|
Post by skeptical on Oct 12, 2022 11:27:06 GMT -5
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. — Ever stay awake 30 hours? Lindy, had to fly by instruments for 30 hours across a trackless ocean. There’s no forward window in the Spirit of St Louis. Imagine answering a call of nature. The wind drifted the plane. It’s more suicidal than heroic. Plus, he had to talk rich men out of their money and get the plane built, first. Extraordinary people are often extraordinarily eccentric. And as for Lindy taking over the investigation, it would be something about anyone would do that had the fame to do it. He acted like he’d pay 70 grand and not worry about prosecution. See The abduction of Nelly Don en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell_Donnelly_Reed
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 13, 2022 8:36:09 GMT -5
Joe, Your response to the points raised by trojanusc is instructive. As is your response to mine, however I’ll include some factual information here, in favour of purely-academic banter.“The child wouldn’t stand up” Source: Dr Van Inghen’s appointment notes Your point: “only one source” for this implying unreliability. Verdict: rejected. The singular use of this source is unreliable as it supports trojanusc’s inferrence that the reason for Dr. Van Ingen’s difficulty in getting Charlie to stand up straight, was that he was unable to, due to some perceived and restrictive medical condition. In fact, when referring to his efforts to measure Charlie, Van Ingen stated, “He was a rather spoiled youngster and it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight.” In the interests of providing some reliablilty towards the direct association between “spoiled” and “uncooperative,” implied here by Van Ingen, let me know if you’d like me to quote a dozen or so pieces of source documentation that demonstrate Charlie appeared to have had no issues in standing up straight, if he wasn’t taking the opportunity here to behave like a spoiled child, ie. trojanusc's one documented account.
“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.’ If his medical condition had have truly been something to “write home about,” do you believe that Charlie, from a very young age, would have been limited to the basic home care provided by a child caregiver, or nursemaid? While trojanusc makes comments like Charlie was “Lindbergh’s disabled son,” he demonstrates nothing to actually back this up, and I'm curious as to why you would offer no objection towards such an apparent conundrum.
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. What perceived failings are you talking about and what specifically provides the impetus for your conclusion that Lindbergh would have wanted no part of a child with a “moderate rickety condition” and crossed toes? I’d venture you’re possibly quite taken by the thriving little cottage industry here which perennially “drip-drip-drips” the notion that Lindbergh essentially stood over his son wielding a Thor-like hammer of judgment, ready to drop it if given the means, motive and opportunity. It should be remembered that this same Lindbergh in 1931, questioned why his sister-in-law’s serious medical condition could not more effectively be addressed and treated using the right kind of procedure and apparatus, which he himself went on quite tirelessly to perfect in 1935. Is it reasonable to believe that during the intervening years, he actually would have considered conceiving and organizing a faked kidnapping to have his son destroyed over rickets and crossed toes, each of which was considerably more treatable?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 13, 2022 9:39:36 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. Allow me to reiterate something that I just posted to Sherlock. What perceived failings are you talking about and what specifically provides the impetus for your conclusion that Lindbergh would have wanted no part of a child with a “moderate rickety condition” and crossed toes? I’d venture you’re possibly quite taken by the thriving little cottage industry here which perennially “drip-drip-drips” the notion that Lindbergh essentially stood over his son wielding a Thor-like hammer of judgment, ready to drop it if given the means, motive and opportunity. It should be remembered that this same Lindbergh in 1931, questioned why his sister-in-law’s severe medical condition could not more effectively be addressed and treated using the right kind of procedure and apparatus, which he himself went on quite tirelessly to perfect in 1935. Is it reasonable to believe that during the intervening years, he actually would have considered conceiving and organizing a faked kidnapping to have his son destroyed over rickets and crossed toes, each of which was considerably more treatable?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2022 12:13:34 GMT -5
What perceived failings are you talking about and what specifically provides the impetus for your conclusion that Lindbergh would have wanted no part of a child with a “moderate rickety condition” and crossed toes? I guess I have to rewrite what's written in my book? And for what? So you can shrug it off? According to Wayne's research, the toes were " severely deformed." So considering there were countermeasures immediately taken to remedy this issue and that's how they were when he died shows they were probably even worse at one time - or the treatment did not work. Downplaying the significance is a necessary evil for your position to work - so I get it. If that's how you want to debate then so be it. Since Dr. Van Ingen termed it a " Rickety Condition" then I once again refer you to my book. Here again, the child was being treated and once the skeleton was found proved to still have the unclosed fontanel as well as a head larger than a child of his age. We also know a stick punctured his skull at the grave site, something most experts say shouldn't have been possible. We also have the strange situation of all his organs missing except the heart and the liver because the animals that consumed part of the corpse chose to avoid them. Since there are multiple underlying possibilities as to the cause of "Rickets" I think all of this is probably a good thing to explore. You've chosen to sweep it all under the rug because it might lead you to a place you do not want to go. So once again, I get it. I'd venture you’re possibly quite taken by the thriving little cottage industry here which perennially “drip-drip-drips” the notion that Lindbergh essentially stood over his son wielding a Thor-like hammer of judgment, ready to drop it if given the means, motive and opportunity. WTF are you talking about? Drip-drip what? And it wasn't a hammer. Chief of Detectives Kirkham called it a " Meat Skewer" to use to slice open his dead son's face. It should be remembered that this same Lindbergh in 1931, questioned why his sister-in-law’s severe medical condition could not more effectively be addressed and treated using the right kind of procedure and apparatus, which he himself went on quite tirelessly to perfect in 1935. Is it reasonable to believe that during the intervening years, he actually would have considered conceiving and organizing a faked kidnapping to have his son destroyed over rickets and crossed toes, each of which was considerably more treatable? I'm going to just cut to the chase and restate that Lindbergh was an Eugenicist. You always seem to evade this fact and go on and on about certain things you've dressed up to impress that he somehow wasn't when we all know he was. It smacks of desperation.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 13, 2022 14:38:38 GMT -5
Not trying to butt in here, but these are things I have a very hard time getting around when I think about the case...
How did the kidnappers know where the nursery was? As I’ve said elsewhere, realistically, outside surveillance of a house is useless in determining which room is which. You’d have to watch a house for days to get even the faintest idea of the interior layout, which would’ve shown the family wasn’t there on Tuesday nights--so why strike then?
How did the kidnappers get into a pitch-black room through a window and take a 30-plus-pound toddler without making noise or disturbing anything, even objects around their ostensible entry-exit point? Not reasonable. The crime scene inside the house was, literally and figuratively, far too neat and tidy to be genuine.
The kidnappers’ footprints led away from the house; none led toward, so the kidnappers must’ve driven up to the house--so why not drive away too? Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out, as opposed to eating up getaway time and leaving behind traceable footprints by running off across muddy fields in the dark? They panicked because they dropped the child? There was no indication of a panic or fall on the ground below the nursery window; just two sets of footprints leading away from the house--to a chisel, then a ladder, then tire tracks on the main road... The crime scene outside the house was far too neat and tidy--and telegraphed--to be genuine.
For me, these points alone indicate a combination of foreknowledge, staging, and inside information provided to the kidnappers, regarding the house’s layout and the family’s routine.
And who was best positioned to provide that information to the kidnappers?
An insider of course--that is, a household member, of which there were five. Now, who on that very short list, in addition to insider information, also had the organizational skills and resources to plan, pay for, and stage something like this, as well as the clout to take charge of the investigation and steer it away from any household members (and who wound up doing just that)?
Only one: The child’s father.
Setting aside motive, not to mention the high frequency of parental involvement when a child goes missing and turns up dead, now consider this individual’s actions immediately before and in the days after the kidnapping.
Was there an unusual change in his behavior or routine on that day? Yes, when this very fastidious individual missed a high-profile event.
Did this individual allow law enforcement to do its job? No. Despite no law enforcement experience or expertise, he used his personal influence to take charge of the investigation and didn’t want police to follow SOPs.
Was this individual in a state of grief? No. While grief is unique and not always apparent, this individual was pulling pranks, joking around, and treated the body of his own child like a dissection piglet in a high-school biology class.
Was this individual in a state of distress, expressing urgency about the situation? No. He didn’t open a blank envelope that he said contained a ransom note, which, all things being equal, a parent would do--just to fully confirm what’s going on and make absolutely sure there aren’t any time-sensitive instructions. (Use a kitchen knife, a pair of gloves, and be careful how you handle the note if you don’t want to leave or obliterate prints--but no, that didn’t happen.)
Take the name Lindbergh out of it (or, for that matter, don’t) and, for me, the red flags are legion and flying at full staff. There are always other possible explanations for things, but given all this, and taken altogether, what’s the MOST LIKELY explanation for what more or less happened?
I also consider other points, other sides--with regards to the motive for instance, specifically the child’s health. Admittedly, the anomalies there don’t seem too extreme. There are, after all, photos and films of the child standing, walking, talking, etc. He looks fine, to me at least, so would even a staunch eugenicist feel the need to get rid of him...? 90 years after the fact, I’ll never be able to say for sure. And so I factor that in. But I also factor in the other points I mentioned and see how everything balances out, and, for me, in the end, there are too many red flags for there not to have been something sketchy going on.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 13, 2022 17:52:01 GMT -5
Not trying to butt in here, but these are things I have a very hard time getting around when I think about the case… How did the kidnappers know where the nursery was? As I’ve said elsewhere, realistically, outside surveillance of a house is useless in determining which room is which. You’d have to watch a house for days to get even the faintest idea of the interior layout, a process which would’ve revealed the family wasn’t there on Tuesday nights--so why strike then? How did the kidnappers get into a pitch-black room through a window and take a 30-plus-pound toddler without making noise or disturbing anything, even objects around their ostensible entry-exit point? Not reasonable. The crime scene inside the house was, quite literally, far too neat and tidy to be genuine. The kidnappers’ footprints led away from the house; none led toward, so the kidnappers must’ve driven up to the house. Even if they walked up the driveway, why not take that clear path back out, as opposed to eating up getaway time and leaving behind traceable footprints by running off across muddy fields in the dark? They panicked because they dropped the child? There was no indication of a panic or fall on the ground below the nursery window; just two sets of footprints leading away from the house--to a chisel, then a ladder, then tire tracks on the main road... The crime scene outside the house was far too neat and tidy to be genuine. For me, these points alone indicate a combination of foreknowledge, staging, and inside information provided to the kidnappers, regarding the house’s layout and the family’s routine. And who was best positioned to provide that information to the kidnappers? An insider of course--that is, a household member, of which there were five. Now, who on that very short list, in addition to insider information, also had the organizational skills to plan, pay for, and stage something like this, as well as the clout to take charge of the investigation and steer it away from any household members (and who wound up doing just that)? Only one: The child’s father. Setting aside motive, not to mention the high frequency of parental involvement when a child goes missing and turns up dead, now consider this individual’s actions immediately before and in the days after the kidnapping. Was there an unusual change in his behavior on that day? Yes, when this very fastidious individual missed a high-profile event. Did this individual allow law enforcement to do its job? No, despite no law enforcement experience or expertise, he used his personal influence to take charge of the investigation and didn’t want police to follow SOPs. Was this individual in a state of grief? No, while grief is not always apparent, this individual was pulling pranks and joking around. Was this individual in a state of distress, expressing urgency about the situation? No, he didn’t open a blank envelope that he said contained a ransom note, which, all things being equal, a parent would do--just to fully confirm what’s going on and make absolutely sure there aren’t any time-sensitive instructions. (Use a kitchen knife, a pair of gloves, and be careful how you handle it if you don’t want to leave or obliterate prints--but no, that didn’t happen.) Take the name Lindbergh out of it (or, for that matter, don’t) and, for me, the red flags are legion and flying at full staff. There are always other possible explanations for things, but given all this, and taken altogether, what’s the MOST LIKELY explanation for what more or less happened? I also consider other points, other sides--with regards to the motive for instance, specifically the child’s health. Admittedly, the anomalies there don’t seem too extreme. There are, after all, photos and films of the child standing, walking, talking, etc. He looks fine, to me at least, so would even a staunch eugenicist feel the need to get rid of him...? 90 years after the fact, I’ll never be able to say for sure. And so I factor that in. But I also factor in the other points I mentioned and see how everything balances out, and, for me, in the end, there are too many red flags for there not to have been something sketchy going on. Agree wholeheartedly with all of this. The only thing I'd add is that the only video I know of where the child is "walking" involves him bracing a railing to support himself. Maybe I'm missing one? Also, as others have pointed out, he was at an age where such disabilities may begin to show more prominently, hence the oversized head that was so brittle a hole was poked in it and it basically fell apart upon inspection.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 14, 2022 0:56:22 GMT -5
Those are also good points and should be put on the scale as well.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 14, 2022 8:13:34 GMT -5
I just ordered another book, The Kidnap Years. There was an epidemic of kidnaps for ransom of the children of the wealthy in the early Depression years, and most ended with the ransom paid and the child returned. Lindy was in fact a Eugenicist, and against Jews, and a believer in Ayran supremacy, and later would receive a Nazi medal. And unless the evidence was fabricated, which it doesn’t appear to have been, BRH was caught with $15,000 ransom money, incriminating evidence he’d made the ladder, and his handwriting matched the ransom notes. Millions of Americans today hold ultra right wing views, and while despicable, aren’t in themselves proof of a crime. My old grandmother would rail for hours about how Pearl Harbor was the one thing that the warmonger FDR needed to get America in a war. And my mother used to ask her how FDR managed to sneak that Japanese fleet across the wide Pacific to accommodate FDR. Bad people, sometimes have bad luck.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 14, 2022 10:36:15 GMT -5
"The Kidnap Years" is a good read with the Lindbergh case as the connecting thread throughout the book. Expect non-controversial coverage of the latter but the book offers comprehensive coverage of the kidnapping epidemic in the early 1930s.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 14, 2022 10:39:05 GMT -5
True. Consider for a moment what Cemetery John said to Condon during the lengthy conservation at Woodlawn Cemetery about the kidnappers:
#1 was a high government officialth
#2 knew Condon
And that he himself (CJ( did not like what he was doing, but that they knew something about him.
These points are quite specific, and while Condon often gave various versions of his experiences, they do not seem to be the product of an imagination or an attempt to avoid reality. What constitutes a "high government position" may be subject to some interpretation, and many persons knew Condon, whether as a principal, through sports (boxing esp.) or through unpleasant legal or personal matters. CJ. himself may have been a sickly individual with some personal difficulties and therefore vulnerable, whether legal problems in his past, an embarrassing illness, or sexuality. He would not want these to be known and became an unwilling accomplice, ready to talk with Condon for over an hour even after no ransom would be paid that evening. Condon was a sympathetic listener, and enjoyed the role, listening to a guilty man who was struggling with his role and knowing the consequences. CJ may have been the same rep. who contacted Peter and Mary of the Divine Temple, giving them more information than they needed to know, so much so that Mary confused her details. Peter had to correct her statement (two days, not two weeks, an important point in the message). None of this points to Lindbergh. If CJ were Hauptmann, he would not have stayed around to talk with Condon. Neither did he have the imagination to make up these stories. CJ knew the details, knew the child was dead, knew what the consequences might be. The talk was therapy of a sort as he worked with his feelings in a strange and unnecessary conversation that did take place and lasted for over an hour. In developing a theory, an investigator must consider all details and not just choose a few that seem to support his ideas while ignoring the everything that did occur but does not fit his favorite theory.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 14, 2022 10:51:07 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Maybe instead of “Lindbergh took over the investigation” it would be better to say he followed his own lines of enquiry in parallel with the police activity. I do take exception to the word “allowed” - Lindy was the kind of guy who would do what he wanted, allowed or not. Regarding his cooperation with the police at the crime scene: well he could hardly refuse having summoned them in the first place. Even so he restricted their access to his staff. Realising his celebrity would make the police reluctant to follow usual procedure he could have spontaneously offered fingerprinting of everyone at High Fields, an examination of their shoes for comparison with footprints, interview facilities in his library, and inspection of his car by Ben Lupica. Now that is cooperation. I have often placed myself in Hauptmann’s shoes: I wouldn’t have chosen a high profile victim, would have bought a reliable ladder instead of making one, and would not have raided a house lit up like a Christmas tree with people and guns about. Maybe he had his reasons for the risky decisions he took. Add to this the climbing the ladder, the acrobatics need to silently enter via the window, not to mention exit bearing the child without disturbing the ornaments and I’m reaching the end of the allowances and excuses I’m making for BRH. I do reach the end when it comes to the ransom payment. CJ has already hinted that the child may be dead but $50,000 is handed over in exchange for a note. A note written by a known criminal which even if the Boad Nellie does yield the child will surely expose CJ’s confederates to interrogation so why take the risk? Even a desperate father clutching at straws to get his child returned would surely, with this knowledge, insist of delivery of the living infant and nothing else. This deal only makes sense only if Lindbergh knew his son was dead and was paying for the return of the body. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 14, 2022 10:56:15 GMT -5
CJ was almost certainly BRH.
And if CJ had said the child WAS dead there’d not have been a ransom paid.
I have no doubts at all BRH was the principal planner of the crime, in up to his neck, and justly executed.
But if BRH was the one and only guilty party no part of hell is hot enough for him.
To kidnap a child in order to restore the child on payment of $50,000 from an incredibly famous and wealthy family (the Morrow family was also fabulously rich) was something of an epidemic in 1932.
For BRH to drive, alone, 70 miles with a ladder and burlap bags meant only one thing. He’d murder a baby, stuff it in a bag, carry it away and dispose of it, then demand money.
Without help to care for Charlie, he’s a monster.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 14, 2022 11:04:33 GMT -5
CJ was almost certainly BRH. And if CJ had said the child WAS dead there’d not have been a ransom paid. I have no doubts at all BRH was the principal planner of the crime, in up to his neck, and justly executed. But if BRH was the one and only guilty party no part of hell is hot enough for him. To kidnap a child in order to restore the child on payment of $50,000 from an incredibly famous and wealthy family (the Morrow family was also fabulously rich) was something of an epidemic in 1932. For BRH to drive, alone, 70 miles with a ladder and burlap bags meant only one thing. He’d murder a baby, stuff it in a bag, carry it away and dispose of it, then demand money. Without help to care for Charlie, he’s a monster. You do realize that Condon was likely in cahoots with the kidnappers, right? All the evidence points this way. He even lied about where he paid the ransom, so as to give the kidnappers a head start.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 14, 2022 11:48:58 GMT -5
You do realize that Condon was likely in cahoots with the kidnappers, right? All the evidence points this way. He even lied about where he paid the ransom, so as to give the kidnappers a head start.
—
I’m always skeptical.
Condon was an old blustery blow hard who could barely tell the same story twice the same way.
He might have kissed a pretty 17 year old girl years before.
But at the bottom of each page of this forum are three interlocking circles with three holes punched in them.
Condon dealt with the culprit, according to the evidence of the signatures on the ransom notes.
The obvious intent of CAL and Condon was to get Charlie back to Anne Morrow Lindbergh.
That intent explains everything they did.
And Condon, was reluctant to condemn BRH.
The true mystery remains:
1. BRH could have, watched the lights go on and off and determined Charlie’s bedroom. But it’s so much easier for him to have had inside help.
2. If there were two sets of footprints made leading away from the crime, then BRH had at least one accomplice. Maybe his wife, or a girlfriend? But no casts were made, no evidentiary photographs, and there were crowds at the scene before morning. It could have been just BRH, making two trips.
3. Hauptmann drove a 1930 Dodge. He had to hide it, take out his ladder, then drive away. He was recklessly brave and incredibly lucky, if it was only him.
4. Car crazy 17 year old boys can make a one year mistake in the model of a Dodge. Ben Lupica might have seen BRH just before dark.
Second story man is in the dictionary:
sec′ond-sto′ry man` n. a burglar who enters through an upstairs window. [1900–05]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 14, 2022 12:28:25 GMT -5
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. — Ever stay awake 30 hours? Lindy, had to fly by instruments for 30 hours across a trackless ocean. There’s no forward window in the Spirit of St Louis. Imagine answering a call of nature. The wind drifted the plane. It’s more suicidal than heroic. Plus, he had to talk rich men out of their money and get the plane built, first. Extraordinary people are often extraordinarily eccentric. And as for Lindy taking over the investigation, it would be something about anyone would do that had the fame to do it. He acted like he’d pay 70 grand and not worry about prosecution. See The abduction of Nelly Don en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell_Donnelly_ReedWhy take over a month to pay the ransom??? Why use so many go-betweens? Why stall and stall and stall???
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 14, 2022 12:35:46 GMT -5
A light going off doesn't tell you what or who is in that room. You'd need much more solid intel than that if you're going to pull something as risky as a home invasion and abduction. Say you're planning to kidnap someone in a house and you see a light go off in an upstairs room: Okay, that must be where the person is... Then another light goes off in another upstairs room. Then what? Maybe someone used the bathroom--but which of those two rooms is the bathroom? And which would be the target's room? Actually, maybe neither... So there's no real telling which room is which or where your target is, unless you've somehow gotten that info ahead of time. I realize the windows had no curtains, but even so, it's not like the movies, where home occupants are basically acting out their lives and routines in front of the windows, and observers can conveniently see all activity inside. You'd need days of surveillance to figure that out, and even then you'd only get the sketchiest, most silhouetted idea. Not reliable. What would've been clear to any outside observers, however, was that the family wasn't at the house on Tuesdays anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 14, 2022 13:01:06 GMT -5
Why was there stalling on the payment of the ransom? An excellent question One could argue that it took much time to copy the numbers found ont he bills which were not sequential, but I suggest that time had to be taken raise funds to launder the ransom money. Condon had to be connected to the kidnappers in this exchange. Fisch most likely was doing the laundering. Even Uhlig states this in his interview taken later. Fisch borrowed money from Augusta Hile, the Mohrdiecks, and Hauptmann to launder using the defunct pie company as his front for the need to borrow. It's quite possible that he could not raise enough for the 70,000 demanded in time for the final date. Condon would have been made aware of this. The transaction at St. Raymond's was staged, but the money was laundered immediately, and Fisch found himself stuck with the ransom money which was difficult for him to spend. He paid back his debt to some borrowers but not all.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 14, 2022 13:27:55 GMT -5
Condon's description of the "second taxi-cab driver"--as far as it goes--matches that of "Fritz," Isidor Fisch's front man. The taxi-cab driver was said to be about 5'6" tall, stout, and with side curls, corresponding exactly with Hauptmann's and others' description of Fritz. Fritz was blond, and Condon does not mention hair color.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 14, 2022 14:22:03 GMT -5
A light going off doesn't tell you what or who is in that room. You'd need much more solid intel than that if you're going to pull something as risky as a home invasion and abduction. Say you're planning to kidnap someone in a house and you see a light go off in an upstairs room: Okay, that must be where the person is... Then another light goes off in another upstairs room. Then what? Maybe someone used the bathroom--but which of those two rooms is the bathroom? And which would be the target's room? Actually, maybe neither... So there's no real telling which room is which or where your target is, unless you've somehow gotten that info ahead of time. I realize the windows had no curtains, but even so, it's not like the movies, where home occupants are basically acting out their lives and routines in front of the windows, and observers can conveniently see all activity inside. You'd need days of surveillance to figure that out, and even then you'd only get the sketchiest, most silhouetted idea. Not reliable. What would've been clear to any outside observers, however, was that the family wasn't at the house on Tuesdays anyhow. Exactly. I mentioned this upthread but one of the biggest issues for me is the boardwalk hugs the house basically. There’s no line of sight into the nursery. So even assuming you knew which room was the target, you’re still going in totally blind. The only way around this was to step off the boardwalk and go far enough back as to see what, if anything, was going on inside. Assuming it was even visible through the unlocked shutters. Yet there’s no evidence the kidnappers ever stepped off the boardwalk until the exit. Adding to this the “warped” shutter lock that Lindbergh lied about not having fixed and it’s just too much to reasonably take in.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 14, 2022 14:23:51 GMT -5
Why take over a month to pay the ransom??? Why use so many go-betweens? Why stall and stall and stall???
—-
As a son of the hills I’ve relived myself countless times by the side of the road.
Not once did I wander 75 feet into the brush.
But as a white man, I never had to worry about a passing car full of yokels accusing me of flashing them or their girlfriends.
The body, just as easily might never have been discovered, except a black truck driver went far back in the woods to relive himself. If there’s been one hint of suspicion against him I’ve not heard it.
Most thirties kidnap schemes were by gangs.
Multiple letters served to convince CAL it was a real kidnap for ransom, and Charlie was alive.
Maybe BRH did enlist Fisch in the scheme.
But the ladder was still made by BRH, and he wrote all the ransom letters.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2022 8:48:30 GMT -5
It should be remembered that this same Lindbergh in 1931, questioned why his sister-in-law’s severe medical condition could not more effectively be addressed and treated using the right kind of procedure and apparatus, which he himself went on quite tirelessly to perfect in 1935. Is it reasonable to believe that during the intervening years, he actually would have considered conceiving and organizing a faked kidnapping to have his son destroyed over rickets and crossed toes, each of which was considerably more treatable? I'm going to just cut to the chase and restate that Lindbergh was an Eugenicist. You always seem to evade this fact and go on and on about certain things you've dressed up to impress that he somehow wasn't when we all know he was. It smacks of desperation. Your cursory synopsis is superficial at best, as is your attempt to simply flip the tables here through additional misinformation. Lindbergh later became what most would reasonably consider to be a dedicated Eugenicist, despite this position relaxing over the course of his later years. At the same time, he certainly was no staunch Eugenicist at the time he met Alexis Carrel in late November of 1930, nor did he suddenly become one within the intervening time period up to and including March 1, 1932. Let’s intelligently discuss the relevant time period here shall we, as opposed to previous efforts on your part to tie in such later elements as his admiration for mid to late-1930’s German industry and society, his affairs with German women in the 1950’s and his affiliation with the American Eugenics Society, all of which occurred well after the kidnapping. Even before he met Carrel, Lindbergh desired to save life within his sister-in-law’s serious heart condition and he demonstrated this within his dedicated and time-consuming efforts towards ultimately perfecting the perfusion pump apparatus in the spring of 1935. Consider as well, that both Charles and Anne from the time of Charlie’s birth in June of 1930, were planning to map a tour of the Orient by reaches of the north Pacific, which they undertook from late July until early October of 1931, only when they were compelled to return home following news of Dwight Morrow’s death. From the time of their arrival at Englewood on October 23, just a week prior to the start of their regular weekend sojourns to their planned permanent home in Hopewell, it’s clear that Lindbergh’s love and affection for his son had fully taken root, from his earlier apparent fear of and general ambivalence towards parenthood in general. Five years after his famous flight and with Charlie's development well underway, in early 1932, both Charles and Anne Lindbergh had finally found a measure of peace and privacy and what they believed to be security within their lives, while looking forward to their permanent move to Highfields. Notwithstanding all of the other good reasons why the poorly-engineered ‘fauxnapping’ house-of-cards continues to fall flat after over ninety years and despite all of the intense lobbying, bully tactics, fist bumping and ‘Like button’ whacking here, Lindbergh loved his son in a way that was reminiscent and ultimately proved to be a direct reflection of his own Nordic-influenced upbringing. Cutting to the chase myself, Charles Lindbergh had no reason, or even desire, to have his first-born son "destroyed."
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 16, 2022 2:47:28 GMT -5
Joe, "...to have his son destroyed over rickets and crossed toes." Two points here: 1. Lindbergh as a eugenicist had, most likely, a very intolerant attitude to perceived imperfections in his son. I do agree that if it were "only" the above conditions which the child exhibited his alleged destruction of Charlie would be an extreme reaction. 2. But we know from the so-called autopsy that there were also dentition issues, an abnormally large head, and a fragile skull. Add to this the lack of photos/film of the child standing unaided and a very worrying picture emerges which may well have been enough for Lindbergh. Lindbergh reacted with energy and creativity in his perfusion pump development to try to save the life of Elizabeth, his sister-in-law. Sadly, it was too late. Non the less, he had done the right thing, so why not persevere with Charlie's problems? There was no way that Lindy could be blamed for Elizabeth's condition, but had the full extent of Charlie's problems become known as they got worse, a retrospective link might be made with the Lindberghs' ill-advised flight when Anne was 7 months pregnant. So he had a motivation for the action he allegedly took. In addition to any eugenics considerations, he was protecting his own reputation for sound judgement.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 16, 2022 12:49:52 GMT -5
Joe, "...to have his son destroyed over rickets and crossed toes." Two points here: 1. Lindbergh as a eugenicist had, most likely, a very intolerant attitude to perceived imperfections in his son. I do agree that if it were "only" the above conditions which the child exhibited his alleged destruction of Charlie would be an extreme reaction. 2. But we know from the so-called autopsy that there were also dentition issues, an abnormally large head, and a fragile skull. Add to this the lack of photos/film of the child standing unaided and a very worrying picture emerges which may well have been enough for Lindbergh. Lindbergh reacted with energy and creativity in his perfusion pump development to try to save the life of Elizabeth, his sister-in-law. Sadly, it was too late. Non the less, he had done the right thing, so why not persevere with Charlie's problems? There was no way that Lindy could be blamed for Elizabeth's condition, but had the full extent of Charlie's problems become known as they got worse, a retrospective link might be made with the Lindberghs' ill-advised flight when Anne was 7 months pregnant. So he had a motivation for the action he allegedly took. In addition to any eugenics considerations, he was protecting his own reputation for sound judgement. Sherlock, I see no objective evidence of Lindbergh having had an “intolerant” attitude towards any of Charlie’s recognized and/or perceived ailments, in spite of his well known efforts to impart the same degree of “toughening up” exercises he himself received as a child. In fact, aside from him having been beside Anne during her entire labour ordeal, Lindbergh appears to have been for the most part, a “hands-off” kind of father, at least until his and Anne’s return from their Orient trip in late October 1931. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that during Charlie’s growth as a newborn and while he was in his first year-and-a-half of development, Lindbergh was willing or even genuinely interested enough to put the time and effort into a more interactive father-son relationship. His aviation and research pursuits consumed vast amounts of his time, and it should also be considered that socio-economic and general family structure standards of the day pretty much necessitated child-rearing to be the domain of the mother. Or, in the case of the Lindbergh family, mother and hired caregiver, when Anne herself wasn’t off adventuring with Charlie’s father. Naturally, any medical diagnosis that the child suffered from, what was most likely rickets, would have alerted both parents to adopt a treatment protocol, which by all accounts they were doing under the direction of the child’s physician. “Dentition issues” seems to be another buzz term around this discussion forum, but again I don’t recognize any specific reason for concern within the autopsy report findings: There are eight upper and eight lower teeth, the upper incisors are well formed rather prominent but do not protrude, the lower canines tend to divert towards incisors are below the line of the adjacent teeth.
I’m no dentist, but what specifically are you referring to here? Certainly Dr. Van Ingen expressed no dental concerns for Charlie within his May 4, 1932 letter to Anne’s mother. Regarding the “abnormally large head and fragile skull,” Charlie’s relatively large head and specifically his high forehead, were common symptoms of rickets within a child of his age. Rickets was not uncommon in Charlie’s day, even in well-to-do families, and it carried little or no class distinction as the efficacy of Vitamin D absorption within the subject of nutrition was not nearly as widely understood as it is today. As for the integrity of Charlie’s skull, it needs to be understood that sutures which fuse the skull bones together, do not normally turn to hard bone material until most children reach the age of approximately 24 months. Charlie was still four months shy of this mark. Walter Swayze attempted to saw off the top of the skull to have access to its interior, but after beginning this process, those same unfused sutures gave way and the skull essentially fell apart into its individual bony plates. This would have been a normal occurrence for any deceased child of Charlie’s age and in his case would probably have only been exacerbated by his rickety condition, as was his unclosed large fontenelle. Charlie’s skull was not “brittle,” as is often termed here. It was still relatively pliable due to his age and development. I’m not convinced however that it was pliable enough for the half-inch hole on the right side of the skull behind the ear, to have been the result of being pushed through with a stick. The skull fracture on the left side of the head and directly opposite the hole strongly suggests otherwise. Too, the absence of any scalp laceration in the area which would have corresponded to the skull fracture which normally would have indicated an external blow, strongly suggests to me a very small calibre bullet that went unretrieved, was the actual cause of death and that the fracture with its internal blood clot, emanated at that interior point. All in all, I see no irresistible signs of for unusual health concerns which call into question, Dr. Van Ingen’s description of Charlie as having been a well-developed child for his age. If Lindbergh ever considered that the flight he and Anne took when the latter was 7 months pregnant, had anything to do with Charlie’s less-than-perfect overall health, I believe he would have done something about it in a constructive way, internalizing the situation over and over in his mind until he came up with the best solution for his son’s benefit. I don’t recognize anything within Lindbergh’s background and experiences which even hint of him being a potential murderer, willing to "cut his losses" in such a despicable way as arranging to have his son kidnapped. From a very early age, he learned the value of taking responsibility for himself. I believe that to make the assumption here that he would simply have turned away and shirked whatever responsibility he personally felt was his, misses many of the other considerations relative to the love, affection and genuine interest he had ultimately come to feel and demonstrate towards his son. I also believe he also practiced more reticence than overt concern towards any perceived "shortcomings" his son may have had, knowing that ultimately there would have been a positive plan of correction for each and every one.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 16, 2022 13:45:35 GMT -5
It’s fascinating that only adding Vitamin D to commercial milk has nearly totally eliminated rickets in first world nations. www.usdairy.com/news-articles/why-is-vitamin-d-added-to-milkAmerican right wingers like Lindy have a perfect record of being against every public health measure from pasteurized Vitamin D milk to being vaccinated against Covid 19 today. It’s not hard to imagine Lindy ordering only local cow’s milk and not the gubbermint regulation approved healthy choice. It’s a wonder little Charlie didn’t get milk fever.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 16, 2022 14:10:49 GMT -5
It’s fascinating that only adding Vitamin D to commercial milk has nearly totally eliminated rickets in first world nations. www.usdairy.com/news-articles/why-is-vitamin-d-added-to-milkAmerican right wingers like Lindy have a perfect record of being against every public health measure from pasteurized Vitamin D milk to being vaccinated against Covid 19 today. It’s not hard to imagine Lindy ordering only local cow’s milk and not the gubbermint regulation approved healthy choice. It’s a wonder little Charlie didn’t get milk fever. The child was getting a megadose of vitamin D and it was not really helping clearly.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 16, 2022 14:58:37 GMT -5
The child was getting a megadose of vitamin D and it was not really helping clearly. —- If his parents had less money and more common sense he’d never had the condition to begin with. They had to wean him early for AML to go accompany Lindy on his adventures. Some ultra right winger like Lindy would have dove exactly like he’d have done today. Can you imagine Lindy buying the new Vitamin D pasturized milk? As soon as he’d have had fluoridated water. If he’d lived the Vitamin D would have relived what he never should have had in the first place by 1932.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 16, 2022 15:04:17 GMT -5
The child was getting a megadose of vitamin D and it was not really helping clearly. —- If his parents had less money and more common sense he’d never had the condition to begin with. They had to wean him early for AML to go accompany Lindy on his adventures. Some ultra right winger like Lindy would have dove exactly like he’d have done today. Can you imagine Lindy buying the new Vitamin D pasturized milk? As soon as he’d have had fluoridated water. If he’d lived the Vitamin D would have relived what he never should have had in the first place by 1932. Again, rickets generally improved by introducing Vitamin D into the diet. It was not improving here. Plus, you have the opposite of what was true back then, rickets was something that almost exclusively effected poorer kids who weren't getting a good diet. You're assuming the cause of the child's illness was Vitamin D deficient rickets, when I think most people who study this seriously think that the child's illness perhaps dates back to the high altitude flight that CAL made Anne take, which nearly killed her.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2022 15:08:51 GMT -5
Your cursory synopsis is superficial at best, as is your attempt to simply flip the tables here through additional misinformation. Lindbergh later became what most would reasonably consider to be a dedicated Eugenicist, despite this position relaxing over the course of his later years. At the same time, he certainly was no staunch Eugenicist at the time he met Alexis Carrel in late November of 1930, nor did he suddenly become one within the intervening time period up to and including March 1, 1932. Try reading " The Immortalists" by David Friedman and when finished get back to me. Next, by your argument, a person doesn't become an Eugenicist until they join the Eugenics Society. It's like Lindbergh just woke up one day and decided he was one but never held any beliefs about it prior thereto. Or maybe he was bitten by a radioactive spider or something? That's not how life works Joe. We also know this because we have examples of his behavior and mindset throughout his life. Lindbergh wrote in " Autobiography of Values" that his "experience" with breeding animals on the farm proved the importance of good heredity when selecting a wife (V4, p360). What years was he on that farm Joe? There's your proof right there when and where his beliefs took root. And its by his very own account. Look at his actions at the Morgue. What he did there was cause suspicion because normal people don't act like that. Or how Anne was worried about looking "weak." Why would she? Old man Morrow didn't teach her that, and there's one account that he told Lindbergh not to allow Anne to fly on that transcontinental flight. So she took that flight anyway because she was now a Lindbergh. And she suffered greatly because of it and there can be no doubt her unborn child suffered as well. Who would do such a thing to their pregnant wife? Answer: The same type of man who would get rid of a child who made him look weak.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 16, 2022 16:18:40 GMT -5
Lindy held all the popular views of the nativist rugged individualist conservative of his time. Then (and today) such people are scared, easily propagandized, hypocrites who only want the government to oppress others,,,never even the slightest bit themselves. The 16 year old son of President Coolidge died of blood poising he’d have been cured by antibiotics of today. www.findagrave.com/memorial/8623/calvin-coolidgeA defective child born to white conservatives was God’s will, but if to poor immigrants was bad eugenics. By 1932 all the grocery stores in civilized places such as New York City required pasteurized Vitamin D fortified milk. Lindy was so antigovernment he’d have not complied. This would explain rickets in an upper class child in 1932. It would also explain hatred and mistrust of the FBI, and worship of local law enforcement agents. If Lindy had been a monster he could have smothered Charlie for free any night of his life, confident a local doctor would label it crib death. He’d have not had to deal with criminals who’d sell him out in a heartbeat, either.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 16, 2022 18:04:25 GMT -5
Lindy held all the popular views of the nativist rugged individualist conservative of his time. Then (and today) such people are scared, easily propagandized, hypocrites who only want the government to oppress others,,,never even the slightest bit themselves. The 16 year old son of President Coolidge died of blood poising he’d have been cured by antibiotics of today. www.findagrave.com/memorial/8623/calvin-coolidgeA defective child born to white conservatives was God’s will, but if to poor immigrants was bad eugenics. By 1932 all the grocery stores in civilized places such as New York City required pasteurized Vitamin D fortified milk. Lindy was so antigovernment he’d have not complied. This would explain rickets in an upper class child in 1932. It would also explain hatred and mistrust of the FBI, and worship of local law enforcement agents. If Lindy had been a monster he could have smothered Charlie for free any night of his life, confident a local doctor would label it crib death. He’d have not had to deal with criminals who’d sell him out in a heartbeat, either. I think you're not putting this into context of the era. It was very common for "defective" relatives of well to do people, particularly in Europe, to disappear. This, combined with the ubiquitousness of kidnapping during those years, gave Lindbergh the perfect opportunity to rid himself of a problem, while generating maximum sympathy.
|
|