Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2022 16:24:16 GMT -5
There's good reason to believe Hauptmann had some degree of assistance within the kidnapping and extortion. Most evidence indicates the strong likelihood of at least perpetrators at the crime scene. Who took home the lion’s share though? —- It’s a sad but true story, from the Bible it came, Of a Chosen Disciple, though I mention no names He planned with the Council, of High Priests that day Thirty pieces of silver, was the price they would pay. —- If the Crucifixion story is essentially true, then one of Christ’s own disciples betrayed Him to the Sanhedrin. They knew exactly where to go find Him, after midnight on Friday morning. — Multitudes came the morning of the reported snatch to Hopewell and on further to Highfields. But only a local would have known about an abandoned road, that if Oscar Bush actually existed he also would have known about. This minute I’m a half mile from East 360th Road in the middle of 20 acres of timber my family bought in 1876. There is just no way somebody 70 miles from here in Joplin could know the old abandoned road they’d need to know to find this spot. If there was an Oscar Bush, and he followed two sets of prints down an abandoned road, to where a car barked a tree—- It’s an inside job, or they’d not know about that abandoned road. And BRH??? and somebody else were at the Highfields, for the snatch. And it also follows, it wasn’t planned as a murder. The insider might take 30 pieces of silver for a kidnap, but to murder a baby? You’re missing the obvious - that a staunch eugenicist Nazi couldn’t stomach having a disabled son and this was all about removing in the easiest possible way that would create public sympathy. It was not uncommon at the time for wealthy parents, particularly in Europe where eugenics was big, to have children “disappear” to avoid embarrassment. This possibility was quite literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked when consulted on the case. It was assured the NJSP had investigated the state of the child’s health, but they did not. Disabled son? Are you serious? Where do you get this shite from?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2022 18:51:45 GMT -5
Sherlock, I can respect your desire not to continue in what you consider to be a meaningless rehash of previous discussion and an established majority theme. I prefer to see it otherwise, recognizing enormous potential value in further running to ground many of the crass distortions, misrepresentations and omissions that pervade this discussion board. Unfortunately and as I’ve said before, it’s really the only remaining show in town, complete with it’s now apparently-adopted reference bible. And so, warts and all, it suffices. Life is not perfect.. Not just warts. You've got spiders, flying brooms, toads ... the whole Witch's Brew. What you've done is to embrace what you like and make silly excuses for what you do not. Take the recent document you've posted from. Where have you backtracked since you've read it? For example, will you now concede you were mistaken about Condon's phone number in the closet? Not only does V2 hand you multiple sources (which you've previously disregarded) you now have an actual source in your hands written by someone who actually interviewed Lloyd Fisher. But since you don't "like" what he told Hawke, I'm quite sure you'll reject it even though Fisher was there, and Paynter admitted it to him. That's the issue. You're confusing disciplines of which there are many in this case. I've never had any qualms about how much time and effort Michael has put into this case, as well as his sharing of countless pieces of information which would have otherwise been difficult to acquire. Discovery and deduction do not always come together hand-in-hand though. With all due respect, your deduction often includes disregarding information, shrugging it off, or sweeping it under the rug. My goal by finding and introducing new facts is to arm everyone with information to consider - not ignore. It's why I try to be so careful with my footnotes. Some books have "end notes" which are very lacking, others have footnotes but don't list the source, and still others don't cite their sources at all. For me, the citations are as important as everything else. One might see a certain fact, look at my footnote, and see that its something they may not have 100% trust in. Again, that's important. But there's a process. This tactic of completely ignoring things or making up silly excuses doesn't cut it. At least not for me. That's where the debate comes in. Two different perspectives can draw out even more information. But debating with people who haven't even read it or ignored it all is a lost cause. I mean Joe, you've got documentation that has Condon lying and yet you still hold the guy never lied. There can be no debate at that point because you've taken a position that does NOT and CANNOT exist.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 9, 2022 21:08:53 GMT -5
You’re missing the obvious - that a staunch eugenicist Nazi couldn’t stomach having a disabled son and this was all about removing in the easiest possible way that would create public sympathy. It was not uncommon at the time for wealthy parents, particularly in Europe where eugenics was big, to have children “disappear” to avoid embarrassment. This possibility was quite literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked when consulted on the case. It was assured the NJSP had investigated the state of the child’s health, but they did not. Disabled son? Are you serious? Where do you get this shite from? You do realize the child had a number of health problems, could barely stand up, an oversized head, overlapping toes, etc. He wasn't normal.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 9, 2022 21:14:53 GMT -5
JFK was shot and killed while Zapruder filmed it, in front of dozens of witnesses, and the only real mystery left is which shot missed.
Two hit him, the last one in the head.
Unfortunately, wild conspiracy theories have been selling books since 1963 and JFK.
This case is fundamentally different.
For one thing, the authorities were looking for more than one man right up until they made BRH the lone wolf.
Go look at a half mile.
Think about carrying a 38 pound three piece ladder a half mile.
In the dark, on a stormy night.
Its only common sense to drop that ladder off and not carry the thing a foot more than necessary.
And another thing.
A car crazy 17 year old kid went to car dealerships and said it was a 1929 Dodge with a spare tire on back and wooden spokes, with New Jersey plates. He wondered what a roofer was doing at that hour.
That’s not BRH. Close don’t count.
He may have been hauling a ladder BRH made, in a 1929 Dodge.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 9, 2022 21:28:15 GMT -5
JFK was shot and killed while Zapruder filmed it, in front of dozens of witnesses, and the only real mystery left is which shot missed. Two hit him, the last one in the head. Unfortunately, wild conspiracy theories have been selling books since 1963 and JFK. This case is fundamentally different. For one thing, the authorities were looking for more than one man right up until they made BRH the lone wolf. Go look at a half mile. Think about carrying a 38 pound three piece ladder a half mile. In the dark, on a stormy night. Its only common sense to drop that ladder off and not carry the thing a foot more than necessary. And another thing. A car crazy 17 year old kid went to car dealerships and said it was a 1929 Dodge with a spare tire on back and wooden spokes, with New Jersey plates. He wondered what a roofer was doing at that hour. That’s not BRH. Close don’t count. He may have been hauling a ladder BRH made, in a 1929 Dodge. Why wipe the entire nursery down for fingerprints and carefully stage your exit route to misdirect the cops, but leave the most valuable piece of evidence there is? You also have to realize that in these kinds of situations, the parents are generally, by far, the most likely culprits. This is the reason cops tend to eliminate the family first. However, the cops absolutely could not even look in Lindbergh's direction. To this day nobody can provide a valid reason why Lindbergh had a once-in-a-lifetime brain fart and missed out in a big gala, on the very night his son was kidnapped, as the cops wouldn't even investigate the absence? That's positively insane and a complete dereliction of their duty.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 9, 2022 22:21:08 GMT -5
You also have to realize that in these kinds of situations, the parents are generally, by far, the most likely culprits. This is the reason cops tend to eliminate the family first. However, the cops absolutely could not even look in Lindbergh's direction. To this day nobody can provide a valid reason why Lindbergh had a once-in-a-lifetime brain fart and missed out in a big gala, on the very night his son was kidnapped, as the cops wouldn't even investigate the absence? That's positively insane and a complete dereliction of their duty.
——
Most of my friends today, believe in positively bat scat crazy right wing media conspiracy theories that just, are bull shxt.
If all you watched was “conservative media” you’d be convinced Putin is fighting Nazis in Ukraine. Very good people believe in positively wicked, evil, horrible far right ideology.
I can’t buy Lindbergh or his wife risking his entire life, and her baby, because of what at the time was mainstream right wing ideology. They were conservatives, not monsters.
But could Violet Sharpe sneak upstairs and hand the baby out the window to a local man, who’d make her rich?
Yes, that’s reasonable. It’s believable. She did kill herself, after all.
And the local man with a 1929 Dodge couldn’t very well go to the police after the baby died, could he?
Imagine that BRH knew a roofer who worked on the new house.
They plot and scheme.
BRH builds the ladder, writes the undated note.
The roofer drops the baby.
He’s rather screwed, ain’t he?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 9, 2022 23:24:56 GMT -5
You also have to realize that in these kinds of situations, the parents are generally, by far, the most likely culprits. This is the reason cops tend to eliminate the family first. However, the cops absolutely could not even look in Lindbergh's direction. To this day nobody can provide a valid reason why Lindbergh had a once-in-a-lifetime brain fart and missed out in a big gala, on the very night his son was kidnapped, as the cops wouldn't even investigate the absence? That's positively insane and a complete dereliction of their duty. —— Most of my friends today, believe in positively bat scat crazy right wing media conspiracy theories that just, are bull shxt. If all you watched was “conservative media” you’d be convinced Putin is fighting Nazis in Ukraine. Very good people believe in positively wicked, evil, horrible far right ideology. I can’t buy Lindbergh or his wife risking his entire life, and her baby, because of what at the time was mainstream right wing ideology. They were conservatives, not monsters. But could Violet Sharpe sneak upstairs and hand the baby out the window to a local man, who’d make her rich? Yes, that’s reasonable. It’s believable. She did kill herself, after all. And the local man with a 1929 Dodge couldn’t very well go to the police after the baby died, could he? Imagine that BRH knew a roofer who worked on the new house. They plot and scheme. BRH builds the ladder, writes the undated note. The roofer drops the baby. He’s rather screwed, ain’t he? Please read The Case That Never Dies, then read Michael's three books. Most of what you understand the case to be is not accurate. You also continue to ignore giant flashing warning signs around Lindbergh. Sharpe wasn't even in Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 10, 2022 4:27:02 GMT -5
Some thoughts on the Lupica sighting: Ben Lupica a student returning home checks his mail box and sees a Dodge parked some distance away. The driver starts his car and moves to the opposite side of the road then stops. This can only be a response to Lupica's presence. Maybe he fears that Ben may halt and offer assistance if needed to this stationary car on a lonely road. At least he's shown the car still functions. But isn't it likely by this manoeuvre the driver has increased the distance between them when Ben eventually passes him? Had he not moved his car they would be just a few feet apart as Ben passed by. Does this not suggest an attempt to avoid recognition? Let us assume it does. Now who is more likely to reduce the chance of his face/appearance registering in Ben's brain?: (1) a complete stranger to the neighbourhood, a man with a nondescript face from the Bronx 70 miles away who is unlikely to ever appear in this area again. or (2) a man whose face and appearance are known to every American of newspaper-reading age. An actual close neighbour of the Lupicas even though at that point they hadn't yet seen him, but did he know that? It was a risk best avoided. There was absolutely no reason for Lupica to take particular note of the car or its driver in those hours before the kidnap but being an intelligent observant young man and something of a car buff he did notice the Dodge's New Jersey plates. People living in rural areas have a well-developed awareness for strangers on their patch, much more so than in the city. He noticed stacked ladders in the back of the Dodge. The significance of this sighting being recognised, Ben was taken for interview with the self-appointed chief investigator of the kidnap: Charles Lindbergh. But instead of being grilled thoroughly about his experience Ben was disappointed and puzzled by Lindbergh's seeming lack of interest. It got worse: Lindbergh muttered that his wife need him, left the room and thereby terminated this crucial interview prematurely. Ben was taken to Dodge dealers to attempt a closer ID of the car he saw but this exercise was terminated before completion leaving Ben wondering why. He's not the only one....
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 10, 2022 7:00:59 GMT -5
More: Had anyone other than the Lindberghs (e.g the Smiths) been the victim of the kidnap the parents would have been to first to have been investigated and if possible eliminated as suspects. This would involve a quick re-enactment of the Lupica sighting at the same time of day with Lupica's participation and using Mr Smith's car bearing the kidnap ladder to jog Ben's memory. Mr Smith's car would also be examined microscopically for any sign of wood splinters on that back seat. The site would also be checked for any tell-tale tyre tracks left behind. None of this happened due to the aura surrounding Lindbergh.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 10, 2022 8:42:01 GMT -5
Disabled son? Are you serious? Where do you get this shite from? You do realize the child had a number of health problems, could barely stand up, an oversized head, overlapping toes, etc. He wasn't normal. Your argument is what's subnormal here, and once again you demonstrate how far from qualified your are to accurately discern between truth, falsehood and what may lie between. Your flawed and unreasonably-harsh diagnosis only leads yourself and others so inclined, down paths of further deception. Time after time, you blatantly ignore dozens of contemporaneous accounts which clearly demonstrate Charlie was a happy, responsive, bright and loved 20-month old, at the time of his disappearance. I won’t waste any more time debating Charlie’s actual health condition with you. I would encourage you though, to continue trying to break free of the constraining dogma and tunnel vision you’ve allowed yourself to be absorbed in on this subject, among others. I’d suggest you having another read through Bookrefuge’s straightforward, well-balanced and objective treatise that draws upon his real experience of 37 years in the medical field. I know this will probably taste a bit like acid, so you might want to have a good slug of buttermilk before reading it. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/816/case-eugenics-motivated-murder
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 10, 2022 9:44:40 GMT -5
You do realize the child had a number of health problems, could barely stand up, an oversized head, overlapping toes, etc. He wasn't normal. Your argument is what's subnormal here, and once again you demonstrate how far from qualified your are to accurately discern between truth, falsehood and what may lie between. Your flawed and unreasonably-harsh diagnosis only leads yourself and others so inclined, down paths of further deception. Time after time, you blatantly ignore dozens of contemporaneous accounts which clearly demonstrate Charlie was a happy, responsive, bright and loved 20-month old, at the time of his disappearance. I won’t waste any more time debating Charlie’s actual health condition with you. I would encourage you though, to continue trying to break free of the constraining dogma and tunnel vision you’ve allowed yourself to be absorbed in on this subject, among others. I’d suggest you having another read through Bookrefuge’s straightforward, well-balanced and objective treatise that draws upon his real experience of 37 years in the medical field. I know this will probably taste a bit like acid, so you might want to have a good slug of buttermilk before reading it. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/816/case-eugenics-motivated-murderFrankly your response is immature and insulting. You continue to willfully ignore the evidence the child had health issues, in favor of newspaper puff pieces, from the same newspapers that told us Roscoe Arbuckle was guilty and that Liberace just hadn’t met the right girl. The Doctor’s report and the cursory autopsy report paint a much clearer picture that all was not well.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 10, 2022 10:52:05 GMT -5
Here’s why this case never is quite shut:
—
CPL. MADE REPORTS INTERVIEWING MR. HAVER OF QUAKERTOWN WHO REPORTS
THAT BETWEEN 5-30 AND 6-00 P.M. MARCH 1ST,, THREE CARS WENT BY HIS PLACE WHICH IS SOMETHING VERY UNUSUAL THE LAST CAR OF THE THREE WAS A DARK DODGE SEDAN CARRYING ON THE OUTSIDE ON THE RIGHT A LADDER WITH RUNGS RATHER FAR APART.
Have also was said to have seen the Dodge come back by about 10:30 to 11:00 with two men in front and two other people (women?) in back going the other way.
—
Let’s suppose it’s a convoy.
This is double hearsay. The writer, or Cpl. Made, adds a detail that’s wrong, Haver saw a ladder stacked inside the Dodge.
Ben Lupica sees the Dodge with a ladder inside, over the front seats, with burlap bags.
The other two cars had gone on ahead.
One detail stands out. Haver had to live on a road where there’s very little traffic.
Today all those roads are paved, but only main highways were in 1932.
The reports of two sets of footprints leading a half mile to an abandoned road, if true (unaccredited hearsay) make more than just BRH required for the snatch.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 10, 2022 10:56:05 GMT -5
Your argument is what's subnormal here, and once again you demonstrate how far from qualified your are to accurately discern between truth, falsehood and what may lie between. Your flawed and unreasonably-harsh diagnosis only leads yourself and others so inclined, down paths of further deception. Time after time, you blatantly ignore dozens of contemporaneous accounts which clearly demonstrate Charlie was a happy, responsive, bright and loved 20-month old, at the time of his disappearance. I won’t waste any more time debating Charlie’s actual health condition with you. I would encourage you though, to continue trying to break free of the constraining dogma and tunnel vision you’ve allowed yourself to be absorbed in on this subject, among others. I’d suggest you having another read through Bookrefuge’s straightforward, well-balanced and objective treatise that draws upon his real experience of 37 years in the medical field. I know this will probably taste a bit like acid, so you might want to have a good slug of buttermilk before reading it. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/816/case-eugenics-motivated-murderFrankly your response is immature and insulting. You continue to willfully ignore the evidence the child had health issues, in favor of newspaper puff pieces, from the same newspapers that told us Roscoe Arbuckle was guilty and that Liberace just hadn’t met the right girl. The Doctor’s report and the cursory autopsy report paint a much clearer picture that all was not well. I haven't quoted one newspaper article to date when attempting to convey a truthful picture of Charlie's health picture. You're just full of this kind of misinformation. Next, you'll be segueing into your catacombs and ossuaries of Paris.. All accounts relating to Charlie that I've referenced, come from family, friends, acquaintances and the child's own doctor, people who would have had no reason to lie ahead of the critical date. There is nothing within the autopsy report which conclusively proves that "all was not well" (beyond perhaps Charlie's known condition of a "moderate rickety condition," for which he was being treated, and his crossed toes) whatever that loaded, nebulous statement means in your personal universe. If you find my response immature and insulting, and perhaps really don't feel in your heart that this child was loved as he was, based on balanced and objective evidence, perhaps you'd do well to have a much closer look at what inspires you to so easily find such fault and imperfection within humanity.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 10, 2022 11:26:00 GMT -5
All accounts relating to Charlie that I've referenced, come from family, friends, acquaintances and the child's own doctor, people who would have had no reason to lie ahead of the critical date. There is nothing within the autopsy report which conclusively proves that "all was not well" (beyond perhaps Charlie's known condition of a "moderate rickety condition," for which he was being treated, and his crossed toes) whatever that loaded, nebulous statement means in your personal universe.
—-
Suspicion became complete proof of guilt when Scott Peterson went fishing in his newly purchased boat on Christmas Eve when Laci Peterson’s body washed ashore. Then her unborn child Conner washed ashore with something around it’s neck.
—-
Initial Suspicion The twine was wrapped around Conner and so was collected at the same time. The Prosecution dismissed it as debris picked up while Conner was washing ashore, but the Defense argued that it was placed on Conner by human hands. The testimony The twine was first examined by Dr. Peterson during Conner's autopsy. "As received, one and one half loops of plastic tape are around the neck of the fetus with extension to a knot near the left shoulder. The skin is uninjured beneath this loop, and the slack between the loops and the neck is roughly two centimeters . . . a little under an inch [0.78740 inch]." The twine was wrapped over Conner's right shoulder, under his left arm, and around his neck and tied in a bow on his left side. The twine did not cause any damage to the skin on the neck nor to the neck organs, so it was not a cause of death. Dr. Peterson suspected he might damage Conner's head if he attempted to remove the twine over the head and so he cut it on the right side, removed it, and handed it to Officer Soler. Dr. Peterson was asked if the twine could have been placed on Conner post-mortem, but he said that was outside his expertise. [Trial Testimony, Dr. Brian Peterson] The question of whether the twine could have been used to tie a bag in place came up during the Dr. Peterson's testimony in the Preliminary hearing: Q. ... The baby had no animal feeding on it whatsoever, and the baby's found with a plastic tape that's knotted around the neck with enough room so that a bag could have been underneath that tape; isn't that correct? A. That's a little -- Q. Let me break it down for you. There was enough room between the tape, as it was knotted, that was underneath the -- around the neck and underneath the arm to have put a bag underneath that; isn't that correct? A. I think that would be possible.
—-
We sometimes read about pregnant women being killed for their baby.
Let’s suppose Laci was kidnapped, and later her baby didn’t survive a C section.
The obvious place by then to dump the bodies was San Fransisco Bay, because Scott Peterson’s fishing trip was common knowledge.
—-
I agree that Lindy’s shockingly wicked racial beliefs would today make him Suspect Number One.
Scott Peterson only had one mistress.
How many did Lindy have?
Bad character and prior bad acts convict innocent people.
Besides, untold millions of Americans on the right shared Lindy’s prejudices.
Nazi gas chambers were a decade in the future in 1932.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 10, 2022 14:30:31 GMT -5
All accounts relating to Charlie that I've referenced, come from family, friends, acquaintances and the child's own doctor, people who would have had no reason to lie ahead of the critical date. There is nothing within the autopsy report which conclusively proves that "all was not well" (beyond perhaps Charlie's known condition of a "moderate rickety condition," for which he was being treated, and his crossed toes) whatever that loaded, nebulous statement means in your personal universe. —- Suspicion became complete proof of guilt when Scott Peterson went fishing in his newly purchased boat on Christmas Eve when Laci Peterson’s body washed ashore. Then her unborn child Conner washed ashore with something around it’s neck. —- Initial Suspicion The twine was wrapped around Conner and so was collected at the same time. The Prosecution dismissed it as debris picked up while Conner was washing ashore, but the Defense argued that it was placed on Conner by human hands. The testimony The twine was first examined by Dr. Peterson during Conner's autopsy. "As received, one and one half loops of plastic tape are around the neck of the fetus with extension to a knot near the left shoulder. The skin is uninjured beneath this loop, and the slack between the loops and the neck is roughly two centimeters . . . a little under an inch [0.78740 inch]." The twine was wrapped over Conner's right shoulder, under his left arm, and around his neck and tied in a bow on his left side. The twine did not cause any damage to the skin on the neck nor to the neck organs, so it was not a cause of death. Dr. Peterson suspected he might damage Conner's head if he attempted to remove the twine over the head and so he cut it on the right side, removed it, and handed it to Officer Soler. Dr. Peterson was asked if the twine could have been placed on Conner post-mortem, but he said that was outside his expertise. [Trial Testimony, Dr. Brian Peterson] The question of whether the twine could have been used to tie a bag in place came up during the Dr. Peterson's testimony in the Preliminary hearing: Q. ... The baby had no animal feeding on it whatsoever, and the baby's found with a plastic tape that's knotted around the neck with enough room so that a bag could have been underneath that tape; isn't that correct? A. That's a little -- Q. Let me break it down for you. There was enough room between the tape, as it was knotted, that was underneath the -- around the neck and underneath the arm to have put a bag underneath that; isn't that correct? A. I think that would be possible. —- We sometimes read about pregnant women being killed for their baby. Let’s suppose Laci was kidnapped, and later her baby didn’t survive a C section. The obvious place by then to dump the bodies was San Fransisco Bay, because Scott Peterson’s fishing trip was common knowledge. —- I agree that Lindy’s shockingly wicked racial beliefs would today make him Suspect Number One. Scott Peterson only had one mistress. How many did Lindy have? Bad character and prior bad acts convict innocent people. Besides, untold millions of Americans on the right shared Lindy’s prejudices. Nazi gas chambers were a decade in the future in 1932. Or, you know, the fact he couldn’t stand up straight, the oversized head, the unclosed fontanelle, dentition issues, the fact the skull crumbled upon inspection, etc. The evidence points to some kind of hydrocephalic condition. Do you really think Nazi Lindbergh would want any child that wasn’t perfect? Have you read Michael’s report of how Lindbergh treated the corpse at autopsy? Or what he was actually doing while “searching” for his son? The man clearly had disdain for the child, which he referred to as “it.” Would love for Michael to elaborate on this, as he has by far the best knowledge on the medical stuff.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 10, 2022 14:56:43 GMT -5
Frankly your response is immature and insulting. You continue to willfully ignore the evidence the child had health issues, in favor of newspaper puff pieces, from the same newspapers that told us Roscoe Arbuckle was guilty and that Liberace just hadn’t met the right girl. The Doctor’s report and the cursory autopsy report paint a much clearer picture that all was not well. I haven't quoted one newspaper article to date when attempting to convey a truthful picture of Charlie's health picture. You're just full of this kind of misinformation. Next, you'll be segueing into your catacombs and ossuaries of Paris.. All accounts relating to Charlie that I've referenced, come from family, friends, acquaintances and the child's own doctor, people who would have had no reason to lie ahead of the critical date. There is nothing within the autopsy report which conclusively proves that "all was not well" (beyond perhaps Charlie's known condition of a "moderate rickety condition," for which he was being treated, and his crossed toes) whatever that loaded, nebulous statement means in your personal universe. If you find my response immature and insulting, and perhaps really don't feel in your heart that this child was loved as he was, based on balanced and objective evidence, perhaps you'd do well to have a much closer look at what inspires you to so easily find such fault and imperfection within humanity. Must I link to everytime you have cited the Will Rogers story as Charlie was in great health? Do most fathers refer to their son as “it”? Spend the entire time playing cards and pranks instead of actually searching for their son? Upon seeing their son’s head body not show a glimmer of emotion, rather abject disdain and ask for a “meat slicer”? His behavior was repugnant, but just like Condon, gut trumps fact with you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2022 15:22:42 GMT -5
Would love for Michael to elaborate on this, as he has by far the best knowledge on the medical stuff. Since Joe claims to have researched Lindbergh, its hard to understand how he cannot remember the man believed only white people should be aviators. Or that he was an Eugenicist. With that in mind, what did he think about "defectives?" I can't ask Joe because he ignores that part of the man's history. I written so much over the course of four volumes in hopes Joe and others would read and consider what I've included. One of Joe's "go to" sources in Bookrefuge's post, something I addressed in V3. If someone hasn't read it, they'd never know that considering Joe has never addressed my points that counter and neutralize its contents. Instead, he merely ignores what I've written and links up that post as if I cannot and/or never addressed it. Also in V3 (page 94), I included Wayne's research on the corpse's toes. I even included a possible counter argument for the sake of being even handed - but from Joe comes nothing. It's like he never even read it. For me, just those toes were all it would have taken for CAL to have serious regrets over his first born and namesake. A name, we find out, took an odd amount of time to be applied well after the child's birth. Again, all addressed in my books. No rebuttal from Joe. Just the usual display as in his response to your position. This idea that you believe this child had health issues after considering all of the information that's available isn't crazy. In fact, if it involved a different child I believe Joe would be in agreement too.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 11, 2022 8:09:49 GMT -5
Sherlock, I can respect your desire not to continue in what you consider to be a meaningless rehash of previous discussion and an established majority theme. I prefer to see it otherwise, recognizing enormous potential value in further running to ground many of the crass distortions, misrepresentations and omissions that pervade this discussion board. Unfortunately and as I’ve said before, it’s really the only remaining show in town, complete with it’s now apparently-adopted reference bible. And so, warts and all, it suffices. Life is not perfect.. Not just warts. You've got spiders, flying brooms, toads ... the whole Witch's Brew. What you've done is to embrace what you like and make silly excuses for what you do not. Take the recent document you've posted from. Where have you backtracked since you've read it? For example, will you now concede you were mistaken about Condon's phone number in the closet? Not only does V2 hand you multiple sources (which you've previously disregarded) you now have an actual source in your hands written by someone who actually interviewed Lloyd Fisher. But since you don't "like" what he told Hawke, I'm quite sure you'll reject it even though Fisher was there, and Paynter admitted it to him. That's the issue. You're confusing disciplines of which there are many in this case. I've never had any qualms about how much time and effort Michael has put into this case, as well as his sharing of countless pieces of information which would have otherwise been difficult to acquire. Discovery and deduction do not always come together hand-in-hand though. With all due respect, your deduction often includes disregarding information, shrugging it off, or sweeping it under the rug. My goal by finding and introducing new facts is to arm everyone with information to consider - not ignore. It's why I try to be so careful with my footnotes. Some books have "end notes" which are very lacking, others have footnotes but don't list the source, and still others don't cite their sources at all. For me, the citations are as important as everything else. One might see a certain fact, look at my footnote, and see that its something they may not have 100% trust in. Again, that's important. But there's a process. This tactic of completely ignoring things or making up silly excuses doesn't cut it. At least not for me. That's where the debate comes in. Two different perspectives can draw out even more information. But debating with people who haven't even read it or ignored it all is a lost cause. I mean Joe, you've got documentation that has Condon lying and yet you still hold the guy never lied. There can be no debate at that point because you've taken a position that does NOT and CANNOT exist. Kudos as they apply to the level and quality of research you’ve dedicated yourself to within this case. Warts as they apply to flawed conclusions, but I like your term "the whole witches’ brew," as it really is more inclusive. To your point, there is no mistaking that Condon’s phone number was written by Hauptmann. It’s his numerical handwriting and provides every indication of the same pencil having been used for both. Hauptmann initially wrote Condon’s address on the closet trim in recognition of the way he first communicated with him, by letter. When he found himself in a position to call him, the phone number followed. It’s written under the address and was likely a bit more laboured due to the associated less-than-ideal ergonomics. As he admitted to Samuel Foley, he was predisposed to writing down things of personal interest in places you or I might not. Backtrack what? Here’s your witches’ brew bubbling and swirling. You essentially quote one source in V2 that Paynter was the author of the phone number, and that not surprisingly is Paynter himself. He allegedly told other reporters, who no doubt told many more reporters he did the writing and then he finally told Lloyd Fisher. This is multiple sources? Sorry, I'm not getting cozy feelings about that. You’re using what I call the “Bible Principle,” where one Book copies from another and so on down the line, the result being that more and more credence is then given to whatever passage gets copied. And quite amazingly, this shocking "revelation" didn’t really come to light until well after Hauptmann’s execution. Mystery man Edward Oehler’s analysis is a joke, reminiscent of the same flawed analysis demonstrated by John Trendley, as he struggled to provide credibility for his outrageous display that attempted to differentiate between 'six of one and a half dozen of the other' at Flemington. Consider how Henry Bruckman so serendipitously “discovered” the writing on the closet trim, and you have what I consider to be the best lead-in towards something worthy of discussion here. And please tell me, when did I ever say that Condon never lied? He lied, obfuscated and led astray many times during the course of the investigation, and he simply forgot much of what a younger man might well have remembered. But he intentionally did none of that within the confines of the inner circle comprised of Lindbergh, Breckinridge and others attempting to negotiate the child's return. And at no time, did he ever deviate from his sincerely-expressed intentions to serve the Lindberghs, return their child to them, and failing that, pledge to do all he could towards justice being served and that those responsible would pay the price. In four DC volumes, you've offered nothing to dispel that.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 11, 2022 10:01:38 GMT -5
Or, you know, the fact he couldn’t stand up straight, the oversized head, the unclosed fontanelle, dentition issues, the fact the skull crumbled upon inspection, etc. The evidence points to some kind of hydrocephalic condition. Do you really think Nazi Lindbergh would want any child that wasn’t perfect? Have you read Michael’s report of how Lindbergh treated the corpse at autopsy? Or what he was actually doing while “searching” for his son? The man clearly had disdain for the child, which he referred to as “it.” Would love for Michael to elaborate on this, as he has by far the best knowledge on the medical stuff. The only reference you have to suggest Charlie wouldn’t stand up straight is within Dr. Van Ingen’s medical appointment notes. Every other account of Charlie’s degree of mobility from those who saw him within his normal range of daily activities, clearly indicates he was in all likelihood just not being cooperative for the bad old doctor. And how many times have you heard a small child crying and resisting at the doctor’s office? Are you willing to categorize each and every one of them, as you have above? Perhaps though, you can tell me what other examples you have to indicate Charlie was Lindbergh’s “disabled son?” The one and only example you have provided so far, is of course, extremely weak and wide open to interpretation and argument. Charlie’s head being relatively large for his age, his unclosed fontanelle and unfused skull sutures are directly attributable to his “moderate rickety condition,” for which the entire world came to understand he was being treated for, and the fact he was still only 20-months old. Calling Lindbergh a “Nazi,” implying Charlie had a hydrocephalic condition and riding Lindbergh’s pet name for his son, (Anne called him her “fat lamb”.. does that make her a Fascist?) is what’s immature here, at the same time as it demonstrates a clear lack of intelligent discernment and reflection.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 11, 2022 13:58:31 GMT -5
All accounts relating to Charlie that I've referenced, come from family, friends, acquaintances and the child's own doctor, people who would have had no reason to lie ahead of the critical date. There is nothing within the autopsy report which conclusively proves that "all was not well" (beyond perhaps Charlie's known condition of a "moderate rickety condition," for which he was being treated, and his crossed toes) whatever that loaded, nebulous statement means in your personal universe. —- Suspicion became complete proof of guilt when Scott Peterson went fishing in his newly purchased boat on Christmas Eve when Laci Peterson’s body washed ashore. Then her unborn child Conner washed ashore with something around it’s neck. —- Initial Suspicion The twine was wrapped around Conner and so was collected at the same time. The Prosecution dismissed it as debris picked up while Conner was washing ashore, but the Defense argued that it was placed on Conner by human hands. The testimony The twine was first examined by Dr. Peterson during Conner's autopsy. "As received, one and one half loops of plastic tape are around the neck of the fetus with extension to a knot near the left shoulder. The skin is uninjured beneath this loop, and the slack between the loops and the neck is roughly two centimeters . . . a little under an inch [0.78740 inch]." The twine was wrapped over Conner's right shoulder, under his left arm, and around his neck and tied in a bow on his left side. The twine did not cause any damage to the skin on the neck nor to the neck organs, so it was not a cause of death. Dr. Peterson suspected he might damage Conner's head if he attempted to remove the twine over the head and so he cut it on the right side, removed it, and handed it to Officer Soler. Dr. Peterson was asked if the twine could have been placed on Conner post-mortem, but he said that was outside his expertise. [Trial Testimony, Dr. Brian Peterson] The question of whether the twine could have been used to tie a bag in place came up during the Dr. Peterson's testimony in the Preliminary hearing: Q. ... The baby had no animal feeding on it whatsoever, and the baby's found with a plastic tape that's knotted around the neck with enough room so that a bag could have been underneath that tape; isn't that correct? A. That's a little -- Q. Let me break it down for you. There was enough room between the tape, as it was knotted, that was underneath the -- around the neck and underneath the arm to have put a bag underneath that; isn't that correct? A. I think that would be possible. —- We sometimes read about pregnant women being killed for their baby. Let’s suppose Laci was kidnapped, and later her baby didn’t survive a C section. The obvious place by then to dump the bodies was San Fransisco Bay, because Scott Peterson’s fishing trip was common knowledge. —- I agree that Lindy’s shockingly wicked racial beliefs would today make him Suspect Number One. Scott Peterson only had one mistress. How many did Lindy have? Bad character and prior bad acts convict innocent people. Besides, untold millions of Americans on the right shared Lindy’s prejudices. Nazi gas chambers were a decade in the future in 1932. Or, you know, the fact he couldn’t stand up straight, the oversized head, the unclosed fontanelle, dentition issues, the fact the skull crumbled upon inspection, etc. The evidence points to some kind of hydrocephalic condition. Do you really think Nazi Lindbergh would want any child that wasn’t perfect? Have you read Michael’s report of how Lindbergh treated the corpse at autopsy? Or what he was actually doing while “searching” for his son? The man clearly had disdain for the child, which he referred to as “it.” Would love for Michael to elaborate on this, as he has by far the best knowledge on the medical stuff. There is not one photo or home movie where Charlie smiles. Not one. And babies smile and laugh constantly...even at nothing. Would rickets cause pain? It has always bothered me that he never smiled.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Oct 11, 2022 14:22:10 GMT -5
Here's one photo of the baby smiling.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 11, 2022 14:45:24 GMT -5
Joe, Your response to the points raised by trojanusc is instructive.
“The child wouldn’t stand up” Source: Dr Van Inghen’s appointment notes Your point: “only one source” for this implying unreliability. Verdict: rejected.
“A moderate rickety condition” Source: Dr Van Inghen’s appointment notes Your point: Not a serious condition which anyway was being treated with Viosterol and UV radiation. Verdict: accepted. These two diagnoses/comments from the same source are accepted or rejected on the basis of whether they support or refute your firmly-held opinion that the child did have some health issues but they were ‘nothing to write home about.’
Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever claimed on this forum that the child was a basket case i.e. so severely disabled that it would be obvious to the untrained eye. As you say, Lindbergh’s staff, friends, report a normal boisterous kid playing with his bricks, identifying animals etc. One doesn’t need to invoke a conspiracy of silence to cover up severe abnormality. After all, the child attended an external school for a short time with exposure to parents/teachers etc. But his perceived failings were enough for his father who had a very low bar to face before taking action. We will never know whether Charlie couldn’t or wouldn’t stand up for Dr Van Inghen. What does matter is your knee jerk rejection of this remark which hints at problems (toes/balance?) beyond “a moderate rickety” condition so it is dismissed and swept under the rug.
“A moderate rickety condition” This is a highly qualified diagnosis. Its only “moderate.” Its not really rickets but “rickety” So this, also from the same single source, is acceptable to those who think there wasn’t much wrong with the child.
Your posting is a good example of evidence being accepted or rejected based, not on its reliability or it’s source, but whether it fits with a pre-existing theory of the case. If it doesn’t it is rejected, ridiculed, and rubbished.
Regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 11, 2022 17:12:24 GMT -5
Assume the snatch was a contract hit by CAL on little deformed Charlie.
Wouldn’t the abductors want money up front?
But, there’s a Depression on, and they agree to do exactly,,,
What we debate on this forum how they did it.
Even if Lindy contracted the job, it’s a mystery who dunnit.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 11, 2022 19:01:26 GMT -5
Joe, Your response to the points raised by trojanusc is instructive. “The child wouldn’t stand up” Source: Dr Van Inghen’s appointment notes Your point: “only one source” for this implying unreliability. Verdict: rejected. “A moderate rickety condition” Source: Dr Van Inghen’s appointment notes Your point: Not a serious condition which anyway was being treated with Viosterol and UV radiation. Verdict: accepted. These two diagnoses/comments from the same source are accepted or rejected on the basis of whether they support or refute your firmly-held opinion that the child did have some health issues but they were ‘nothing to write home about.’ Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever claimed on this forum that the child was a basket case i.e. so severely disabled that it would be obvious to the untrained eye. As you say, Lindbergh’s staff, friends, report a normal boisterous kid playing with his bricks, identifying animals etc. One doesn’t need to invoke a conspiracy of silence to cover up severe abnormality. After all, the child attended an external school for a short time with exposure to parents/teachers etc. But his perceived failings were enough for his father who had a very low bar to face before taking action. We will never know whether Charlie couldn’t or wouldn’t stand up for Dr Van Inghen. What does matter is your knee jerk rejection of this remark which hints at problems (toes/balance?) beyond “a moderate rickety” condition so it is dismissed and swept under the rug. “A moderate rickety condition” This is a highly qualified diagnosis. Its only “moderate.” Its not really rickets but “rickety” So this, also from the same single source, is acceptable to those who think there wasn’t much wrong with the child. Your posting is a good example of evidence being accepted or rejected based, not on its reliability or it’s source, but whether it fits with a pre-existing theory of the case. If it doesn’t it is rejected, ridiculed, and rubbished. Regards, Sherlock Great analysis. I'd also add the the lack of photos from the recent months says something pretty clearly - that whatever malady the child was facing was not improving, was becoming more and more visible and likely what required the action taken here. There is no other reason for parents to provide severely out of date photos to the press. If the child had certain hydrocephalic conditions (which is possible given how brittle the skull was), he was about the age where they may start appearing more and more visible.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 11, 2022 19:03:01 GMT -5
Assume the snatch was a contract hit by CAL on little deformed Charlie. Wouldn’t the abductors want money up front? But, there’s a Depression on, and they agree to do exactly,,, What we debate on this forum how they did it. Even if Lindy contracted the job, it’s a mystery who dunnit. They probably did get paid up front. Lindbergh's finances were never reviewed, so we'd have no idea. The amount mentioned in the ransom note $50K was likely never meant to be collected. It was just a random number thrown out there to make the not appear legit. Unfortunately, once the "contractors" had the body, they basically double crossed Lindbergh and decided to extort him for the ransom. This is the only reason he'd pay this amount without verifying the child was alive first. Once paid the body was returned and further extortion attempts were ended.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 11, 2022 19:46:31 GMT -5
Assume the snatch was a contract hit by CAL on little deformed Charlie. Wouldn’t the abductors want money up front? But, there’s a Depression on, and they agree to do exactly,,, What we debate on this forum how they did it. Even if Lindy contracted the job, it’s a mystery who dunnit. They probably did get paid up front. Lindbergh's finances were never reviewed, so we'd have no idea. The amount mentioned in the ransom note $50K was likely never meant to be collected. It was just a random number thrown out there to make the not appear legit. Unfortunately, once the "contractors" had the body, they basically double crossed Lindbergh and decided to extort him for the ransom. This is the only reason he'd pay this amount without verifying the child was alive first. Once paid the body was returned and further extortion attempts were ended. If CAL wanted rid of little rickety Charley, then two methods of doing that come to mind. Have him murdered. Or given away to somebody that would accept him as he was. If he’d contracted a murder, then he’d demand proof the child was alive (like Jafsie wanted) before payment. If given away, then he’d have to fall back on the ultra right wing notion to never negotiate with evil doers. Or, try this theory. Lindy loved his wife, and his baby. He was the victim of a crime. He immediately announced he’d pay and no questions asked, for the return of his child. That makes more sense, to me.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 11, 2022 23:31:05 GMT -5
They probably did get paid up front. Lindbergh's finances were never reviewed, so we'd have no idea. The amount mentioned in the ransom note $50K was likely never meant to be collected. It was just a random number thrown out there to make the not appear legit. Unfortunately, once the "contractors" had the body, they basically double crossed Lindbergh and decided to extort him for the ransom. This is the only reason he'd pay this amount without verifying the child was alive first. Once paid the body was returned and further extortion attempts were ended. If CAL wanted rid of little rickety Charley, then two methods of doing that come to mind. Have him murdered. Or given away to somebody that would accept him as he was. If he’d contracted a murder, then he’d demand proof the child was alive (like Jafsie wanted) before payment. If given away, then he’d have to fall back on the ultra right wing notion to never negotiate with evil doers. Or, try this theory. Lindy loved his wife, and his baby. He was the victim of a crime. He immediately announced he’d pay and no questions asked, for the return of his child. That makes more sense, to me. You need to read Michael 's books The Dark Corners, which cite actual source material and police reports. If he "loved" his child why did he always call it "it"? Why did he hide "it" and tell the family he'd been kidnapped multiple times? Why did he enter the morgue without a hint of emotion, coldly ask for a "meat slicer" and inspect the body's teeth's as if he was inspecting a vile animal worthy of derision? He told the world he was off to search for his son and the "Boad Nelly" but the reports from those involve show something quite different. He spent the entire time playing cards, practical jokes and just having a grand ole time and never once "looking" for his son. You are relying on the historical narrative of a grieving father when the actual witness statements at the time show something very, very different. Everyone at the time knew something was off but nobody wanted to say much.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 12, 2022 4:38:40 GMT -5
You are relying on the historical narrative of a grieving father when the actual witness statements at the time show something very, very different. Everyone at the time knew something was off but nobody wanted to say much. —-
A 34 year old woman in Dallas Texas was a couple of feet away from being killed on November 22, 1963, when her philandering playboy husband was shot twice and killed. Within just a few years she married a Greek shipping magnate regarded as the richest man in the world. Conveniently for her, the police pinned all the blame on a poor man named Lee Harvey Oswald,,,,who’s sold more conspiracy books than any other murder in recorded history.
And lots of people said lots of bad things about FDR after Pearl Harbor. My own grandmother was utterly convinced that damned old crippled whore master Roosevelt was entirely responsible for the attack.
Ann Morrow Lindbergh loved little Charlie, and Lindy did everything any man with access to money could do to get her baby back safe and alive.
Unless you think AML was in on it?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 12, 2022 8:39:59 GMT -5
Yes, and there are those who think Trump won the election by a landslide but this, JFK, and FDR are irrelevant to this case. There's no doubt Anne loved her son and in his peculiar way CAL did too. But if he wanted the child returned alive why did he take over the investigation from Day 1 instead of leaving it to the professionals? Why not insist on the Bureau of Investigation being involved? Why object strongly to the recording of serial numbers of the ransom notes? Why give Ben Lupica short shrift? As a man with access to money and influence he did everything to steer the enquiry into channels determined by-, and away from himself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 12, 2022 11:23:07 GMT -5
Yes, and there are those who think Trump won the election by a landslide but this, JFK, and FDR are irrelevant to this case. There's no doubt Anne loved her son and in his peculiar way CAL did too. But if he wanted the child returned alive why did he take over the investigation from Day 1 instead of leaving it to the professionals? Why not insist on the Bureau of Investigation being involved? Why object strongly to the recording of serial numbers of the ransom notes? Why give Ben Lupica short shrift? As a man with access to money and influence he did everything to steer the enquiry into channels determined by-, and away from himself. All great questions Sherlock, that can't help but be considered along the route, although I do think you're playing devil's advocate a bit strenuously here. Did Lindbergh "take over the investigation" as is commonly claimed, or was the scope and depth of his involvement directly related to his public stature in the eyes of the police, notwithstanding the fact he was the child's father? He was essentially allowed to conduct ransom negotiations as he saw fit and this certainly was not the first case in which parents had dealt directly and intimately with the kidnappers in an attempt to lessen the perceived risk of harm to their loved one. He was also an integral player within the police investigation at the crime scene, by virtue of it having been his house and property. During the phase of negotiations that included Condon and CJ, Lindbergh maintained a consistent approach within his belief that his child would be returned unharmed if he "played ball" with the kidnappers. This included no police intervention, recorded serial numbers, proof the child was alive despite Condon's best efforts to convince him otherwise, up to and including his refusal to immediately open the "receipt" note. Ultimately, it was his overall sense of social naivete that excused him to place inordinate trust in people, until they demonstrated unmistakably that they were undeserving of his trust. I'd venture that his efforts with Curtis were far less dedicated and focused due to the fact he placed much less faith in Curtis's claims, while at the same time not wanting to leave any stone unturned.
|
|