Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2022 6:31:04 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. No, Charlie wasn't getting a "megadose" of Vitamin D. He was receiving just above the minimum level of Viosterol 250D recommended for treatment of mild rickets. I suggest that you try detaching yourself from The Case That Never Dies, and getting your facts straight.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2022 6:34:12 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. Are you by chance, running for position of Minister of Propaganda at this site? You certainly have my vote.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2022 6:39:50 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. Trojanusc, you were previously asked to provide some examples of this "very common" practice in Europe, but I've yet to read anything but the same old anecdote repeated ad nauseum here. Have you checked the catacombs and ossuaries of Paris?
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 17, 2022 8:15:10 GMT -5
Although the type is much more publicized today, the extreme Hallmark Channel perfect white evangelical Barbie princess that Patsy Ramsey was caused the media and the public at large to believe she’d ritualistically murdered little Jon Benet in the basement of her own mansion. If not for DNA evidence she’d still be the prime suspect.
If Lindy were alive today he’d be a right wing hero, telling people all kinds of ridiculous lies and cheering Vladimir Putin.
That doesn’t make Lindy so stupid as to try and hire criminals to snatch his own son from his own mansion.
In 1932 Lindy could name his own price to be the president of any airline or airplane manufacturer on earth.
He could have any Hollywood starlet he wanted.
And was so famous he dared not contract with anybody, to murder his own son. They’d have not believed him, for one thing. And if they did they’d be sure and entrap and blackmail him.
Besides, the man loved his wife, in 1932.
Killing her only baby was off the table.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 17, 2022 19:55:05 GMT -5
Although the type is much more publicized today, the extreme Hallmark Channel perfect white evangelical Barbie princess that Patsy Ramsey was caused the media and the public at large to believe she’d ritualistically murdered little Jon Benet in the basement of her own mansion. If not for DNA evidence she’d still be the prime suspect. If Lindy were alive today he’d be a right wing hero, telling people all kinds of ridiculous lies and cheering Vladimir Putin. That doesn’t make Lindy so stupid as to try and hire criminals to snatch his own son from his own mansion. In 1932 Lindy could name his own price to be the president of any airline or airplane manufacturer on earth. He could have any Hollywood starlet he wanted. And was so famous he dared not contract with anybody, to murder his own son. They’d have not believed him, for one thing. And if they did they’d be sure and entrap and blackmail him. Besides, the man loved his wife, in 1932. Killing her only baby was off the table. I think the part you continue to miss is that Lindbergh's fame is a direct correlation to why he likely orchestrated this. He was a staunch, diehard eugenicist. There was no way he could have a son who was anything less than perfect. As mentioned previously, it was very common for kids with various levels of imperfection to be shuffled away. Whether the child was healthy was literally the very first question Scotland Yard asked the NJSP when they were consulted for assistance. Please do yourself a favor and read Michael's The Dark Corners books. The man literally walked in the morgue, asked for a "meat slicer" and cut his dead son's face open without a hint of emotion. He played practical jokes and cards while "searching" for his son (he never actually searched anything). It was obvious to everyone at the time that something was off but he was so powerful nobody could say anything. As far as the Ramsey case, there's no evidence an intruder was involved. It is not a DNA case.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 18, 2022 9:11:42 GMT -5
DNA evidence has been used to clear suspects in JonBenet’s murder.
ABC News reports that all members of the Ramsey family, as well as 200 other potential suspects, were excluded as the possible murderer in this case as a result of then-newly discovered touch DNA found on JonBenet's long johns.
The touch DNA was traced to an unknown male, the male also responsible for DNA found in two spots of blood found in the 6-year-old’s underwear.
How will new testing help solve JonBenet Ramsey’s murder?
The testing John has in mind is investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) research. According to the Oxford Sciences Journal of Law and the Biosciences, “the technique involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying a criminal offender’s genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within the family tree.”
—-
Patsy Ramsey wasn’t famous, but she was beautiful, rich and odd.
There’s some kind of delusion that arises when an odd person is a crime victim.
Since Patsy was a loud, hysterical evangelical Christian the media and public simply convicted her, of something she had no motive to do and would have been caught if she had. People even suspected nine year old Burke.
The Ramsey killer will likely someday be caught.
How he knew about the inside of the home will then be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 18, 2022 10:26:09 GMT -5
DNA evidence has been used to clear suspects in JonBenet’s murder. ABC News reports that all members of the Ramsey family, as well as 200 other potential suspects, were excluded as the possible murderer in this case as a result of then-newly discovered touch DNA found on JonBenet's long johns. The touch DNA was traced to an unknown male, the male also responsible for DNA found in two spots of blood found in the 6-year-old’s underwear. How will new testing help solve JonBenet Ramsey’s murder? The testing John has in mind is investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) research. According to the Oxford Sciences Journal of Law and the Biosciences, “the technique involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying a criminal offender’s genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within the family tree.” —- Patsy Ramsey wasn’t famous, but she was beautiful, rich and odd. There’s some kind of delusion that arises when an odd person is a crime victim. Since Patsy was a loud, hysterical evangelical Christian the media and public simply convicted her, of something she had no motive to do and would have been caught if she had. People even suspected nine year old Burke. The Ramsey killer will likely someday be caught. How he knew about the inside of the home will then be obvious. The Ramsey case is not a DNA case. She had multiple profiles on her. So to believe the DNA you'd have to believe that at least 4 people were downstairs while both Patsy and Burke, who later admitted to being downstairs at the same time, were awake. The DA who "exonerated" them was tied too closely to them and the current DA essentially rescinded that statement. Let's also not forget a Grand Jury heard ALL of the evidence and indicted the parents as being partially responsible for the death. www.9news.com/article/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/dna-in-doubt-a-closer-look-at-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/73-343376600Ironically the Ramsey case and Lindbergh case share many similarities, starting with a Ransom note that was never intended to be collected.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2022 11:29:45 GMT -5
I think the part you continue to miss is that Lindbergh's fame is a direct correlation to why he likely orchestrated this. He was a staunch, diehard eugenicist. There was no way he could have a son who was anything less than perfect. As mentioned previously, it was very common for kids with various levels of imperfection to be shuffled away. Whether the child was healthy was literally the very first question Scotland Yard asked the NJSP when they were consulted for assistance. One has to ask why, with ALL of the books written about this case, the fact that Scotland Yard asked about this was never included. It can only be two options: 1. They never did the research.
2. They purposely ignored it because it undermines their narrative. An example I keep thinking of is Fisher, in Ghosts, making light of those who assisted Gov. Hoffman because some used code names. He never mentioned that some of these men worked and/or assisted the State earlier in the investigation and/or other investigations. Some even did so after. Additionally, code name usage was quite common. Keyes, for example, used his famous K-4 during his employment with the US Secret Service. Mustoe worked as a very competent LE officer working for Monmouth County, etc. etc. So here we are faced with the same two options as I've written above. He's either ignorant due to lack of research or misleading people thinking they will never learn the actual truth. Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me. While I realize most people would never expect someone to go through everything, there has to be a level of integrity and a minimum amount of research before someone starts scribbling out things that, in my opinion, they have no business writing. There's also the link I've provided below to the Documentary. It explains away that DNA in my opinion. I'm guessing Skeptical still hasn't watched it. As I sit here, I believe Patsy wrote that note. Her actions implicate her too. Pretending to cry and giving us non verbal communicators when she's saying certain things indicated she was lying. I've seen it all before, so much, that certain guys would stop mid-way knowing it wasn't working. They'd stop, smile, and give me the old: " okay, for real for real?" As soon as I heard that i knew at least part of the real story was about to be told. The men impossible to read were those who always said " I don't know anything." I'd ask them if they did whether or not they'd tell me and the answer was always " no." I've had men who were actually shanked (stabbed) who knew who did it but would never say. Usually I'd find out from Inmates doing something else wrong hoping to score points or distract me away from that conduct. Another usual source was even the guilty party himself. They'd do it to get ahead of the situation by offering some bogus justification. It's like one big game. The more you play the better you get at it - or recognizing it. All depends what side you are on.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 19, 2022 8:22:41 GMT -5
DNA evidence has been used to clear suspects in JonBenet’s murder. ABC News reports that all members of the Ramsey family, as well as 200 other potential suspects, were excluded as the possible murderer in this case as a result of then-newly discovered touch DNA found on JonBenet's long johns. The touch DNA was traced to an unknown male, the male also responsible for DNA found in two spots of blood found in the 6-year-old’s underwear. How will new testing help solve JonBenet Ramsey’s murder? The testing John has in mind is investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) research. According to the Oxford Sciences Journal of Law and the Biosciences, “the technique involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying a criminal offender’s genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within the family tree.” —- Patsy Ramsey wasn’t famous, but she was beautiful, rich and odd. There’s some kind of delusion that arises when an odd person is a crime victim. Since Patsy was a loud, hysterical evangelical Christian the media and public simply convicted her, of something she had no motive to do and would have been caught if she had. People even suspected nine year old Burke. The Ramsey killer will likely someday be caught. How he knew about the inside of the home will then be obvious. The Ramsey case is not a DNA case. She had multiple profiles on her. So to believe the DNA you'd have to believe that at least 4 people were downstairs while both Patsy and Burke, who later admitted to being downstairs at the same time, were awake. The DA who "exonerated" them was tied too closely to them and the current DA essentially rescinded that statement. Let's also not forget a Grand Jury heard ALL of the evidence and indicted the parents as being partially responsible for the death. www.9news.com/article/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/dna-in-doubt-a-closer-look-at-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/73-343376600Ironically the Ramsey case and Lindbergh case share many similarities, starting with a Ransom note that was never intended to be collected. I can just see Hauptmann shaking his head, scowling and wagging his finger at you guys from the other side, as he recalls all of the trouble he went through to kidnap Charlie and collect the ransom money.. "Mister, mister.. you are telling a story!"
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 19, 2022 12:08:03 GMT -5
The Ramsey case is not a DNA case. She had multiple profiles on her. So to believe the DNA you'd have to believe that at least 4 people were downstairs while both Patsy and Burke, who later admitted to being downstairs at the same time, were awake. The DA who "exonerated" them was tied too closely to them and the current DA essentially rescinded that statement. Let's also not forget a Grand Jury heard ALL of the evidence and indicted the parents as being partially responsible for the death. www.9news.com/article/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/dna-in-doubt-a-closer-look-at-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/73-343376600Ironically the Ramsey case and Lindbergh case share many similarities, starting with a Ransom note that was never intended to be collected. I can just see Hauptmann shaking his head, scowling and wagging his finger at you guys from the other side, as he recalls all of the trouble he went through to kidnap Charlie and collect the ransom money.. "Mister, mister.. you are telling a story!" Considering the man was willing to go to the chair, rather than confessing, getting a plea deal and probably some money for his family if he gave interviews, something tells me he wouldn't saying that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 19, 2022 14:02:05 GMT -5
It has been suggested that if CAL wanted to destroy his son he would have faked a domestic accident, drowning or smothering in the bed clothes etc. All the complex ransom business would be avoided. However such an "accidental" death would lead to a post-mortem on the body of the newly-deceased child. If the pathologists were competent and not inhibited by CAL's fame, a thorough examination including toxicology, blood analysis etc might yield clues as to how the child really died. Also a more complete picture of Charlie's physical problems would emerge compared with what actually happened: examination of a partially decayed and incomplete corpse. This would also tie in with the body not being placed in the woods immediately after abduction. It was placed there, or at the roadside, only when a thorough examination, as outlined above, would be impossible.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 19, 2022 14:45:49 GMT -5
I also think a simple household "accident" could've reflected badly on Lindbergh, as being an incompetent or negligent parent. By contrast, a kidnapping keeps him purely as the victim of outsiders and circumstances pretty much beyond his control.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 19, 2022 15:44:20 GMT -5
I also think a simple household "accident" could've reflected badly on Lindbergh, as being an incompetent or negligent parent. By contrast, a kidnapping keeps him purely as the victim of outsiders and circumstances pretty much beyond his control. Exactly. When you combine that with the fact kidnappings were a dime a dozen in this era, it was the perfect solution. One that Scotland Yard seemed to see right through.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 20, 2022 6:57:16 GMT -5
I also think a simple household "accident" could've reflected badly on Lindbergh, as being an incompetent or negligent parent. By contrast, a kidnapping keeps him purely as the victim of outsiders and circumstances pretty much beyond his control.
—-
The theory that Elizabeth Morrow somehow killed Charlie never seems to die.
But unless somehow the evidence against him was fabricated, BRH made the ladder and wrote every ransom note. That rules out an accident covered up by a contracted kidnapping.
Lindy was one of the most universally known and famous men in America.
So famous he dared not deal with common criminals lest they betray him.
Another problem is that AML is as much of a saint as Lindy was a sinner.
The mother was not to blame in this tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 20, 2022 7:59:17 GMT -5
Or maybe Dwight Morrow's ghost came down and did it. He did not like his son-in-law very much.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2022 8:28:15 GMT -5
Hauptmann's life was essentially over the moment he was convicted of the crime. In the electric chair without a confession, or in prison and even if he was released one day with a confession. And from the moment he was rebuffed by Agent Leon Turrou, after asking whether or not it would go better for him if he confessed, he resolved to never break down. This is evident within his time on the witness stand sparring with David Wilentz, his plea of absolute innocence and swearing he knew nothing about the crime. Hauptmann also couldn't bear the thought of his son whom he truly loved, seeing him behind bars, or for him to grow up knowing his father was a confessed murderer. Ultimately, there was no question in Hauptmann's mind about his fate. This 'lowlife of the century' was self-compelled to lie through his teeth to the bitter end. And in not taking true accountability for his crimes as a decent human being would have done, Hauptmann only perpetuated the abject grief and misery he had first begun on March 1, 1932, by forever creating undue suspicion on so many others fully undeserving of it.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 20, 2022 10:20:12 GMT -5
There is an almost primal urge to reject the simple explanation and embrace a complicated one.
After the snatch, it’s simple to see how BRH was guilty as charged.
But to act alone to do the snatch, and it’s possible, BRH had to have Lady Luck on his shoulders, or else inside information.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2022 10:47:13 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. And here’s another consideration as to how life works, Michael. Many people have what appear to be, seemingly cast-in-stone standards. And sometimes, those same individuals are willing to overlook or lessen the significance of these rigid ideals, for the sake of new opportunities to grow and experience what life might truly have to offer. Such as the act of falling in love with someone, as Charles and Anne did with each other. I believe there is no doubt that Charles Lindbergh truly loved their first-born child, given his personal capacity for expressing and demonstrating love within the short period of time he had to share with Charlie. After his son was murdered, Lindbergh went on to have four more children with Anne, his chosen partner, who was already pregnant again at the time of the kidnapping. Any notion that Lindbergh had serious enough reservations about Charlie’s health to have him destroyed, and therefore making him predisposed to shunning Anne’s desire to have more children with him, is not rational. Time and time again, you demonstrate that you’re just not thinking this case through from all possible angles.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2022 12:28:15 GMT -5
There is an almost primal urge to reject the simple explanation and embrace a complicated one. After the snatch, it’s simple to see how BRH was guilty as charged. But to act alone to do the snatch, and it’s possible, BRH had to have Lady Luck on his shoulders, or else inside information. He was indeed fortunate on many counts, but what he did was not impossible to do on his own. And I still consider there may have been something to jury member Charles Snyder's claim that the jury was shown evidence not admitted to trial and that indicated Hauptmann had a house interior layout plan. Regardless, I can't think of anyone else who would have been more resourceful and capable of pulling off this crime.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 20, 2022 16:37:39 GMT -5
I also think a simple household "accident" could've reflected badly on Lindbergh, as being an incompetent or negligent parent. By contrast, a kidnapping keeps him purely as the victim of outsiders and circumstances pretty much beyond his control. —- The theory that Elizabeth Morrow somehow killed Charlie never seems to die. But unless somehow the evidence against him was fabricated, BRH made the ladder and wrote every ransom note. That rules out an accident covered up by a contracted kidnapping. Lindy was one of the most universally known and famous men in America. So famous he dared not deal with common criminals lest they betray him. Another problem is that AML is as much of a saint as Lindy was a sinner. The mother was not to blame in this tragedy. He didn't deal with criminals. He trusted a third party to arrange for the removal. And the handwriting analysis is iffy, at best. Many of the "experts" at trial said Hauptmann didn't write the letters until they heard the other evidence against him then changed their tune. Handwriting science, like hair analysis and forensic odontology, is junk science anyways. Everyone in that house probably believed the child would be "going away" to be cared for in some kind of facility. Again, this was very common at the time, particularly in Europe where eugenics were big and from where Lindbergh took most of his cues.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 20, 2022 16:43:11 GMT -5
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. And here’s another consideration as to how life works, Michael. Many people have what appear to be, seemingly cast-in-stone standards. And sometimes, those same individuals are willing to overlook or lessen the significance of these rigid ideals, for the sake of new opportunities to grow and experience what life might truly have to offer. Such as the act of falling in love with someone, as Charles and Anne did with each other. I believe there is no doubt that Charles Lindbergh truly loved their first-born child, given his personal capacity for expressing and demonstrating love within the short period of time he had to share with Charlie. After his son was murdered, Lindbergh went on to have four more children with Anne, his chosen partner, who was already pregnant again at the time of the kidnapping. Any notion that Lindbergh had serious enough reservations about Charlie’s health to have him destroyed, and therefore making him predisposed to shunning Anne’s desire to have more children with him, is not rational. Time and time again, you demonstrate that you’re just not thinking this case through from all possible angles. What evidence do you see that he loved his son? Honestly. When he called him "it"? When he knocked "it" over for amusement? When he spent the time searching playing cards and games but never actually searching? When he asked for a "meat slicer" and coldly opened his dead son's face like a 7th grader in biology cutting open a frog? I see no evidence of love anywhere. If you believe, which many do, that it was the high altitude flight, which made her so ill that she had to be met my paramedics, was the cause of many of Charlie's ailments, then they knew what the problem was and how to avoid it with future children.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2022 19:14:54 GMT -5
And here’s another consideration as to how life works, Michael. Many people have what appear to be, seemingly cast-in-stone standards. And sometimes, those same individuals are willing to overlook or lessen the significance of these rigid ideals, for the sake of new opportunities to grow and experience what life might truly have to offer. What? Sounds like something from a creative writing class. Such as the act of falling in love with someone, as Charles and Anne did with each other. I believe there is no doubt that Charles Lindbergh truly loved their first-born child, given his personal capacity for expressing and demonstrating love within the short period of time he had to share with Charlie. LOL! Need I say more? Where do you come up with this stuff? This was the closest thing to an arranged marriage without it actually being one. Lindbergh had his pick of the sisters. Constance was too young. He connected more with Elisabeth but she was sickly which made her unacceptable. That left Anne. After his son was murdered, Lindbergh went on to have four more children with Anne, his chosen partner, who was already pregnant again at the time of the kidnapping. Any notion that Lindbergh had serious enough reservations about Charlie’s health to have him destroyed, and therefore making him predisposed to shunning Anne’s desire to have more children with him, is not rational. Time and time again, you demonstrate that you’re just not thinking this case through from all possible angles. Joe, you did a great job of evading all of my points, then creating a straw man which you promptly knock down. Next comes the celebration and the patting of oneself on the back. Do a search and find where I've ever said Lindbergh was " predisposed to shunning Anne's desire to have more children with him." In 22 years of discussion and four volumes of books, I've never written/said such a thing. It's a warped creation used to disprove something that never existed in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 21, 2022 9:11:29 GMT -5
CAL's 4 month journey to the Orient with wife Anne in 1931 (he made sure she wasn't pregnant this time) was the first example of his life-long behaviour as an absentee parent. He didn't "shun Anne's desire to have more children." In fact I'd bet the main "desire" came from CAL looking at the number of his subsequent progeny. This in itself may indicate that he strongly suspected that his firstborn's problems didn't have any genetic origin but were caused by Anne's high altitude flight when 7 months pregnant. "...the short period of time he had to share with Charlie.." My heart bleeds. In fact the guy couldn't wait to get away. Apart from the above mentioned 4 month truncated trip to the Orient when Charlie was ~ 1 year old , CAL was often an overnight absentee from home when he was (he says) in the NYC/NJ area. "Nobody knows what I do" indeed.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 21, 2022 9:41:45 GMT -5
What separates modern society from the ancient is only, the rule of law. We all are protected from even standing trial unless competent evidence links us to a crime.
Lindy arguably had a motive to put his first born away privately, but there is zero evidence, none whatsoever, he was complicit in the murder of Charlie.
On the other side, BRH quit his job and spent a small fortune during the Depression, was found with $15,000 ransom money, and unless it was forged the ladder was made in his garage with his tools.
Alone, handwriting experts are not reliable.
Combined with the damning evidence against BRH it’s icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 21, 2022 16:51:41 GMT -5
What separates modern society from the ancient is only, the rule of law. We all are protected from even standing trial unless competent evidence links us to a crime. Lindy arguably had a motive to put his first born away privately, but there is zero evidence, none whatsoever, he was complicit in the murder of Charlie. On the other side, BRH quit his job and spent a small fortune during the Depression, was found with $15,000 ransom money, and unless it was forged the ladder was made in his garage with his tools. Alone, handwriting experts are not reliable. Combined with the damning evidence against BRH it’s icing on the cake. Again, you are relying on the anecdotes passed through history - rather than some of the incredible research that has been done in the last 15-20 years. Read The Case That Never Dies, then read Michael's amazing books. Lindbergh had his hands all over this. He refused to let the staff be questioned for reasons unknown. Yet during the Curtis affair, he was told that a staff member handed the baby out the front door and believed it to be the likely scenario. Unless he knew the latter to be true, why would he have refused to allow the staff to be questioned?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 22, 2022 8:46:48 GMT -5
Hi Skeptical, "There is zero evidence.... that (Lindy) was complicit in the murder of Charlie." Evidence is either direct (witnesses, fingerprints, bloodstains etc.) or it is circumstantial. You are correct in that there is no direct evidence associating Lindbergh with the crime. However there is considerable circumstantial evidence (CE) which suggests he was involved. CE is weaker than its direct counterpart but in this case the sheer amount of CE pointing to an inside job and specifically Lindbergh's involvement is overwhelming.
"... the damning evidence against BRH..." BRH quitting his job and spending a fortune can themselves be debated but the $15,000 in his garage is real. These three are CE of his possible involvement in extortion, not murder, the crime of which he was convicted. The ladder, if BRH made it, is strong physical evidence of his connection in some way to the abduction of Charlie. Without it, a strong case for murder against BRH could not be sustained. The prosecution needed that ladder, particularly Rail 16 to be authenticated as originating in Hauptmann's attic. The jury were impressed by Koehler's exposition at the trial but debate still rages over this key piece of evidence.
Although the CE suggests Lindbergh's involvement there is a mass of CE which suggests the non-involvement of BRH in the abduction. There is a limit to the amount of pure dumb luck that this guy would need to pull it off. The Lindberghs were not at Hopewell each weekend. Usual practice was arrival around 5 pm on Saturday, leaving Monday morning. Prior to the abduction they had not visited Hopewell at all on the previous two weekends. Then the last minute decision less than 12 hours before Charlie's disappearance that they would stay overnight on the Tuesday. Yet BRH having reported for work that morning at the Majestic Apartments building and finding he wasn't needed, decides to go home, pick up his ladder, drive 70 miles to Hopewell to execute the plan which has been in preparation "for a year already." And hoping that this victim is at home....
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 22, 2022 9:07:52 GMT -5
Such as the act of falling in love with someone, as Charles and Anne did with each other. I believe there is no doubt that Charles Lindbergh truly loved their first-born child, given his personal capacity for expressing and demonstrating love within the short period of time he had to share with Charlie. LOL! Need I say more? Where do you come up with this stuff? This was the closest thing to an arranged marriage without it actually being one. Lindbergh had his pick of the sisters. Constance was too young. He connected more with Elisabeth but she was sickly which made her unacceptable. That left Anne. Arranged marriage? Are you aware that Lindbergh could have had his pick of the daughters of any one of dozens of bankers, businessmen, lawyers, political and military figures he had encountered over the years and following his trans-Atlantic flight. It was only by his agreement to return a financial favour to Ambassador Dwight Morrow that landed him in Cuernavaca, Mexico to help Morrow mend fences between that country and America. Lindbergh ultimately chose Anne because of her more reserved nature and quiet, unassuming beauty even though by this time, he was well aware the Morrow family was not predisposed to the perfect genes you'd probably like to have seen him hell bent in pursuing. So what happened here? That’s the power of love my friend, full circle back to my original point. I know this type of thought and opinion might be uncomfortable and even a bit "icky" to consider here, in light of this discussion board’s general and analytical dependency on NJSP traffic cop reports. You have absolutely nothing to lose though in attempting to unseat the rigid shibboleth from time to time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 22, 2022 9:54:13 GMT -5
After his son was murdered, Lindbergh went on to have four more children with Anne, his chosen partner, who was already pregnant again at the time of the kidnapping. Any notion that Lindbergh had serious enough reservations about Charlie’s health to have him destroyed, and therefore making him predisposed to shunning Anne’s desire to have more children with him, is not rational. Time and time again, you demonstrate that you’re just not thinking this case through from all possible angles. Joe, you did a great job of evading all of my points, then creating a straw man which you promptly knock down. Next comes the celebration and the patting of oneself on the back. Do a search and find where I've ever said Lindbergh was " predisposed to shunning Anne's desire to have more children with him." In 22 years of discussion and four volumes of books, I've never written/said such a thing. It's a warped creation used to disprove something that never existed in the first place. Okay Michael, here's your post and my addressing of your points: Try reading "The Immortalists" by David Friedman and when finished get back to me. Thanks for the recommendation. It's actually enroute right now, and yes, I will.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? While he was a livestock farmer, Lindbergh learned the value of sound breeding principles. As any sane and competent farmer know there is an important livelihood and financial consideration in making good choices within the stock of animals from purchase to breeding and yield. So what happened here as eligible bachelor Lindbergh surrounded himself with a large and loving human family he had not previously experienced in life for himself, even though this supposedly "diehard Eugenicist" would been well aware of any perceived genetic shortcomings within the Morrow clan, as early as late-1927? Again, your simple cause-and-effect logic based on black-and-white consideration and the parallel universe of your own making, rears its estimable head. 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? That flight was ill-advised and probably one of the stupidest and riskiest things Lindbergh ever did. It was fortunate that Charlie did not appear to have been affected by the temporary environmental elements Anne was exposed to. Charlie's overlapping toes, (clinodactyly) is a condition based on either heredity or weak muscles or ligaments joints. It can be treated surgically, but not until the child is about 4 years of age. His moderate ricketiness was a condition that was not at all uncommon at the time, even in well-to-do families, due to a general lack of understanding within the medical community about the mechanism on Vitamin D absorption and its relationship to food and nutrition. Charlie was being treated medically for this condition and the Lindberghs made no bones about letting the entire world know their son was not the perfect child you only assume Lindbergh would have dreamed of conveying. Again, your simple cause-and-effect logic, this time accompanied by some essential 20/20 hindsight, rises again. Answer: The same type of man who would get rid of a child who made him look weak.
Unfounded and prime stock claptrap.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 22, 2022 20:57:01 GMT -5
I also think a simple household "accident" could've reflected badly on Lindbergh, as being an incompetent or negligent parent. By contrast, a kidnapping keeps him purely as the victim of outsiders and circumstances pretty much beyond his control. —- The theory that Elizabeth Morrow somehow killed Charlie never seems to die. But unless somehow the evidence against him was fabricated, BRH made the ladder and wrote every ransom note. That rules out an accident covered up by a contracted kidnapping. Lindy was one of the most universally known and famous men in America. So famous he dared not deal with common criminals lest they betray him. Another problem is that AML is as much of a saint as Lindy was a sinner. The mother was not to blame in this tragedy. He didn't deal with criminals. He trusted a third party to arrange for the removal. And the handwriting analysis is iffy, at best. Many of the "experts" at trial said Hauptmann didn't write the letters until they heard the other evidence against him then changed their tune. Handwriting science, like hair analysis and forensic odontology, is junk science anyways. Everyone in that house probably believed the child would be "going away" to be cared for in some kind of facility. Again, this was very common at the time, particularly in Europe where eugenics were big and from where Lindbergh took most of his cues. This is all all choice speculation that you'd like to believe has some basis in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2022 11:58:08 GMT -5
LOL! Need I say more? Where do you come up with this stuff? This was the closest thing to an arranged marriage without it actually being one. Lindbergh had his pick of the sisters. Constance was too young. He connected more with Elisabeth but she was sickly which made her unacceptable. That left Anne. Arranged marriage? Are you aware that Lindbergh could have had his pick of the daughters of any one of dozens of bankers, businessmen, lawyers, political and military figures he had encountered over the years and following his trans-Atlantic flight. Joe, I know you regularly do this, but I can't allow it here. You've actually quoted me above, then address only part of what I wrote. I thought maybe I didn't write the part that says " without it actually being one" but I just checked again and there it is. I got the feeling this is why you don't remember much of what I've written in my four volumes. It seems to me you do more scanning than actual reading. So what happened here? That’s the power of love my friend, full circle back to my original point. I know this type of thought and opinion might be uncomfortable and even a bit "icky" to consider here, in light of this discussion board’s general and analytical dependency on NJSP traffic cop reports. You have absolutely nothing to lose though in attempting to unseat the rigid shibboleth from time to time. I think you've missed your calling. Ever think about writing a Novel on the case? Or what about a Screenplay? You'd get my endorsement most especially if its a comedy or spoof.
|
|