|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 11, 2022 3:53:14 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I agree completely. I should have phrased it differently. By saying "We do not know for sure.." I meant to imply that there are no official hospital or doctors' reports on the child's condition which isn't surprising given doctor/patient confidentiality and the anger/revenge which Lindbergh would exert if there were leaks. I'm sure Dr Van Inghen could tell a story but he was by some accounts a shy retiring kind of fellow who would easily be intimidated by Lindbergh. The few visitors to the family e.g Will Rogers would be told to keep the secret and give glowing reports. There is also the question of perception. Even if there wasn't much wrong, and I believe there was, Lindbergh himself would have very fixed ideas on the subject and a low threshold before taking action. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 11, 2022 8:10:34 GMT -5
So all of this speculation seems to have emerged from the condition of Charlie's fontanelle. The examination of the child's body conducted on May 12, 1932, states "The fontanel was not closed. The opening in the skull in the skull at this point being about one inch in diameter." His head is also described as "Unusually high, a prominent forehead, a cranium apparently greater in circumference than would be found in a child this age." The anterior fontanelle usually closes before a child reaches the age of 20 months, but there are variations and exceptions. According to current medical sources, the slow closing of the fontanelle can be caused by rickets, which we know was a problem for Charlie. Another is listed as Down's syndrome; the photos of the child would definitely rule this out. He in no way resembles a child with Down's. The child was 33 and one-half inches in length, so Charlie was a big boy. He had a large head and would probably grow into a large man about his father's size, certainly not his mother's. The problem with the fontanelle was most likely related to the problem with rickets, as we are already aware. There was no secret about this condition. Anne Lindbergh said on the stand that the baby was "perfectly normal." He was being treated for rickets, it had been diagnosed, and so his parents were concerned--naturally. Rickets was a common condition in those days. iI indicates a deficiency in vitamins, hardly a cause for a staged kidnapping by a parent.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 11, 2022 8:20:17 GMT -5
For the sake of covering the topic, I should add that a third characteristic of slow closing of the fontanelle is listed as "achrondroplasia," a problem with the thyroid gjand that results in short limbs and a small face in the infant. This obviously does not describe Charlie at all.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 11, 2022 9:19:29 GMT -5
Rickets on its own wouldn't be enough to stage a kidnapping, but as you say, rickets is caused by Vitamin D deficiency and malnutrition. It's also true that rickets was very common in those days--at the height of the Depression, when many weren't getting enough to eat. But did any of this apply to the world's most famous baby? No, so why was he displaying rickets or rickety symptoms? Because there was something deeper and more serious going on, of which rickets was probably only the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jan 11, 2022 12:54:38 GMT -5
Here is some information from the Mayo Clinic on the subject of rickets. it is caused most frequently by a Vitamin D deficiency or inability to absorb calcium. The lack of sunlight in northern regions can result in the deficiency, as sunlight provides natural Vitamin D. Foods containing good amounts of Vitamin D and fish oil, egg yolks, and fatty fish so Vitamin D can be acquired through diet. If a mother does not absorb enough vitamin D during pregnancy, the child may also acquire the problem while still unborn. Exclusive breast feeding may cause rickets since breast milk should be supplemented with vitamin D. In addition, some children's bodies do not absorb Vitamin D very well. If this problem is not recognized early, the child may exhibit failure to grow (which was not one of Charlie's problems) or there may be problems with motor skills. I have not found any evidence of Charlie's motor problems. Later there may be bowel or kidney problems. I did not find any reference to mental or brain problems. Charlie was on a specific diet and receives vitamin D for his condition involving rickets. In rare instances rickets can be inherited, but again there is treatment via sunlight and diet.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 11, 2022 13:23:46 GMT -5
To LJ: The point is not that the child did not get enough food. His parents could certainly provide him with food. He at some time was not getting enough of the right kind of food or was not getting enough sunlight, as mentioned in an earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 11, 2022 14:24:54 GMT -5
Obviously he was getting enough food. And they were feeding him a special diet, so he was getting the right kind. He was also getting a strong Vitamin D supplement called Viosterol, and was being treated with a sunlamp. Yet there still seemed to be a problem that resulted in not just rickets but also an unclosed fontanelle and a skull so soft that it had the post-mortem consistency of an orange peel.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 11, 2022 16:07:02 GMT -5
I had rickets as a 5/6 year old. I was born in the North of England so I suppose lack of sunlight and the restricted diet during WW2 were responsible. Each Thursday my aunt took me for “Sunray” treatment under UV lamps at the local swimming baths. I also endured large doses of cod liver oil (Ughh!) as a Vitamin D supplement. I made a complete recovery with no lasting effects.
None of this makes me an expert but I offer the following:
Rickets This is a disease of the growing bones and among the symptoms are: *late closure of the fontanelle (the soft part on top of a baby's head) *soft skull bones (craniotabes) *an over-sized head
Hydrocephalus This is quite different from rickets. It is due to a build-up of spinal fluid in the brain cavity which if not relieved can lead to brain damage and death. However some of the the symptoms overlap with those of rickets: *An unusually large head *A rapid increase in the size of the head *A bulging or tense soft spot (fontanel) on the top of the head. Today hydrocephalus is treated by installing a ’shunt’ or drainage tube to remove excess pressure on the brain.
Hydrocephalus, with its potential for brain damage if untreated, is the more serious of these two conditions. So rickets may indeed have been the tip of the iceberg in CAL Jnr’s case. If he had untreated hydrocephalus as well with its similar symptoms to rickets it may have been overlooked. Behaviour and developmental problems would surely follow.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 11, 2022 16:26:12 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever met anyone with this kind of first-hand experience of rickets, so that's very interesting. And as I've said elsewhere, don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to push anything on anyone. It's just... The kidnappers' "luck" was too good to be true, indicating inside help from a household member, and there was only one person on that very short list in a position to provide the intel and organization necessary to pull this off. What motive did that person have? Strong eugenicist beliefs alongside a child with rickets, which, all things being equal, this child shouldn't have had, and which could've been symptomatic of a more serious condition that also included an oversized head, an unclosed fontanelle, and a post-mortem skull with the consistency of an orange peel. This condition could've been hydrocephalus, as you suggest, or hypophosphatemic rickets, or what have you. We'll never know because the body was almost immediately cremated and, several years ago, the family took possession of the bone fragments that remained in the NJSP Museum. Then you have this person's very strange behavior during the course of negotiations with the supposed kidnappers... I mean, come on. It's all circumstantial, I freely admit, but when there's enough circumstantial evidence--and when it makes virtually everything dovetail and explains a lot of anomalies--that's significant.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 11, 2022 17:13:31 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. Isn't it amazing (or maybe not) that the Lindbergh family were allowed to remove those bone fragments from the NJSP museum whereas all requests to take slivers of wood from the ladder for DNA testing have been refused.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 11, 2022 17:57:15 GMT -5
It must've had something to do with next-of-kin rights. Even 70-odd years after the fact, that still applies and they say what goes. This happened around the time that Lindbergh's German families came to light--so 2003-ish or so. The family also took back the sleeping suit, if memory serves. God knows what they did with it all. My guess is they scattered the bone fragments, probably in the same place they scattered Anne Lindbergh's ashes a couple years before, so, great, thanks a lot; now we'll never know anything, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 11, 2022 18:29:15 GMT -5
It must've had something to do with next-of-kin rights. Even 70-odd years after the fact, that still applies and they say what goes. This happened around the time that Lindbergh's German families came to light--so 2003-ish or so. The family also took back the sleeping suit, if memory serves. God knows what they did with it all. My guess is they scattered the bone fragments, probably in the same place they scattered Anne Lindbergh's ashes a couple years before, so, great, thanks a lot; now we'll never know anything, one way or the other. I definitely think there was some ulterior motive here in having this stuff removed after so many decades - probably related to the German families. I know Michael years ago had a post he suspected something similar, I think?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2022 12:17:42 GMT -5
I definitely think there was some ulterior motive here in having this stuff removed after so many decades - probably related to the German families. I know Michael years ago had a post he suspected something similar, I think? There was always a lot of speculation about this event. Since I'm always learning, at this point, I don't think it had anything to do with the German family. Their original request came in early 2000. Frankly, that means the whole thing had to have started before the official request was made. Next, Anne and her children all requested the return of these items. And yet, one of them provided the DNA which ultimately proved the German siblings were legitimate. Furthermore, before the items were returned, the family requested DNA testing on the bones to prove it was Charles Jr. This was done to specifically settle the matter of his death once and for all. And so, if DNA was extracted, the FBI would have had it despite the remains being returned. As it turned out, there wasn't enough and it could not be sequenced, but that doesn't undermine the intent. Of course as a researcher I'm upset about everything being returned especially since the NJSP found that hair might indicate ' disease' or ' abnormality' (V3,P55-6). There's also the fact the Sleeping Suit, the shirts, and other items were removed as well.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 12, 2022 13:04:58 GMT -5
I wouldn't be interested so much in DNA or identification at this point--the bones were CAL Jr.'s and we'd have heard otherwise if they weren't--but more as to whether there was any truth to the rumors that there was something wrong with him, as per the rumors during his lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 12, 2022 13:25:27 GMT -5
I wouldn't be interested so much in DNA or identification at this point--the bones were CAL Jr.'s and we'd have heard otherwise if they weren't--but more as to whether there was any truth to the rumors that there was something wrong with him, as per the rumors during his lifetime. I'd also love the still-sealed envelope flaps and wood to be tested, but that's a whole other issue given that they are still there.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 12, 2022 21:19:10 GMT -5
Me too, though I don't think we'd get any DNA, or at least not an accurate profile, from the envelope flaps. The envelopes are 90 years old and were never properly preserved.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 12, 2022 22:13:18 GMT -5
Me too, though I don't think we'd get any DNA, or at least not an accurate profile, from the envelope flaps. The envelopes are 90 years old and were never properly preserved. Possibly. From what I remember, though, they were never opened via the flap, always with a letter opener on the side (at least in most of the cases) so it's possible some genetic material in the flaps has survived.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 13, 2022 3:30:18 GMT -5
Dr Crippen was hanged in 1910 for killing his wife. Human organs (kidneys, stomach etc) were found buried in his coal cellar. Examination of skin from these remains by Michigan State University using DNA analysis has shown that the remains are those of a male person unrelated to the supposed victim. Crippen was innocent. Police malpractice is suspected. Ref. "Dr Crippen, Cora, and the body in the basement" by Matthew Coniam. So assuming the envelopes were sealed with saliva and not fresh water, there's still a chance of success.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 13, 2022 5:53:33 GMT -5
On the subject of hydrocephalus: A doctor in Montreal was famous at that time for the study of diseases in children, including hydrocephalus. He was Alexander D. Blackader (June 19, 1847 to March 14, 1932) who was famous for his pediatric studies around the world and was associated with McGill University in his later years. There are a few coincidences that might be of interest. Phyllis Giessler Leipold was a nurse, who (as I recall) attended the McGilll University of the School of Nursing which had opened in 1925. She was the stepdaughter of Jane Faulkner Giessler had lived with her father and Jane (her stepmother) at the Plymouth apartments before their move to Larchmont NY. Phyllis traveled back to Montreal in 1933 under an alias to visit a nurse who was a friend of hers. Her husband, Henry Leipold, committed suicide shortly thereafter. The Sharp sisters, Violet and Edna (Emily) lived in Canada before coming to the US. Edna (Emily) spent some time in a convalescent home in Montreal before the move to New York. She applied for a visa to England, her country of origin, on the day of the kidnapping. Perhaps these are all coincidences. I am not sure about the Lindbergh theory presented, but it is possible that if the child had a problem like hydrocephalus, Lindbergh may have wanted to child to have medical attention not possible or desirable in the home and suggested to Anne that Charlie could receive proper care in a facility specializing in childhood diseases. Anne would have disagreed with this proposal, so the kidnapping was staged to accomplish this purpose without her knowledge. This plan would involve household servants, all of whom were defended by Lindbergh, and intermediaries, including kidnappers. The scenes involving the Temple of Divine Power medium and the reports of Bernard Uebel indicate that considerable staging was done, quite contrary to official reports . The planning and staging of the kidnapping were not of mediocre origin; someone with a clever brain had to develop these ruses though the death of the child may not have been a part of the original plan. Interesting also that Dr. Blackader died two weeks following the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 13, 2022 9:25:00 GMT -5
Charlie may have had Hunter's Syndrome which is characterized by a large head, big ears, broad nose, prominent forehead, widely spaced teeth, claw hands, thick lips. It is usually found in boys and first diagnosed about the age of two. There does not appear to be any cure even now.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 13, 2022 16:58:41 GMT -5
Charlie may have had Hunter's Syndrome which is characterized by a large head, big ears, broad nose, prominent forehead, widely spaced teeth, claw hands, thick lips. It is usually found in boys and first diagnosed about the age of two. There does not appear to be any cure even now. Perhaps. My guess is that part of Charlie's hydrocephalic condition was triggered by the long flight she took from the west coast back to NYC, where Anne could barely breathe thanks to the altitude and gas fumes.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 13, 2022 18:55:15 GMT -5
Whatever CAL Jr.'s issue was, I think that flight caused it. The condition presented as rickets, so my guess is they didn't know what to do other than load him up on Vitamin D, the standard rickets cure. But it wasn't working, since rickets was only the tip of the iceberg. Rightly or wrongly, Carrel probably confirmed to Lindbergh that the child would never be an ubermensch and was pretty much a hopeless case. So he was a sickly, brittle-boned, generally "unfit" weakling as far as Lindbergh was concerned--a huge embarrassment for him, and certainly not suitable for the public to see, which would've had to have happened sooner or later. As he did with Elisabeth Morrow, who had a serious but clear condition that could be pinpointed and therefore possibly cured, he'd tried, but...
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 14, 2022 5:15:20 GMT -5
Yes, I agree that the high altitude trans-continental flight was responsible for CAL Jnr's condition. Anne's mother strongly and understandably advised against it, to which Lindbergh replied "Anne is a Lindbergh now." The whole episode of Anne being carried from the plane was hushed up "so as not to give aviation a bad name." I Googled "Oxygen deprivation during pregnancy." Predictably, the effects are dire. We also know that Anne's subsequent children had no such problems so that eliminates a genetic origin for the child's condition. Lindbergh had two reasons for taking action: 1. In his view the child would never grow up normally. 2. His personal responsibility for Anne taking the high altitude flight would be recalled and his reputation damaged. Anne Lindbergh was interviewed by Ludovic Kennedy in the 1980's. She said (I paraphrase): "If your research reveals that there was indeed a miscarriage of justice I want you to go ahead with publication, even if it should cause embarrassment to my family." I take this as a strong hint that she suspected an inside job and who was responsible.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2022 11:53:02 GMT -5
Is anyone here familiar with this wonderful quote by Abraham Lincoln, on the subject of arguments that can at times, come across as "thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?" Conversely, I've attached below a very rational and balanced point of view expressed by a former contributor here by the name of bookrefuge, at the time a registered nurse of 37 years. The ensuing thread which began in 2012, has become one of the most informative and additive entries into the discussion of whether or not Charles Lindbergh was responsible for the euthaniziation of his first born son through a staged kidnapping. Unfortunately, bookrefuge no longer seems to be posting here. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/816/case-eugenics-motivated-murder
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2022 12:54:00 GMT -5
Is anyone here familiar with this wonderful quote by Abraham Lincoln, on the subject of arguments that can at times, come across as "thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?" Another great man, George Jefferson, once asked: " How do you know if there was an Elephant in your refrigerator?" He answered: " Because you can see his footprints in the butter." So we have a pregnant woman flying higher than 20,000 feet at times in an unpressurized plane that was filled with gas & exhaust fumes begging for her husband to land and that should be ignored. Right - I mean what could go wrong? Once at the airport, she leaped right out of the cockpit and jogged over to the waiting car - oh wait - no she did not. She was lifted out of the cockpit and literally carried to a car that whisked her away. To where? Let me guess ... to a hospital perhaps? No, no - nothing to see here. And we have a Eugenicist who had nothing but contempt for the "weak." But we shouldn't expect he'd feel that way about his son? No, no - just the opposite. And, coincidentally I suppose, it was at the delivery of this sons birth that he networked his way into Carrel's life. Let me guess, because he was concerned about his sister-in-law? Scotland Yard suggested the possibility of this child being destroyed due to abnormality. And that's without even knowing any of what's in my books or especially V3, Chapter 2.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2022 13:58:35 GMT -5
Is anyone here familiar with this wonderful quote by Abraham Lincoln, on the subject of arguments that can at times, come across as "thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?" Another great man, George Jefferson, once asked: " How do you know if there was an Elephant in your refrigerator?" He answered: " Because you can see his footprints in the butter." So we have a pregnant woman flying higher than 20,000 feet at times in an unpressurized plane that was filled with gas & exhaust fumes begging for her husband to land and that should be ignored. Right - I mean what could go wrong? Once at the airport, she leaped right out of the cockpit and jogged over to the waiting car - oh wait - no she did not. She was lifted out of the cockpit and literally carried to a car that whisked her away. To where? Let me guess ... to a hospital perhaps? No, no - nothing to see here. And we have a Eugenicist who had nothing but contempt for the "weak." But we shouldn't expect he'd feel that way about his son? No, no - just the opposite. And, coincidentally I suppose, it was at the delivery of this sons birth that he networked his way into Carrel's life. Let me guess, because he was concerned about his sister-in-law? Scotland Yard suggested the possibility of this child being destroyed due to abnormality. And that's without even knowing any of what's in my books or especially V3, Chapter 2. You're saying Lindbergh would have had nothing but contempt for his son? Tell me, how was his son, "weak?" And now you're intimating he staged his personal introduction to Alexis Carrell like he purportedly staged the kidnapping? And that he didn't really care about the health situation of Anne's sister enough to ultimately perfect the perfusion pump, a device used to help save lives? Rather than continually going off on some one-sided rant through such an obviously-defensive stance, why don't you take a deep breath and have a good reread of bookrefuge's post? Relevant and quality information like this really shouldn't have to taste like acid in your mouth.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 14, 2022 14:09:22 GMT -5
MICHAEL'S "obviously-defensive stance"...?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2022 14:10:31 GMT -5
What would you call it?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 14, 2022 16:34:59 GMT -5
Another great man, George Jefferson, once asked: " How do you know if there was an Elephant in your refrigerator?" He answered: " Because you can see his footprints in the butter." So we have a pregnant woman flying higher than 20,000 feet at times in an unpressurized plane that was filled with gas & exhaust fumes begging for her husband to land and that should be ignored. Right - I mean what could go wrong? Once at the airport, she leaped right out of the cockpit and jogged over to the waiting car - oh wait - no she did not. She was lifted out of the cockpit and literally carried to a car that whisked her away. To where? Let me guess ... to a hospital perhaps? No, no - nothing to see here. And we have a Eugenicist who had nothing but contempt for the "weak." But we shouldn't expect he'd feel that way about his son? No, no - just the opposite. And, coincidentally I suppose, it was at the delivery of this sons birth that he networked his way into Carrel's life. Let me guess, because he was concerned about his sister-in-law? Scotland Yard suggested the possibility of this child being destroyed due to abnormality. And that's without even knowing any of what's in my books or especially V3, Chapter 2. You're saying Lindbergh would have had nothing but contempt for his son? Tell me, how was his son, "weak?" And now you're intimating he staged his personal introduction to Alexis Carrell like he purportedly staged the kidnapping? And that he didn't really care about the health situation of Anne's sister enough to ultimately perfect the perfusion pump, a device used to help save lives? Rather than continually going off on some one-sided rant through such an obviously-defensive stance, why don't you take a deep breath and have a good reread of bookrefuge's post? Relevant and quality information like this really shouldn't have to taste like acid in your mouth. Do most doctors say that their wealthy pediatric patients have a persistent "rickety condition"? Do the skulls of children in the ossuaries and catacombs of Paris "come apart like an orange" upon the slightest prodding?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jan 15, 2022 11:36:28 GMT -5
You're saying Lindbergh would have had nothing but contempt for his son? Tell me, how was his son, "weak?" And now you're intimating he staged his personal introduction to Alexis Carrell like he purportedly staged the kidnapping? And that he didn't really care about the health situation of Anne's sister enough to ultimately perfect the perfusion pump, a device used to help save lives? Rather than continually going off on some one-sided rant through such an obviously-defensive stance, why don't you take a deep breath and have a good reread of bookrefuge's post? Relevant and quality information like this really shouldn't have to taste like acid in your mouth. Do most doctors say that their wealthy pediatric patients have a persistent "rickety condition"? Do the skulls of children in the ossuaries and catacombs of Paris "come apart like an orange" upon the slightest prodding? Rickets was much more widespread in CALjr's day than you're choosing to acknowledge, and yes it was not uncommon even within wealthy families. Even in the early-1930’s, it was understood that Vitamin D and UV light assisted in the absorption of calcium and phosphorus from food. Not enough vitamin D makes it difficult to maintain proper calcium and phosphorus levels in bones, which can cause rickets, and delay certain areas of physical development. The human skull, is made up of six major bones: the ethmoid, frontal, occipital, parietal, sphenoid and temporal. In normal development, the cranial bones remain separate until about age two. Then the separate cranial bones fuse together and remain that way throughout adulthood. Charlie was twenty months old at the time of his death. Next, let’s look at your comment about the ossuaries and catacombs of Paris, which you seem to consider to be some kind of bombshell within this discussion. Can you accurately state the age of these children there you're referring to, whose intact skulls did not "come apart like an orange?" You can probably understand where I’m going with this.
|
|