their 1935 thyroid experiment as their earliest success with the perfusion pump, but that involved perfusion of a whole organ. Carrel had long since harvested viable vein and artery segments of animals – dating back two decades. The likely reason Carrel highlighted the successful carotid artery experiment in 1932 was that it was his first to involve a human donor – a huge potential breakthrough for heart surgery. Carrel ended the manual by strongly urging other medical researchers to pursue the “forbidden field” of the living human body [forbidden because the donor would likely die as a result of that experiment ]. Carrel noted that some people considered such operations “not far from being criminal.” Cirillo ignores Lindbergh’s involvement in such unlawful human experiments – described in a manual that Lindbergh co-wrote! Nor does Cirillo mention the detailed evidence in Suspect No. 1, Act Five chapters 2 and 5 and the attached appendices supporting both the conclusion that the corpse spent time in a medical lab before being dumped in the woods and that it had its organs removed by vivisection rather than as a result of an attack by wild animals. The burlap bag contained a fleshless digit of a small child like the ones found on the ground by the corpse. Cirillo does not explain how a fleeing kidnapper could have killed the toddler by a blow to the head at the farmhouse on March 1 and carried the mortally injured child in a burlap bag to the woods that night without leaving any blood anywhere – in the nursery, on the ground outside the farmhouse, in the leaves and dirt by the corpse in the woods or in the burlap bag. Yet somehow the body lost most internal organs and blood somewhere before it was dumped in the woods. Cirillo’s less sinister interpretation of the reason Lindbergh ordered immediate cremation of the corpse does not explain why he refused to allow a full autopsy first – as required in homicide cases. Lindbergh thus directly interfered with the homicide investigation and prevented volunteer pathologists from New York from checking out anomalies in the corpse that could have led to the conclusions Dr. Speth reached anyway based on the remaining evidence. Cirillo also did not include in his review any critique of the evidence assembled in Act Three of Suspect No. 1 that showed major problems with the prosecution’s case in the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. This included both Lindbergh and his wife misrepresenting their son’s health and appearance, including identifying his first birthday picture from June of 1931 as what he looked like when he disappeared. Contrary to that dated image, the toddler was several inches taller, had a recent hair-cut, and had an oversized head at death that matched his most recent pediatric record, made two weeks before he disappeared. Multiple modern doctors have opined that the toddler’s abnormal head size could have been due to hydrocephaly. That cannot now be confirmed, but if Lindbergh thought so, he could have assumed the child was doomed to an early death. (Viable shunts were not marketed until the late 1940s). If Lindbergh thought his son would die young anyway, we believe it is well within the realm of possibility that he would have wanted to try to save his sister-in-law Elisabeth’s life by sacrificing his son. The reason Lindbergh first approached Carrel in late 1930 was to see if there was a way to perform open-heart surgery on Elisabeth, who suffered from rheumatic heart disease and wasn’t expected to live long. Carrel suggested in previously published articles that open-heart surgery could patch a defective valve if the surgeon could first graft a healthy segment of carotid artery from another human donor to the patient’s heart. That would allow the surgeon to divert the blood flow long enough to fix the valve. Because Charlie was a blood relative, Charlie would likely have been considered by Carrel to be a prime donor for this experiment as the only way to potentially save his aunt Elisabeth’s life—whom Lindbergh deeply cared for. At the beginning of the book my mother quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: “Nothing has aided the persistence of falsehood, and the evils that result from it, more than the unwillingness of good people to admit the truth when it was disturbing to their comfortable assurance.” All that we ask is that readers keep an open mind when reading Suspect No. 1 and fairly assess all the evidence presented. Carillo’s review does not do that. If any of you are interested in reading a copy of The Culture of Organs, it is available at the following libraries listed in worldcat: www.worldcat.org/title/culture-of-organs/oclc/688410341&referer=brief_resultsRaymond C. Parker’s article: “Human Serum, Age and Multiplication of Homologous Fibroblasts” is available here: science.sciencemag.org/content/74/1911/181 (The August 1931 article is only 2 pages long, but the first page is available for free and mentions that one of the subjects was a 14-month-old infant. No idea if this infant was Charlie, but Charlie was 14 months old in August 1931. Regardless, it is further evidence that Carrel's team was experimenting on infants just prior to the time Charlie disappeared.) Judge Pearlman’s award-winning book The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1—The Man Who Got Away is available via www.lisepearlman.com and most places books are sold. I hope everyone has a good holiday, and a much happier New Year! -Jamie
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 24, 2020 9:34:51 GMT -5
Sorry for repost, the format is all squashed and hard to read from my previous post. I meant to double space. As the chief research assistant for my mother retired Judge Lise Pearlman, I would like to respond to those who rely on Cirillo’s critical review. I ask that you read my mother’s book The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1 – The Man Who Got Away and compare the citations of authority. Cirillo finds support in Walter Ross’s biography of Lindbergh that Lindbergh himself considered highly inaccurate. (Lindbergh wrote a 78-page critique of Ross’s account now housed at MNHS). Cirillo also cites Jim Fisher’s work which often does not match the source material. In contrast, Judge Pearlman cites numerous original sources. Even so, Cirillo agreed with my mother that Dr. Carrel was capable of promoting the extreme forms of negative eugenics later adopted by Hitler. Cirillo simply could not bring himself to believe Lindbergh would go to the same lengths as his beloved mentor. This is easily refuted. David Friedman’s book The Immortalists: Charles Lindbergh, Dr. Alexis Carrel and Their Daring Quest to Live Forever? notes that the pair contemplated human vivisection experiments of “feeble-minded prospects” offered by overseers of New Jersey institutions. Friedman believed their perfusion pump experiments never got that far (at p. 81 of his book discussed in Suspect No. 1 at pp. 343-44). Friedman was wrong. Carrel reported to the Rockefeller Board in the spring of 1932 that he and his team – including Lindbergh -- did perform human as well as animal vivisections in 1931-32. This report highlighted a landmark carotid artery experiment in March of 1932, which would only have been a breakthrough if the subject was human. In 1938, the two men published a manual together, The Culture of Organs, which included mention of human vivisection experiments performed with the perfusion device that Lindbergh first designed for Carrel’s lab in December of 1930. Carrel’s experimental surgery team member Raymond C. Parker published an article in Science magazine in August 1931 called : “Human Serum, Age and Multiplication of Homologous Fibroblasts”. This article was cited in the April 1932 work report to the Rockefeller Institute board as an example of what Carrel’s experimental surgery group had been working on for the past 12 months—which included at least one human infant subject. In the introduction to Culture of Organs, Carrel specifically mentions that a month-long carotid artery experiment was performed with Lindbergh’s first pump. We now know (per Carrel’s files at Georgetown) that experiment was conducted in March/April 1932. Cirillo cites to their 1935 thyroid experiment as their earliest success with the perfusion pump, but that involved perfusion of a whole organ. Carrel had long since harvested viable vein and artery segments of animals – dating back two decades. The likely reason Carrel highlighted the successful carotid artery experiment in 1932 was that it was his first to involve a human donor – a huge potential breakthrough for heart surgery. Carrel ended the manual by strongly urging other medical researchers to pursue the “forbidden field” of the living human body [forbidden because the donor would likely die as a result of that experiment ]. Carrel noted that some people considered such operations “not far from being criminal.” Cirillo ignores Lindbergh’s involvement in such unlawful human experiments – described in a manual that Lindbergh co-wrote! Nor does Cirillo mention the detailed evidence in Suspect No. 1, Act Five chapters 2 and 5 and the attached appendices supporting both the conclusion that the corpse spent time in a medical lab before being dumped in the woods and that it had its organs removed by vivisection rather than as a result of an attack by wild animals. The burlap bag contained a fleshless digit of a small child like the ones found on the ground by the corpse. Cirillo does not explain how a fleeing kidnapper could have killed the toddler by a blow to the head at the farmhouse on March 1 and carried the mortally injured child in a burlap bag to the woods that night without leaving any blood anywhere – in the nursery, on the ground outside the farmhouse, in the leaves and dirt by the corpse in the woods or in the burlap bag. Yet somehow the body lost most internal organs and blood somewhere before it was dumped in the woods. Cirillo’s less sinister interpretation of the reason Lindbergh ordered immediate cremation of the corpse does not explain why he refused to allow a full autopsy first – as required in homicide cases. Lindbergh thus directly interfered with the homicide investigation and prevented volunteer pathologists from New York from checking out anomalies in the corpse that could have led to the conclusions Dr. Speth reached anyway based on the remaining evidence. Cirillo also did not include in his review any critique of the evidence assembled in Act Three of Suspect No. 1 that showed major problems with the prosecution’s case in the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. This included both Lindbergh and his wife misrepresenting their son’s health and appearance, including identifying his first birthday picture from June of 1931 as what he looked like when he disappeared. Contrary to that dated image, the toddler was several inches taller, had a recent hair-cut, and had an oversized head at death that matched his most recent pediatric record, made two weeks before he disappeared. Multiple modern doctors have opined that the toddler’s abnormal head size could have been due to hydrocephaly. That cannot now be confirmed, but if Lindbergh thought so, he could have assumed the child was doomed to an early death. (Viable shunts were not marketed until the late 1940s). If Lindbergh thought his son would die young anyway, we believe it is well within the realm of possibility that he would have wanted to try to save his sister-in-law Elisabeth’s life by sacrificing his son. The reason Lindbergh first approached Carrel in late 1930 was to see if there was a way to perform open-heart surgery on Elisabeth, who suffered from rheumatic heart disease and wasn’t expected to live long. Carrel suggested in previously published articles that open-heart surgery could patch a defective valve if the surgeon could first graft a healthy segment of carotid artery from another human donor to the patient’s heart. That would allow the surgeon to divert the blood flow long enough to fix the valve. Because Charlie was a blood relative, Charlie would likely have been considered by Carrel to be a prime donor for this experiment as the only way to potentially save his aunt Elisabeth’s life—whom Lindbergh deeply cared for. At the beginning of the book my mother quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: “Nothing has aided the persistence of falsehood, and the evils that result from it, more than the unwillingness of good people to admit the truth when it was disturbing to their comfortable assurance.” All that we ask is that readers keep an open mind when reading Suspect No. 1 and fairly assess all the evidence presented. Carillo’s review does not do that. If any of you are interested in reading a copy of The Culture of Organs, it is available at the following libraries listed in worldcat: www.worldcat.org/title/culture-of-organs/oclc/688410341&referer=brief_resultsRaymond C. Parker’s article: “Human Serum, Age and Multiplication of Homologous Fibroblasts” is available here: science.sciencemag.org/content/74/1911/181 (The August 1931 article is only 2 pages long, but the first page is available for free and mentions that one of the subjects was a 14-month-old infant. No idea if this infant was Charlie, but Charlie was 14 months old in August 1931. Regardless, it is further evidence that Carrel's team was experimenting on infants just prior to the time Charlie disappeared.) Judge Pearlman’s award-winning book The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1—The Man Who Got Away is available via www.lisepearlman.com and most places books are sold. I hope everyone has a good holiday, and a much happier New Year! -Jamie
|
|