|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 15, 2022 13:36:42 GMT -5
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. Rickets was not common in wealthy families, as it generally came from poor nutrition. Again, the skulls of 20 months old don't typically come apart like an orange. It was unusually brittle.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 15, 2022 14:13:24 GMT -5
Anyone who has the stomach to look closely at the photo of the body found in the woods will notice the child’s abnormally large head. To ascribe this to a “moderate rickety condition” is a massive understatement. There was something else going on, maybe in parallel with rickets, and with similar symptoms. Hydrocephalus is the obvious candidate and it does not respond to UV lamps or Vitamin D supplements.
Much of the evidence that the child, apart from his “rickety" condition, was perfectly healthy comes from the diaries and letters of Anne Lindbergh published in 1974 as “Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead” and edited by her daughter Reeve Lindbergh. I do not suggest Ms Lindbergh was lying but it is remarkable that these sources do not contain anything about the things we do know about the child. Nothing in the published letters about his enlarged head, deformed toes, unclosed fontanelle, doctor’s opinions etc. which surely would be of interest and concern to Ms Morrow, the child’s grandmother. It is a selective unbalanced account and probably intended to preserve the myth of Charlie’s good health which the Lindberghs were propagating in 1932.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jan 15, 2022 14:49:58 GMT -5
Anyone who has the stomach to look closely at the photo of the body found in the woods will notice the child’s abnormally large head. To ascribe this to a “moderate rickety condition” is a massive understatement. There was something else going on, maybe in parallel with rickets, and with similar symptoms. Hydrocephalus is the obvious candidate and it does not respond to UV lamps or Vitamin D supplements. Much of the evidence that the child, apart from his “rickety" condition, was perfectly healthy comes from the diaries and letters of Anne Lindbergh published in 1974 as “Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead” and edited by her daughter Reeve Lindbergh. I do not suggest Ms Lindbergh was lying but it is remarkable that these sources do not contain anything about the things we do know about the child. Nothing in the published letters about his enlarged head, deformed toes, unclosed fontanelle, doctor’s opinions etc. which surely would be of interest and concern to Ms Morrow, the child’s grandmother. It is a selective unbalanced account and probably intended to preserve the myth of Charlie’s good health which the Lindberghs were propagating in 1932. Sherlock, you're simply overstating what we know about Charlie and attempting to second guess Dr. Van Ingen. And I'd venture it has a lot to do with force fitting puzzle pieces that may not even be part of that particular puzzle, a process that seems to happen a lot around here. I don't believe anyone who seriously studies this case really believes Charlie was the picture of perfect health but from everything we know, he was hardly a candidate for euthanasia. Again, refer to the post by bookrefuge, who at the time had been a registered nurse for 37 years. From the Mayo Clinic website on the subject of Hydrocephalus, how many of these other symptoms related to that disorder, did Charlie exhibit? Could if possibly Sherlock, be that he just had a big head (I did at his age and didn't have hydrocephalus) Have you perhaps done skull circumference measurements on family members of both Charles and Anne Lindbergh's family to see if there might be some kind of hereditary trait here, (as I know it applies to myself) and considered that the unclosed fontanelle was due to his rickety condition, in light of the many signs and symptoms below, that do not apply to him? Infants - Physical signs and symptoms of Hydrocephalus Nausea and vomiting Sleepiness or sluggishness (lethargy) Irritability Poor eating Seizures Eyes fixed downward (sunsetting of the eyes) Problems with muscle tone and strength Toddlers and older children - Physical signs and symptoms of Hydrocephalus Headache Blurred or double vision Abnormal eye movements Abnormal enlargement of a toddler's head Sleepiness or sluggishness Nausea or vomiting Unstable balance Poor coordination Poor appetite Loss of bladder control or frequent urination Behavioral and cognitive changes Irritability Change in personality Decline in school performance Delays or problems with previously acquired skills, such as walking or talking
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 15, 2022 16:13:16 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I cannot see where I overstate what we know about Charlie (abnormally large head, deformed toes, unclosed fontanelle) because these are established facts. If suggesting undiagnosed Hydrocephalus as a possibility qualifies as my second guessing Dr Van Ingen, I plead guilty. In my view nobody is a candidate for euthanasia, a view shared by the vast majority of people. But it is not our opinion which counts here. Lindberg supported eugenics and was a soul mate of Dr Carrel with his extreme views on the subject. He was single-minded and would have a much lower threshold of tolerance to overcome before taking action. The Mayo Clinic list of hydrocephalus symptoms includes "abnormal enlargement of a toddler's head." This, I believe is undisputed in Charlie's case. We have seen the photo of the body and we have the autopsy report. The other 14 behavioural or physical symptoms in the list would only be seen by those close to the child. They don't show up on a photo or autopsy report. We are totally dependent on an honest balanced account of Charlie's behaviour and development to confirm or refute whether any of these 14 symptoms apply to him. And we don't have it. So we cannot say, as you do, that the symptoms "do not apply to him." We just don't know. The report by bookrefuge is largely based on Anne Morrow's diaries and letters which mention nothing untoward about Charlie's health. This is consistent with the absence of recent photos in 1932 and the Lindberghs' taciturnity on the matter, mentioning in the diet notice only that the child was taking vitamin supplement but avoiding the word "rickets." I do not need to do skull circumference measurements on the Lindbergh/Morrow antecedents of Charlie to know that this was not merely a case of a marginally large head. Whether it was due to rickets / hydrocephalus, alone or in combination, diagnosed or undiagnosed, deserves in my view, serious consideration. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2022 19:15:35 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. What I am saying, and have said, is that if Lindbergh believed his son was "weak," he would have had nothing but contempt for him. That's all that's necessary here. This idea that he'd believe the "inferior" should be sterilized but he'd embrace an inferior offspring is the stuff of fantasy. It's why everything should be considered. Instead you simply wink at it all then act like there's nothing to see. But of course there is. It's undeniable. And I have no issue with anyone who has considered everything I've written then concluded what ever their head tells them to. But this position of ignoring it all then painting everyone as a nut for thinking the information over is the biggest issue I have with your concrete slippered stance. As it concerns Carrell, I am purporting a fact. This should be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances. That's hard to do if everything is ignored. Now, as far as "taking a deep breath" and reading bookrefuge's postion... Herein lies the problem Joe. Not only have I read it, I've ADDRESSED it in V3. But you would only know that if you bothered to read the book. Nope, its easier to simply pretend I am doing exactly what you yourself are doing. Pot calling the Kettle black much?
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Jan 16, 2022 1:13:03 GMT -5
CALjnr did not have an abnormally large head. Search for images of toddlers with hydrocephalus - he did not look anything like these poor children. There is a world of difference between large and abnormally large.
Does anyone recall the photograph that was listed on eBay several years ago? It was listed as a photo of Anne and CALjnr, however it was actually Anne and Jon. The physical similarity in both the boys was apparent. As is well known, Jon grew to adulthood and lived a normal life. There is no reason to believe that it would have been any different for Charlie.
He was a normal child who spoke, ate, ran and laughed. Some children have smallish heads, some have largish heads but they are still in a normal range and growth seems to balance out they get older.
As most sensible people would be aware, Dr Google is not recommended to diagnose your own symptoms, so why apply it to others.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 16, 2022 1:26:03 GMT -5
CALjnr did not have an abnormally large head. Search for images of toddlers with hydrocephalus - he did not look anything like these poor children. There is a world of difference between large and abnormally large. Does anyone recall the photograph that was listed on eBay several years ago? It was listed as a photo of Anne and CALjnr, however it was actually Anne and Jon. The physical similarity in both the boys was apparent. As is well known, Jon grew to adulthood and lived a normal life. There is no reason to believe that it would have been any different for Charlie. He was a normal child who spoke, ate, ran and laughed. Some children have smallish heads, some have largish heads but they are still in a normal range and growth seems to balance out they get older. As most sensible people would be aware, Dr Google is not recommended to diagnose your own symptoms, so why apply it to others. This isn't all just speculation. There is documented evidence the child was physically abnormal, from the autopsy report where the abnormally large head was noted, to the overlapping toes, the unclosed "soft spot" and "rickety" condition which was not improving, despite mega-doses of medicine which would typically help. Something wasn't right. Additionally, hydrocephalus and similar conditions can often start to really manifest physically around the age of 2.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Jan 16, 2022 6:36:48 GMT -5
No, the autopsy says unusually prominent forehead not abnormally large head.
Jon also appears to have the same prominent forehead.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2022 9:10:29 GMT -5
Years ago, I got caught up in trying to diagnose the child. At some point, I put together a list of everything I had from all of the sources. I consulted who I believed was one of the best professionals on rickets that I could find. To my surprise he responded right away with a list of various possible conditions. The problem was they all had additional symptoms the child did not have (that we know of). It's why I didn't speculate in V3, rather, suggested that Professionals would instead be able to figure it out (P98). Also mentioned in V3 is Waynes toe research (P94). That always struck me as a smart approach. This, for me anyway, is all I believe it would take for Lindbergh to want to get "rid" of CJr. And we all know there was more than that. Imagine if someone was in the KKK. He comes home one night after work and finds his daughter brought home her new boyfriend. How do you think he'd feel if the dude was any color other than white? Accepting? I think not. So the situation is multilayered. If we are searching for possibilities, what must Lindbergh have been thinking? After all, it was his offspring.
Now, what's important is whether or not these professionals have ALL the information before coming to any conclusion. I obviously see this as a problem in the Pearlman book. Even before V4 came out, I listed a source in V3 that shows there was both human and animal hair found in the burlap bag (P55). And so, its very hard for me to accept the conclusions that also assert there was no animal activity especially since their ultimate conclusion relies on it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2022 9:27:10 GMT -5
No, the autopsy says unusually prominent forehead not abnormally large head. It's in the second one: ...contour of the cranium shows a head larger than normal in child of twenty months, forehead prominent. These peculiar characteristics conform with a record made on February 14, 1932 by Dr. Van Ingen of New York. It's in the FBI Summary as well, but their source comes from Special Agent Carney's report which includes the information above.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jan 16, 2022 10:17:08 GMT -5
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. Rickets was not common in wealthy families, as it generally came from poor nutrition. Again, the skulls of 20 months old don't typically come apart like an orange. It was unusually brittle. Back to your ossuaries and catacombs of Paris for a moment here, I take it then you don't really know the ages of the children whose intact skulls did not "come apart like an orange?" Could it be that the ages of these children at death were beyond the years/months required for the fusing of their skull bones under normal conditions of development, barring any potential childhood diseases that may have impacted this development? Also, what is your reference to your statement that Charlie's skull was "unusually brittle?"
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 16, 2022 12:09:35 GMT -5
One morning about 8 years ago I awoke with a headache and feeling slightly unwell. It soon passed but I noticed that I was mis-reading occasional words on the printed page in front of me, otherwise I felt fine. I consulted my doctor saying “I think I may have had a stroke.” She put me through the usual tests: touching your nose (eyes closed), no sagging of facial features etc and announced that I hadn’t had a stroke , I was probably over doing things. “But what about the mis-reading?” “Yes, that’s strange. Look, to put YOUR mind at rest I’ll send you for a brain scan.” I had the scan. My doctor rang me the following day telling me to come to see her a.s.a.p. “I have the scan results: (embarrassed) You HAVE had a stroke. I'll put you on .” I had no further problems since and my reading is back to normal.
This digression reinforces what we already know: (1) doctors don’t always get it right. (2) its important to question their diagnoses. Often, there is sequential thinking: “It looks like rickets. I’ll treat him for rickets (UV/Vit D). If that doesn’t improve his condition we’ll have to see what else it could be….” If this is what happened one cannot blame Dr Van Ingen for his diagnosis of a treatable condition. It is unfortunate that we do not know whether Charlie’s rickety condition was improving or not under this treatment.
Hydrocephalus: treatment In 1949, Nulsen and Spitz implanted a shunt successfully into the caval vein with a ball valve. Between 1955 and 1960, four independent groups invented distal slit, proximal slit, and diaphragm valves almost simultaneously. Around 1960, the combined invention of artificial valves and silicone led to a worldwide therapeutic breakthrough. Neurosurg Rev . 1999 Oct;22(2-3):67-93;
So it wasn’t until three decades after 1932 that the use of cerebral shunts to treat hydrocephalus became feasible.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 16, 2022 19:34:03 GMT -5
Rickets was not common in wealthy families, as it generally came from poor nutrition. Again, the skulls of 20 months old don't typically come apart like an orange. It was unusually brittle. Back to your ossuaries and catacombs of Paris for a moment here, I take it then you don't really know the ages of the children whose intact skulls did not "come apart like an orange?" Could it be that the ages of these children at death were beyond the years/months required for the fusing of their skull bones under normal conditions of development, barring any potential childhood diseases that may have impacted this development? Also, what is your reference to your statement that Charlie's skull was "unusually brittle?" I've talked to several pediatricians and others who are experts in this field. All agreed that a 20 month old child's skull should never have "come apart like an orange." That is unusually brittle any way you want to slice it (no pun intended). Let's also not forget that a hole was allegedly poked in it with a stick. Does that seem normal to you? I must ask, Joe. Have you taken the time to read Michael's books? You consistently tell him to read random posts from here (eg bookrefuge), yet seemingly have not read Michael's books which actually address that post, among others, along with his decades of research. In many cases, you keep harping on the same things (Condon was just a do-gooder old coot, the baby was healthy, etc) yet Michael's incredible research proves quite the opposite - not using his personal opinion but rather actual, verifiable source material from the era. He actually does a yeoman's job at trying not to interject his own theory in the books, but rather letting the material speak for itself. It's really frustrating that you seem to bring up the same things, time and time again, yet Michael has addressed them in detail.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2022 20:44:51 GMT -5
Agreed and well said. He hadn't been posting in this thread for days and I thought, "Oh good, since this is obviously a sore subject for him, maybe he's not interested and won't interrupt or barge into the conversation with the usual pontificating and beer-can lobbing--"This is a house of cards made up of cards that construct a house of cards," "Never has anyone said so much nothing to so many or few," etc.--like WE'RE the hyper-defensive, naive fools for thinking that Condon just may not have been on the up-and-up, for instance. But nope; heeeeere we go again... I mean, this board is a public forum, of course, but there comes a point where certain contributions get to be the equivalent of walking up to a restaurant table and telling the people they're all morons for discussing a subject that annoys you. It's like, okay, first, no one was speaking to you, and second, if you don't like it, fine, don't like it and go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 16, 2022 22:47:29 GMT -5
Agreed and well said. He hadn't been posting in this thread for days and I thought, "Oh good, since this is obviously a sore subject for him, maybe he's not interested and won't interrupt or barge into the conversation with the usual pontificating and beer-can lobbing--"This is a house of cards made up of cards that construct a house of cards," "Never has anyone said so much nothing to so many or few," etc.--like WE'RE the hyper-defensive, naive fools for thinking that Condon just may not have been on the up-and-up, for instance. But nope; heeeeere we go again... I mean, this board a public forum, of course, but there comes a point where certain contributions get to be the equivalent of walking up to a restaurant table and telling the people they're all morons for discussing a subject that annoys you. It's like, okay, first, no one was speaking to you, and second, if you don't like it, fine, don't like it and go elsewhere. I'm all for hearing many points of view so long as we can all agree on the same set of underlying facts, which are undeniable. It's like someone trying to tell me a bunch of disproven old wives tales, which they believe to be true because they've heard it long enough and made up their mind long ago. It doesn't matter how many times you've heard that swimming after eating is dangerous, a "hair of the dog" helps a hangover or that eating carrots will help your eyesight - none of it is true, and the science + data back that up. It's like the people who see a meme on Facebook and believe it to be the truth just because their friend posted it. In the case of the LKC, you can tell me until you're blue in the face that Condon got into the case because he just wanted to help out and was nothing but a "forgetful old hero," but nothing in the case file backs this up. He was obviously up to no good. Same goes for Lindbergh's behavior throughout. The baby's health. Hauptmann's lack of a fair trial. It was one thing to believe the "historical narrative" for a while, but now with the archives fully available and lots information on Lindbergh that was unavailable to prior generations, researchers should really throw out everything they've learned via the whitewashed history and simply go by what is actually contained in the case files. Michael's books are great because, unlike on the boards, he doesn't try to sway people with his opinion. Dr. Gardner's book (minus the afterward) is great for the same reason. They give you concise, informative information that is all linked back to the original source material and do not try to steer the reader in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2022 23:54:29 GMT -5
Quite right. The information is all there--in the NJSP Archives and distilled in Michael's books. As such, the old narrative doesn't hold up well at all, and you don't have to be an Oliver Stone type, looking for conspiracies everywhere, to see that or lean in that direction here. In any case, there's no harm in discussing it. If people don't care to, that's fine too.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 17, 2022 0:58:47 GMT -5
Quite right. The information is all there--in the NJSP Archives and distilled in Michael's books. As such, the old narrative doesn't hold up well at all, and you don't have to be an Oliver Stone type, looking for conspiracies everywhere, to see that or lean in that direction here. In any case, there's no harm in discussing it. If people don't care to, that's fine too. Indeed. I work in film. If I hired a screenwriter to go through the source material and write a script based solely on what the documentation says, not how history recorded it, it would get laughed out of every studio's office as "too obvious and "very unrealistic."
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 17, 2022 1:27:53 GMT -5
I'm in theater and film myself, as a writer, and if I were to try to write a scene reenacting the official version of the actual removal, I'd run into problems: Wait a minute... How'd he get in without making any noise or waking the baby up, alerting the house, etc.? Condon's version of his involvement gets even worse: So, against all odds, they saw his letter in a smallish local paper--but why would they respond to it? What did they realistically think this guy could do for them? It's not credible. Setting aside CAL Jr.'s condition and the possible motive for a moment, how did the kidnappers know when the family would be there, and where the nursery was? Outside observation is unrealistic; that doesn't tell you anything about the layout of a house or who's where when. Anyway, outside observation would've shown the family wasn't around on Tuesdays. If that information didn't come from the outside, by definition, it came from the inside. Added to which, the crime scene looks staged, and who on the inside had the ability to organize a staged crime scene and provide the necessary intel to the kidnappers? And how often is it that when a child goes missing and turns up dead, a parent is somehow involved? Pretty often.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 17, 2022 6:11:24 GMT -5
I'm in theater and film myself, as a writer, and if I were to try to write a scene reenacting the official version of the actual removal, I'd run into problems: Wait a minute... How'd he get in without making any noise or waking the baby up, alerting the house, etc.? Condon's version of his involvement gets even worse: So, against all odds, they saw his letter in a smallish local paper--but why would they respond to it? What did they realistically think this guy could do for them? It's not credible. Setting aside CAL Jr.'s condition and the possible motive for a moment, how did the kidnappers know when the family would be there, and where the nursery was? Outside observation is unrealistic; that doesn't tell you anything about the layout of a house or who's where when. Anyway, outside observation would've shown the family wasn't around on Tuesdays. If that information didn't come from the outside, by definition, it came from the inside. Added to which, the crime scene looks staged, and who on the inside had the ability to organize a staged crime scene and provide the necessary intel to the kidnappers? And how often is it that when a child goes missing and turns up dead, a parent is somehow involved? Pretty often. Exactly. Let’s understand the parents are involved in these things more often than not (by a large margin). Then let’s add all the coincidences, from knowing the right room, to the fact the family would be home on a Tuesday, to the fact the kidnappers were brave enough to enter at dinner time despite closed shutters, an hour when literally everyone was home and wide awake, and it becomes so obvious. Then add to this CAL missing an evening event (for what seems to be the first and only time) and it becomes a total joke in terms of obviousness. People knew it then, they just couldn’t say it and/or see past the celebrity.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Jan 17, 2022 6:45:03 GMT -5
I just finished reading Loss of Eden and author said Dwight Morrow had a exceptionally visibly over sized head. Maybe it was genetically passed down to Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 17, 2022 8:29:04 GMT -5
Parents are indeed often involved in the kidnapping of their children, but the problem is usually connected to a custody situation between the ex-spouses. They do not kidnap the child, run off with him/her, and then take it to a remote spot to murder it. Statistics are not everything and should not be applied as proof to one individual case.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Jan 17, 2022 12:19:52 GMT -5
Parents are indeed often involved in the kidnapping of their children, but the problem is usually connected to a custody situation between the ex-spouses. They do not kidnap the child, run off with him/her, and then take it to a remote spot to murder it. Statistics are not everything and should not be applied as proof to one individual case. What was this in response to?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 17, 2022 15:10:46 GMT -5
Hi IloveDFW, If you Google Dwight Morrow you will find several photos of him. The full length ones make it easier to judge head size rather than portraits. I would not agree, based on this, with the author of "Loss of Eden" that his head size was unusually large. regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 17, 2022 15:13:37 GMT -5
Parents are indeed often involved in the kidnapping of their children, but the problem is usually connected to a custody situation between the ex-spouses. They do not kidnap the child, run off with him/her, and then take it to a remote spot to murder it. Statistics are not everything and should not be applied as proof to one individual case. This wasn't a kidnapping, it was a murder. When it comes to kids under 5, the parents are involved by an overwhelming percentage. As has been proven here, in the 1930s there was a spate of staged kidnappings, particularly in Europe, to "destroy" sub-par or potentially embarrassing offspring and prevent embarrassment. It was literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked about when consulted on this case.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 17, 2022 15:21:20 GMT -5
No one's saying that the predominance of parental involvement in the death of a child is proof of anything; there are times when that's not the case. But when you add the predominance of that in with all the other "coincidences"...
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 17, 2022 15:42:35 GMT -5
Hi jeanne, As you say, "kidnapping" a child in a custody dispute between the parents seldom results in the death of the child. Usually the child and errant parent are located and the dispute is resolved in the courts. The scenario and motivation are so different from the Lindbergh case where the "kidnap" element was most likely a feint, a misdirection, to hide the real reason behind the child's disappearance. Statistics are not everything and standing alone would certainly not provide proof in this individual case. But they are not alone; there is a veritable wall of circumstantial evidence, in which the statistics provide a small brick, that this was an inside job with indications of who was responsible. regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 17, 2022 16:13:00 GMT -5
My response was directed to trojanuse's comment that parents are often involved in the kidnapping of their children. One needs to be careful in the use of statistics. A book was written some years ago called "Hos to Lie With Statistics." My comment was simply that often parents do kidnap children, even today, often as a result of custody battles between ex-spouses. Statistics may indicate some possibilities, but not all situations can be explained by their use, and certainly are not proof in any one case. In deciding a case empirically, one needs to look at the evidence and then develop the theory based upon the evidence. One should not have a theory and then look for evidence supporting that theory and ignoring everything that does not seem to defend one's position.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 17, 2022 16:40:32 GMT -5
Commenting further: A number of theories have been posted on this board, some of them not consistent with all the evidence concerning this case. In induction, all the evidence needs to be evaluated and considered if the evidence is valid. The difficulty with the Lindbergh kidnapping case is that many witnesses are not trustworthy, for one reason or another. John Condon is a prime example; he may give several versions of one situation, leading to frustration on the part of the investigator. Why he should do this is a question that can be legitimately asked and an answer sought. Before discrediting any evidence, a reason should be given. I am not supporting any particular theory here nor criticizing the right of anyone to propound a theory. I AM suggesting that there should be a good logical process involved in determining any conclusion about the case, and that this process be outlined in the discussion of that position.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 17, 2022 16:45:50 GMT -5
I book mentioned in an earlier post "How to Lie With Statistics" was written by Darrell Huff, a journalist, in 1954.
It was written for the general reader with guidelines but is not technical in nature. It is a good start, however, on the path to logical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 17, 2022 16:54:29 GMT -5
My response was directed to trojanuse's comment that parents are often involved in the kidnapping of their children. One needs to be careful in the use of statistics. A book was written some years ago called "Hos to Lie With Statistics." My comment was simply that often parents do kidnap children, even today, often as a result of custody battles between ex-spouses. Statistics may indicate some possibilities, but not all situations can be explained by their use, and certainly are not proof in any one case. In deciding a case empirically, one needs to look at the evidence and then develop the theory based upon the evidence. One should not have a theory and then look for evidence supporting that theory and ignoring everything that does not seem to defend one's position. I was not commenting on kidnapping statistics, as this clearly wasn't a regular kidnapping. I was speaking to children as the victim of violent crimes. More often than not (by a large margin), a parent is to blame. It should also be re-iterated that kidnapping then was far, far more common and these types of "staged" kidnaps were not uncommon.
|
|