Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 23, 2022 12:17:30 GMT -5
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. I have no idea what you're talking about here and "not allowing." What quote? Please explain. 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. I take your comment as seriously as the shibboleth, or grand house-of-cards itself.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 24, 2022 5:25:13 GMT -5
Extracts from statement of Mrs Whateley to Officers Sweeney and Strong. March 10 ,1932.
"I took the baby up some orange juice and fed it." "...rubbed his chest and put him in his bed..." "..she decided to keep it here in Hopewell.."
Its clear that CAL was not the only one to refer to the child as "it." Mrs Whateley uses "it" "his" and "him" at random referring to the child. As she obviously cared for the infant I think the use of "it" is just a figure of speech and not, when used by CAL, an indication of his objectifying the kid.
"Betty, Whateley and I were in the kitchen and the baby came running in and said to me "Hello Elsie" and Betty had to run around the table and caught him."
"...came running in..." indicates that the child had no problems with balance or with walking/running unsupported.
All this depends on our taking Mrs Whateley's statement as truthful of course.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2022 7:16:42 GMT -5
Extracts from statement of Mrs Whateley to Officers Sweeney and Strong. March 10 ,1932. "I took the baby up some orange juice and fed it." "...rubbed his chest and put him in his bed..." "..she decided to keep it here in Hopewell.." Its clear that CAL was not the only one to refer to the child as "it." Mrs Whateley uses "it" "his" and "him" at random referring to the child. As she obviously cared for the infant I think the use of "it" is just a figure of speech and not, when used by CAL, an indication of his objectifying the kid. "Betty, Whateley and I were in the kitchen and the baby came running in and said to me "Hello Elsie" and Betty had to run around the table and caught him." Good Lord, what are you trying to do to me? As soon as Joe reads this he's going to break out in song or probably write another Haiku! I see the context of your examples being much different. It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. As we can see by just your example how would Elsie have posed a question to Gow? Seems to me: " Betty, is the baby asleep yet?" That's much different than Lindbergh coming home and asking: " Anne, is It asleep?" Or, " why did you go into the nursery? I forbid anyone from bothering with It during these hours." Or That's brilliant Anne, I was just about to dump ice water over Whateley's head, so don't bring It into the room because I don't want my joke spoiled." Or, " quick Betty, take It upstairs, I want to tell Anne that It has been kidnapped - again." "...came running in..." indicates that the child had no problems with balance or with walking/running unsupported. All this depends on our taking Mrs Whateley's statement as truthful of course. We know from home movies and pictures the child could stand up and take steps. We also know from the corpse his toes were deformed. We also have experts saying that a stick should not be able to pierce that child's skull. However, we know from two separate police officers that a stick did pierce it. We have evidence of a condition labeled "rickets" that does not account for "why" that stick was able to do that. At the moment the child dies, his condition is frozen in time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 24, 2022 8:56:26 GMT -5
Michael, if I felt reasonably certain that you knew what a Haiku was, I might be inspired to write my first one here for your benefit. In the meantime, keep doing all you can to keep that old tottering house-of-cards from blowing over.. every little bit helps. Perhaps a Haiku epitaph would be fitting when it finally does.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 24, 2022 9:11:03 GMT -5
"...came running in..." indicates that the child had no problems with balance or with walking/running unsupported. All this depends on our taking Mrs Whateley's statement as truthful of course. We know from home movies and pictures the child could stand up and take steps. We also know from the corpse his toes were deformed. We also have experts saying that a stick should not be able to pierce that child's skull. However, we know from two separate police officers that a stick did pierce it. We have evidence of a condition labeled "rickets" that does not account for "why" that stick was able to do that. At the moment the child dies, his condition is frozen in time. I'm curious if anyone has given additional thought as to how such external trauma to the head, ie. the accepted cause of death, which resulted in a significant fracture with radiating fracture lines, could still have left the skull essentially intact, yet a purported stick contact with comparatively-negligible shear and force could have effected a clean round 1/2" hole in bony skull matter. Something doesn't add up here.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 24, 2022 9:13:00 GMT -5
Hi Michael, Thanks for your humorous reply. I agree that its all a question of context. The use of "it" by Elsie Whateley does seem to be a jarring but innocent figure of speech or slip of the tongue when set against her known character as a diligent care-giver for the child in Gow's absence. This is not the case with CAL. His behaviour radiates lack of interest in his son. He arrives home around 8.30, has dinner, talks to Anne, spends time in his library (reading one of his two books no doubt) and although knowing full well that Charlie has a cold doesn't so much as put his nose around the nursery door to see how he's doing! Add to this his frequent absences from home and you have the classic absentee parent.
I was unaware there were movies etc showing Charlie taking steps etc so I was struck by Mrs Whateley's account of him running. Nontheless the child had the problems you describe. There is quite a commonality between the physical symptoms of rickets (enlarged head, unclosed fontanel etc) and those of hydrocephalus. Vitamin D supplements were used to treat the child's rickets but they are useless in the treatment of hydrocephalus which is much more serious. An effective treatment for hydrocephalus was only found in the 1960s with the introduction of silicone brain shunts to drain off excess liquid and relieve pressure on the brain. As you say, it was"a condition labelled rickets", but was it that alone, or at all?
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 24, 2022 10:52:07 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Difficult to give any meaningful answer to your question about the skull injuries because so many, often contradictory, descriptions of the skull have been bandied around: "brittle" "soft" "orange peel" - the latter coming I believe from Reilly. I think we can agree on "fragile." As such, the level of trauma force needed to produce the significant fracture with radiating fracture lines would be less than in a "normal" skull and it may well, as it seems to have done here, leave the skull intact. Such a "small force/significant fracture" scenario might even indicate an accidental death e.g. from a fall. Poking the skull with a stick concentrates all the applied force over the small area of the stick's end (4-5 square centimetres/ one square inch? less?) which may account for the small hole which was found. You will see Joe that this, to quote my namesake, is "a plethora of supposition, conjecture, and hypothesis." Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 24, 2022 19:29:04 GMT -5
Hi Michael, Thanks for your humorous reply. I agree that its all a question of context. The use of "it" by Elsie Whateley does seem to be a jarring but innocent figure of speech or slip of the tongue when set against her known character as a diligent care-giver for the child in Gow's absence. This is not the case with CAL. His behaviour radiates lack of interest in his son. He arrives home around 8.30, has dinner, talks to Anne, spends time in his library (reading one of his two books no doubt) and although knowing full well that Charlie has a cold doesn't so much as put his nose around the nursery door to see how he's doing! Add to this his frequent absences from home and you have the classic absentee parent. I was unaware there were movies etc showing Charlie taking steps etc so I was struck by Mrs Whateley's account of him running. Nontheless the child had the problems you describe. There is quite a commonality between the physical symptoms of rickets (enlarged head, unclosed fontanel etc) and those of hydrocephalus. Vitamin D supplements were used to treat the child's rickets but they are useless in the treatment of hydrocephalus which is much more serious. An effective treatment for hydrocephalus was only found in the 1960s with the introduction of silicone brain shunts to drain off excess liquid and relieve pressure on the brain. As you say, it was"a condition labelled rickets", but was it that alone, or at all? Sherlock For what it's worth, far as I know, the only movies of him moving he's bracing a railing.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 25, 2022 3:05:45 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, It was your earlier posting about Charlie bracing himself on a railing which prompted my surprise on reading Mrs Whateley's account of him running around. If we support the idea that "they all (the staff) knew Charlie was going away" then any mention by the staff of his health problems would be forbidden and any opportunity to boost a picture of good health would be encouraged. I still struggle with the "they all knew" theory as being too risky and an unnecessary complication so for now I take Mrs Whateley's account as accurate. Of course this doesn't negate the child's significant problems which are well documented: fragile skull, enlarged head, etc. Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 25, 2022 7:50:53 GMT -5
How old is Charlie in the video where he is "bracing" a railing? If he is 10-11 months old it would be appropriate for him to hold a railing.
Again, I wish we had a separate category where we could put all photos, videos, maps, etc. on this forum (not that I'm trying to create more work for you, Michael!).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 25, 2022 13:20:50 GMT -5
Perhaps these photos of Charlie taken at North Haven in late 1931, and which would have been some of his last ever, will add some perspective towards discussion focusing on the condition of his health. Toddling Charlie is from a collection at Yale Archives which fellow researcher and contributor to this board, Wayne McDaniel discovered there and provided. The photo of Running Charlie may be familiar, as it's the same one found within the introduction of Jim Fisher's "The Lindbergh Case." (1987) Some here may want to consider the likelihood of there having been no vast conspiracy involving dozens of reputable individuals who were in a position to provide the clear and detailed accounts of Charlie behaving as any happy and healthy toddler would have, up to the day he was kidnapped and killed. Why on earth would anyone want to "destroy" such a child?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 25, 2022 17:38:50 GMT -5
How old is Charlie in the video where he is "bracing" a railing? If he is 10-11 months old it would be appropriate for him to hold a railing. Again, I wish we had a separate category where we could put all photos, videos, maps, etc. on this forum (not that I'm trying to create more work for you, Michael!). There actually is a spot for this Norma. It's in the "Members Only" section with sub-boards of "Source Material" and "Resources." Problem is, nobody uses them AND sometimes and time passes things drop off the server. Whether is the Pro-Boards server running out of room or other Hosts which drop them over time or cease to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 25, 2022 17:56:16 GMT -5
Some here may want to consider the likelihood of there having been no vast conspiracy involving dozens of reputable individuals who were in a position to provide the clear and detailed accounts of Charlie behaving as any happy and healthy toddler would have, up to the day he was kidnapped and killed. Why on earth would anyone want to "destroy" such a child? Sorry but your position about the child being "happy and healthy" is disproven by the source documentation. It's wishful thinking on your part but bias is no substitute for fact. He had deformed toes. Wayne's research involving Pediatrician(s) examining the photos of the corpse. Of course we can see it with our own eyes as well. Futhermore, according to Gow the child was irritable and Dr. Van Ingen called him "spoiled." We have the oversized head for a child of his age. We have an unclosed fontanel, something that we know should have been closed by the time he went "missing." That was diagnosed as "rickets" so he was treated with Vitamin D, a Sunlamp, and we know that he was outside getting sun as well. Next, the skull was brittle. Why? Because a stick poked a hole in it at the grave site, something that professionals say should not happen. We have the heart and liver untouched by animals despite the fact they consumed all of the other internal organs. Another oddity. Combine all of these things and you've got to be delusional to call it a "healthy" situation. Next, this question you've asked: " Why on earth would anyone want to "destroy" such a child?" Forgive me but its the damnedest thing I've ever seen you ask. Is it really your position that an Eugenicist would exempt a child from being deemed "undesirable" merely because there are pictures of him taking a few steps? Seriously? Is that really your position? If it is, you are beyond desperate at this point. What's worse, you fail to ask the relevant questions... Things like: Why did Lindbergh throw water on a sleeping Richard during his search with Curtis while looking for his child? Why did he say " to hell with it lets play cards" instead of searching for his son YOU say he loved so much? Why at his home, only days after the crime, was he pouring ice water down backs and tying clothes into hard knots of those who were there to HELP him? Why did he forbid the Lie Detector on his staff? Why did he forget his dinner engagement or where he was during the time before he got home? Why did he leave Skean at Englewood? Why didn't he hire Security when his father in law told him the child would be kidnapped if he did not? Why did he hide the baby in a closet and pretend he was kidnapped - twice - before the actual event itself? Instead, whenever these very real matters are brought up, they're met with a wink, smile, shrug and ultimately some crazy fictional story about a loving and caring father.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 25, 2022 23:34:40 GMT -5
Good photos. Rarely seen. Can we verify when they were taken? We’ve heard over and over that CAL Jr.’s last pictures were on his first birthday, in June 1931, but are these later? If it’s late 1931, I’m surprised he’s in shorts, especially in ME. Either way, I concede that he looks fine, but then again, someone doesn’t have to be incapacitated or obviously sick to have something wrong with them, so I don’t know that the pictures on their own, interesting as they are, prove anything one way or another.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 26, 2022 7:18:36 GMT -5
Good photos. Rarely seen. Can we verify when they were taken? We’ve heard over and over that CAL Jr.’s last pictures were on his first birthday, in June 1931, but are these later? If it’s late 1931, I’m surprised he’s in shorts, especially in ME. Either way, I concede that he looks fine, but then again, someone doesn’t have to be incapacitated or obviously sick to have something wrong with them, so I don’t know that the pictures on their own, interesting as they are, prove anything one way or another. LJ, those two photos appear to have been taken at the same stage of development and based on the outfit Charlie was wearing, as additional ones which are clearly identified on the reverse as "October 1931 North Haven." As you imply, photos on their own don't tell the entire story, but any notion that Charlie was deformed, disabled or even had trouble standing, are pretty much quashed by these examples of his obvious mobility and apparent vitality, just about four months before his kidnapping. BTW, I was in shorts and sandals all last weekend in southern Ontario, just shy of the same latitude as North Haven, Maine. Great Indian Summer weather!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2022 9:05:19 GMT -5
LJ, those two photos appear to have been taken at the same stage of development and based on the outfit Charlie was wearing, as additional ones which are clearly identified on the reverse as "October 1931 North Haven." As you imply, photos on their own don't tell the entire story, but any notion that Charlie was deformed, disabled or even had trouble standing, are pretty much quashed by these examples of his obvious mobility and apparent vitality, just about four months before his kidnapping. I continue to be completely flabbergasted by your posts Joe. A picture is a snapshot in time. There are things it tells us, things it might, and things it does not. What do we know? By the time the corpse was discovered, the child had an unclosed fontanel, deformed toes, and a prominent forehead with the head being larger than should be for a child of that age. A brittle skull that allowed a stick to create a hole in. Both a liver and heart that scavengers would not touch. Unusually dry skin all over his body. Hair, that the NJSP examiner suggested might indicate the presence of a "disease." Does this sound like a child free from deformity? No. Free from disability? No. Indicative of vitality? No. Fact is, this picture is evidence that the child's NANNY had him outside - in the sun. More evidence that he got plenty of sunlight. This child had the very best food that most other children in the depression era could only dream of. He had the absolute best pediatrician on the planet earth. And yet, at this very moment, he is afflicted with what history records as "rickets." Countermeasures were taken, and still, by the time of his death the fontanel was still unclosed. One has to ask whether sunlight, sunlamp, diet, and vitamins were an effective treatment and/or preventative measure in this case. Next, was he born with this condition or did it develop over time? Regardless of the answer, it can happen that things can develop then progress. In short, acting like a picture disproves all the documentary evidence is silly.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 26, 2022 14:11:57 GMT -5
Hm. Your attachment doesn't seem to be working. In any case, October's not necessarily freezing, and there are Indian summers for sure, so okay. That being said, we have Michael's points on the one hand, and we have these pictures on the other, which show him at least appearing to be fine. But then again, a photo only shows a moment in time, so... I don't know. Setting the motive--that is, the child's health--aside, I still find certain things about the whole thing suspicious, though I do think the points you make (like these photos) should be taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 26, 2022 18:04:16 GMT -5
Hm. Your attachment doesn't seem to be working. In any case, October's not necessarily freezing, and there are Indian summers for sure, so okay. That being said, we have Michael's points on the one hand, and we have these pictures on the other, which show him at least appearing to be fine. But then again, a photo only shows a moment in time, so... I don't know. Setting the motive--that is, the child's health--aside, I still find certain things about the whole thing suspicious, though I do think the points you make (like these photos) should be taken into account. I'm also not really sure how come we have all seemingly got to this point that his ability to walk a few paces would be enough to for a eugenicist, particularly one like Lindbergh, to overlook what is clearly a battery of other problems. Also, as has been mentioned, some conditions, like hydrocephalus, can get worse and worse around age 2. Once they realized the "rickets" treatments weren't working and things were getting worse, it may have been time to take action.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 27, 2022 10:49:11 GMT -5
Assume Lindbergh was disappointed to have an imperfect child.
He had these options:
1. Go have as many children as he wanted in secret with gorgeous, perfect women. (He later did that.)
2. Institutionalize Charlie (Like Joesph Kennedy did Rosemary)
3. Conspire with others to remove Charlie by faking a kidnapping.
Option 3 risks him falling from the pinnacle of fame and wealth to a prison cell and disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 27, 2022 14:12:31 GMT -5
These are the symptoms of hydrocephalus in infants (source Mayo Clinic):
Common signs and symptoms of hydrocephalus in infants include:
Changes in the head An unusually large head A rapid increase in the size of the head A bulging or tense soft spot (fontanel) on the top of the head
Physical signs and symptoms Nausea and vomiting Sleepiness or sluggishness (lethargy) Irritability Poor eating Seizures Eyes fixed downward (sunsetting of the eyes) Problems with muscle tone and strength
We know about the child's enlarged head/fontanel etc but much less about any behaviour symptoms apart from his irritability as reported by Betty Gow. Maybe the latter was on display when he wouldn't stand up straight for Dr van Ingen. Whereas treatment of rickets with Vitamin D was usually effective, the treatment of hydrocephalus was in its infancy in the 1930s and the prognosis was very poor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2022 18:10:48 GMT -5
Option 3 risks him falling from the pinnacle of fame and wealth to a prison cell and disgrace. Did you read Anne's book " Wave of the Future?" Anyway, I've written four volumes with so much information that most can't remember it all. After absorbing everything that's in them, I cannot see how anyone would write off this possibility. Well, aside from Joe maybe. Joe does this thing where if there's 100 pieces of information, he'll search for one or two he thinks support his position and ignore everything else. At first I thought it was just a "style" of some sort but he only does this in certain places. Condon, Lindbergh, the baby's health are good examples. However, everywhere else he takes a normal approach. That is, he wants to see all 100 pieces and carefully consider them. A perfect example concerns the ladder. Why the difference? I don't know, you'll have to ask him, but it makes for a hard debate. It reminds me of Bob Aldinger. He believed he was the Lindbergh child and once sent me a picture of several men who he misidentified. I sent him a picture of someone who he falsely claimed was in the picture as proof he was incorrect. All that did was make him mad and double down continuing to tell me it was him - even though they looked absolutely nothing alike. He only did this because it was a key piece of "evidence" to support his claim. Then came the time, much to his credit, he got his DNA taken. It showed over 96% that his mother was his mother. End of the claim right? Wrong! Since it showed his father actually wasn't, this meant (to him), that he WAS the Lindbergh Baby. It's kinda like that with Joe too when debating about Condon or the child's health.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2022 18:26:25 GMT -5
These are the symptoms of hydrocephalus in infants (source Mayo Clinic): Common signs and symptoms of hydrocephalus in infants include: Changes in the head An unusually large head A rapid increase in the size of the head A bulging or tense soft spot (fontanel) on the top of the head Physical signs and symptoms Nausea and vomiting Sleepiness or sluggishness (lethargy) Irritability Poor eating Seizures Eyes fixed downward (sunsetting of the eyes) Problems with muscle tone and strength We know about the child's enlarged head/fontanel etc but much less about any behaviour symptoms apart from his irritability as reported by Betty Gow. Maybe the latter was on display when he wouldn't stand up straight for Dr van Ingen. Whereas treatment of rickets with Vitamin D was usually effective, the treatment of hydrocephalus was in its infancy in the 1930s and the prognosis was very poor. I've given up trying to diagnose him. Years ago, I consulted an Expert on Rickets who was generous with his time and broke down all the symptoms and possibilities. Several times he suggested the child had something more than Rickets or something in addition to it. Then, as I wrote about in V3, there's an issue with "Rickets" itself. It could be caused by a simple lack of Vitamin D in the diet. Sunlight, diet, and supplement cure this. But there are other possibilities... Underlying conditions with either the kidney or liver which prevent proper absorption. There's also the possibility of other drugs being administered for other conditions that could interfere in the Vitamin D absorption. So its like a "pink eye" diagnosis. That can be caused by a range of things. For example, one could be laundry detergent and another could be the Strep virus. One is no big deal but the other could cause blindness. For me, I imagine Lindbergh seeing his child born with those toes and can hear him mumble to himself that he wanted a "do over." That was his personality, not this nonsense Joe likes to spin. No coincidence that it was Dr. Flagg who put him in touch with Dr. Carrel. And while it's debatable, it's irresistible not to at least consider it was Dr. Hawks that told the taxi driver the child wouldn't live that long. There's just too much to ignore.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 29, 2022 10:23:35 GMT -5
LJ, those two photos appear to have been taken at the same stage of development and based on the outfit Charlie was wearing, as additional ones which are clearly identified on the reverse as "October 1931 North Haven." As you imply, photos on their own don't tell the entire story, but any notion that Charlie was deformed, disabled or even had trouble standing, are pretty much quashed by these examples of his obvious mobility and apparent vitality, just about four months before his kidnapping. I continue to be completely flabbergasted by your posts Joe. A picture is a snapshot in time. There are things it tells us, things it might, and things it does not. What do we know? By the time the corpse was discovered, the child had an unclosed fontanel, deformed toes, and a prominent forehead with the head being larger than should be for a child of that age. A brittle skull that allowed a stick to create a hole in. Both a liver and heart that scavengers would not touch. Unusually dry skin all over his body. Hair, that the NJSP examiner suggested might indicate the presence of a "disease." Does this sound like a child free from deformity? No. Free from disability? No. Indicative of vitality? No. Fact is, this picture is evidence that the child's NANNY had him outside - in the sun. More evidence that he got plenty of sunlight. This child had the very best food that most other children in the depression era could only dream of. He had the absolute best pediatrician on the planet earth. And yet, at this very moment, he is afflicted with what history records as "rickets." Countermeasures were taken, and still, by the time of his death the fontanel was still unclosed. One has to ask whether sunlight, sunlamp, diet, and vitamins were an effective treatment and/or preventative measure in this case. Next, was he born with this condition or did it develop over time? Regardless of the answer, it can happen that things can develop then progress. In short, acting like a picture disproves all the documentary evidence is silly. Michael, to say some of your posts flabbergast me, would be a bit inaccurate. I was actually at that stage a long time ago and have to say they don’t really faze me anymore. Your long term lobbying campaign after twenty-two years and four books makes your heavily-invested position pretty clear. You continue to stress over the same information and conditions that have reasonable and logical explanations given everything we collectively know here, or should know by now. These provide avenues for further thought and exploration, but time and time again, you seem to feel the need to shut them down or misrepresent them to keep intact your agenda. The fact that you continue to erroneously claim that Charlie’s skull was “brittle” for example, tells me you’ve long lost sight of your own Achilles Heel within this debate. Have you actually been able to determine Charlie was being referred and treated for anything more serious than rickets through his pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen? Long absences from home in hospitals or treatment facilities? Dedicated 24/7 care and support from someone more qualified than the caregivers and nursemaids who looked after him? In-home medical apparatus for dealing with anything more serious than his “moderate rickety condition?” Not being taken out in public for fear of some more serious condition being exposed? Gross behavioural issues and demonstrating cognitive impairment? Anything more than those select letters and pieces of information that you've carefully culled from the flood of received public mail? Do you at all, take into account that Charlie was was taken “ceiling flying” from the age of six months, knocked over by pillows in February of 1932, attended The Little School at 16 months, chased around with Wahgoosh and Skean, memorized all of his thirty Ark animals, seen regularly by, and having interacted with dozens of family members and friends and being loved and having affection shown by both parents in clearly documented accounts? Anything to demonstrate he was not developing normally from the standpoint of physical, mental and emotional abilities and capacity, in spite of his rickets and crossed toes? Your notion that Charles Lindbergh, who at the time was engrossed within work to provide possible answers for his sister-in-laws deteriorating health condition, would have seen nothing within the above considerations but the decision to have his own son “destroyed,” seems not only short-sighted and under-informed, but a draconian and unreasonably-cruel judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2022 12:07:46 GMT -5
Michael, to say some of your posts flabbergast me, would be a bit inaccurate. I was actually at that stage a long time ago and have to say they don’t really faze me anymore. Your long term lobbying campaign after twenty-two years and four books makes your heavily-invested position pretty clear. You continue to stress over the same information and conditions that have reasonable and logical explanations given everything we collectively know here, or should know by now. These provide avenues for further thought and exploration, but time and time again, you seem to feel the need to shut them down or misrepresent them to keep intact your agenda. The fact that you continue to erroneously claim that Charlie’s skull was “brittle” for example, tells me you’ve long lost sight of your own Achilles Heel within this debate. I don't see any value in responding but I'm going to do it anyway. The first thing that strikes me is your previous position was successfully countered but you fail to acknowledge that. Instead, you've quickly moved on to something else. I guess I can't blame you since your overall theme would be destroyed if you made any concessions or apologies at this point. Realizing addressing your new claims will meet with the same results/tactics, there's really nothing to gain by countering them but what the hell... My volumes aren't a "lobbying" effort. They are meant to show what the actual source documentation reveals. Not necessarily what's in somebody else's book because many of those authors didn't do the archival research I've done. In fact, I'd wager no human on the planet has. Of course that makes me a little weird I suppose, but say what you want, I did the work. I've been congratulated and I've been criticized. Some don't like my style, some think I don't give enough of my opinion, and those, like you, think I give it too much. Personally, I can't help what a document contains. I can't help that other authors read a report and stopped looking for more information. I can't help that some never even visited the Archives and if they did, were only there for a handful of times. Not my fault dude. Not my fault. I was absolutely shocked, although I shouldn't have been, that when I went to the State Archives in Trenton, that I was the only one to ever go thru Gov. Moore's material in the Archivist's lifetime. How can anyone in good conscience tell others what's in this stuff if they've never even looked at it? So, there's my agenda that you've misrepresented designed specifically to bolster your own. Again, there's places in my books that I offer information I don't personally believe in order to be fair. In this first quote there's nothing but false and general accusations. However, the one specific you've noted is my calling the child's skull "brittle." I fully acknowledge its a term that I've made based on what occurred. If you or anyone else would like to offer a substitute giving what we KNOW and explain why then I'm all ears. That's the difference between me and you. You don't "like" that a stick poked a hole in that skull, so you refer back to a story here and there which you believe refutes it and somehow makes me a liar. But this tactic completely IGNORES many things. The timing for one. Both the fear and admiration people had toward Lindbergh. The control he had over others. Next, and this is worst of all, the court testimony. The police reports. The other recorded recollections by those involved with the corpse. This, to me, is unconscionable. These men had absolutely no reason to lie about the stick puncturing the skull. None. For exactly the same reasons no one had reason to lie about "vermin" on the corpse. So how do we explain it? Well, you choose to ignore it and defer to a couple of stories. It's similar to your tactics which you employ to Condon. When the man gives two opposite stories about the same subject, you call him "honest" and merely choose the one you happen to "like." I'm sorry Joe, but that's damn near insane, and I would suggest checking out a mirror before trying to cast aspersions onto me. It's like those who claim the "Lookout" didn't exist or actually was Cemetery John. There's much to ignore in order to get there. So of course, they aren't going to like that I have a ton of sources on this - to include Lindbergh saying Cerardi's walk and run closely resembled the Lookout's at St. Raymond's. Have you actually been able to determine Charlie was being referred and treated for anything more serious than rickets through his pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen? Long absences from home in hospitals or treatment facilities? Dedicated 24/7 care and support from someone more qualified than the caregivers and nursemaids who looked after him? In-home medical apparatus for dealing with anything more serious than his “moderate rickety condition?” Not being taken out in public for fear of some more serious condition being exposed? Gross behavioural issues and demonstrating cognitive impairment? Anything more than those select letters and pieces of information that you've carefully culled from the flood of received public mail? Yes. I've checked out everything that is known to exist. What does not exist, does not erase what does. Try looking at my footnotes again - you will be amazed to know you missed quite a bit there. When it comes to the child's health, as an example, I've got legitimate sources from 1932 thru 1980. I don't simply refer to Waller or something Roy Rogers once said. Frankly, that's reckless. Do you at all, take into account that Charlie was was taken “ceiling flying” from the age of six months, knocked over by pillows in February of 1932, attended The Little School at 16 months, chased around with Wahgoosh and Skean, memorized all of his thirty Ark animals, seen regularly by, and having interacted with dozens of family members and friends and being loved and having affection shown by both parents in clearly documented accounts? Anything to demonstrate he was not developing normally from the standpoint of physical, mental and emotional abilities and capacity, in spite of his rickets and crossed toes? I've already answered that, but again, you feign ignorance. I'm guessing its to try to "score" points of some sort. Regardless if friends and family called the child a genius, in the end, he was not a healthy child. Even less so to an Eugenicist. Of course, that alone doesn't mean Lindbergh had a hand in this, but its idiotic to conclude it shouldn't be considered because Lindbergh was the father. That's silly. Your notion that Charles Lindbergh, who at the time was engrossed within work to provide possible answers for his sister-in-laws deteriorating health condition, would have seen nothing within the above considerations but the decision to have his own son “destroyed,” seems not only short-sighted and under-informed, but a draconian and unreasonably-cruel judgment. Don't quit your day job.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 29, 2022 16:00:04 GMT -5
Michael, to say some of your posts flabbergast me, would be a bit inaccurate. I was actually at that stage a long time ago and have to say they don’t really faze me anymore. Your long term lobbying campaign after twenty-two years and four books makes your heavily-invested position pretty clear. You continue to stress over the same information and conditions that have reasonable and logical explanations given everything we collectively know here, or should know by now. These provide avenues for further thought and exploration, but time and time again, you seem to feel the need to shut them down or misrepresent them to keep intact your agenda. The fact that you continue to erroneously claim that Charlie’s skull was “brittle” for example, tells me you’ve long lost sight of your own Achilles Heel within this debate. I don't see any value in responding but I'm going to do it anyway. The first thing that strikes me is your previous position was successfully countered but you fail to acknowledge that. Instead, you've quickly moved on to something else. I guess I can't blame you since your overall theme would be destroyed if you made any concessions or apologies at this point. Realizing addressing your new claims will meet with the same results/tactics, there's really nothing to gain by countering them but what the hell... My volumes aren't a "lobbying" effort. They are meant to show what the actual source documentation reveals. Not necessarily what's in somebody else's book because many of those authors didn't do the archival research I've done. In fact, I'd wager no human on the planet has. Of course that makes me a little weird I suppose, but say what you want, I did the work. I've been congratulated and I've been criticized. Some don't like my style, some think I don't give enough of my opinion, and those, like you, think I give it too much. Personally, I can't help what a document contains. I can't help that other authors read a report and stopped looking for more information. I can't help that some never even visited the Archives and if they did, were only there for a handful of times. Not my fault dude. Not my fault. I was absolutely shocked, although I shouldn't have been, that when I went to the State Archives in Trenton, that I was the only one to ever go thru Gov. Moore's material in the Archivist's lifetime. How can anyone in good conscience tell others what's in this stuff if they've never even looked at it? So, there's my agenda that you've misrepresented designed specifically to bolster your own. Again, there's places in my books that I offer information I don't personally believe in order to be fair. In this first quote there's nothing but false and general accusations. However, the one specific you've noted is my calling the child's skull "brittle." I fully acknowledge its a term that I've made based on what occurred. If you or anyone else would like to offer a substitute giving what we KNOW and explain why then I'm all ears. That's the difference between me and you. You don't "like" that a stick poked a hole in that skull, so you refer back to a story here and there which you believe refutes it and somehow makes me a liar. But this tactic completely IGNORES many things. The timing for one. Both the fear and admiration people had toward Lindbergh. The control he had over others. Next, and this is worst of all, the court testimony. The police reports. The other recorded recollections by those involved with the corpse. This, to me, is unconscionable. These men had absolutely no reason to lie about the stick puncturing the skull. None. For exactly the same reasons no one had reason to lie about "vermin" on the corpse. So how do we explain it? Well, you choose to ignore it and defer to a couple of stories. It's similar to your tactics which you employ to Condon. When the man gives two opposite stories about the same subject, you call him "honest" and merely choose the one you happen to "like." I'm sorry Joe, but that's damn near insane, and I would suggest checking out a mirror before trying to cast aspersions onto me. It's like those who claim the "Lookout" didn't exist or actually was Cemetery John. There's much to ignore in order to get there. So of course, they aren't going to like that I have a ton of sources on this - to include Lindbergh saying Cerardi's walk and run closely resembled the Lookout's at St. Raymond's. Have you actually been able to determine Charlie was being referred and treated for anything more serious than rickets through his pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen? Long absences from home in hospitals or treatment facilities? Dedicated 24/7 care and support from someone more qualified than the caregivers and nursemaids who looked after him? In-home medical apparatus for dealing with anything more serious than his “moderate rickety condition?” Not being taken out in public for fear of some more serious condition being exposed? Gross behavioural issues and demonstrating cognitive impairment? Anything more than those select letters and pieces of information that you've carefully culled from the flood of received public mail? Yes. I've checked out everything that is known to exist. What does not exist, does not erase what does. Try looking at my footnotes again - you will be amazed to know you missed quite a bit there. When it comes to the child's health, as an example, I've got legitimate sources from 1932 thru 1980. I don't simply refer to Waller or something Roy Rogers once said. Frankly, that's reckless. Do you at all, take into account that Charlie was was taken “ceiling flying” from the age of six months, knocked over by pillows in February of 1932, attended The Little School at 16 months, chased around with Wahgoosh and Skean, memorized all of his thirty Ark animals, seen regularly by, and having interacted with dozens of family members and friends and being loved and having affection shown by both parents in clearly documented accounts? Anything to demonstrate he was not developing normally from the standpoint of physical, mental and emotional abilities and capacity, in spite of his rickets and crossed toes? I've already answered that, but again, you feign ignorance. I'm guessing its to try to "score" points of some sort. Regardless if friends and family called the child a genius, in the end, he was not a healthy child. Even less so to an Eugenicist. Of course, that alone doesn't mean Lindbergh had a hand in this, but its idiotic to conclude it shouldn't be considered because Lindbergh was the father. That's silly. Your notion that Charles Lindbergh, who at the time was engrossed within work to provide possible answers for his sister-in-laws deteriorating health condition, would have seen nothing within the above considerations but the decision to have his own son “destroyed,” seems not only short-sighted and under-informed, but a draconian and unreasonably-cruel judgment. Don't quit your day job. Deep down I still believe Charlie somehow got hurt and it wasn't taken seriously until it was too late and then panic set in and for some stupid reason the cover up began with a bogus kidnapping on Tuesday morning. Maybe they thought the country would turn against them for being so wealthy and not getting help right away. Skull fractures are hard to diagnose by family.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 29, 2022 16:02:49 GMT -5
I've been open to that theory as well, Mary.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 29, 2022 16:48:24 GMT -5
I've discounted it because I really do think Hauptman was highly involved in the kidnapping and not just extorting or laundering the ransom money, so it seems unlikely that this was coordinated in just 24 hours, but I still keep the idea afloat. I have a hard time thinking anyone would deliberately kill that child.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 29, 2022 19:17:12 GMT -5
Michael, to say some of your posts flabbergast me, would be a bit inaccurate. I was actually at that stage a long time ago and have to say they don’t really faze me anymore. Your long term lobbying campaign after twenty-two years and four books makes your heavily-invested position pretty clear. You continue to stress over the same information and conditions that have reasonable and logical explanations given everything we collectively know here, or should know by now. These provide avenues for further thought and exploration, but time and time again, you seem to feel the need to shut them down or misrepresent them to keep intact your agenda. The fact that you continue to erroneously claim that Charlie’s skull was “brittle” for example, tells me you’ve long lost sight of your own Achilles Heel within this debate. I don't see any value in responding but I'm going to do it anyway. The first thing that strikes me is your previous position was successfully countered but you fail to acknowledge that. Instead, you've quickly moved on to something else. I guess I can't blame you since your overall theme would be destroyed if you made any concessions or apologies at this point. Can you expand on this nebulous claim just a bit, as I'd be happy to discuss?Realizing addressing your new claims will meet with the same results/tactics, there's really nothing to gain by countering them but what the hell... My volumes aren't a "lobbying" effort. They are meant to show what the actual source documentation reveals. Not necessarily what's in somebody else's book because many of those authors didn't do the archival research I've done. In fact, I'd wager no human on the planet has. Of course that makes me a little weird I suppose, but say what you want, I did the work. I've been congratulated and I've been criticized. Some don't like my style, some think I don't give enough of my opinion, and those, like you, think I give it too much. Personally, I can't help what a document contains. I can't help that other authors read a report and stopped looking for more information. I can't help that some never even visited the Archives and if they did, were only there for a handful of times. Not my fault dude. Not my fault. I was absolutely shocked, although I shouldn't have been, that when I went to the State Archives in Trenton, that I was the only one to ever go thru Gov. Moore's material in the Archivist's lifetime. How can anyone in good conscience tell others what's in this stuff if they've never even looked at it? So, there's my agenda that you've misrepresented designed specifically to bolster your own. Again, there's places in my books that I offer information I don't personally believe in order to be fair. There's absolutely no need to keep blowing your own horn here. No one here questions your efforts and weirdness. In this first quote there's nothing but false and general accusations. However, the one specific you've noted is my calling the child's skull "brittle." I fully acknowledge its a term that I've made based on what occurred. If you or anyone else would like to offer a substitute giving what we KNOW and explain why then I'm all ears. That's the difference between me and you. You don't "like" that a stick poked a hole in that skull, so you refer back to a story here and there which you believe refutes it and somehow makes me a liar. But this tactic completely IGNORES many things. Charlie's skull was "pliable" due to his age and the rickets diagnosis, perhaps a bit more so than would be expected for a child his age. This according to Dr. Mitchell's testimony. But we're still talking about skull material here and not something of the Mr. Potato Head variety. No stick caused that hole in Charlie's skull, and you can take that to the bank, my friend.
The timing for one. Both the fear and admiration people had toward Lindbergh. The control he had over others. Next, and this is worst of all, the court testimony. The police reports. The other recorded recollections by those involved with the corpse. This, to me, is unconscionable. These men had absolutely no reason to lie about the stick puncturing the skull. None. Right, stick punctures bony skull material in a nice round 1/2" hole when the same skull material opposite the hole fractures and emits radiating fracture lines. No dice. Have you considered the reason for that hole having been explained away by a stick is because the prosecutor didn't want to have to explain how death could have occurred in Mercer County by way of a potential gunshot wound well removed from the Lindbergh property? For exactly the same reasons no one had reason to lie about "vermin" on the corpse. So how do we explain it? Well, you choose to ignore it and defer to a couple of stories. No idea what you're talking about here. It's similar to your tactics which you employ to Condon. When the man gives two opposite stories about the same subject, you call him "honest" and merely choose the one you happen to "like." I'm sorry Joe, but that's damn near insane, and I would suggest checking out a mirror before trying to cast aspersions onto me. It's like those who claim the "Lookout" didn't exist or actually was Cemetery John. There's much to ignore in order to get there. So of course, they aren't going to like that I have a ton of sources on this - to include Lindbergh saying Cerardi's walk and run closely resembled the Lookout's at St. Raymond's. Try calming down and let's discuss each point in its entirety with regards to any of the case players, as opposed to just yelling at clouds.Have you actually been able to determine Charlie was being referred and treated for anything more serious than rickets through his pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen? Long absences from home in hospitals or treatment facilities? Dedicated 24/7 care and support from someone more qualified than the caregivers and nursemaids who looked after him? In-home medical apparatus for dealing with anything more serious than his “moderate rickety condition?” Not being taken out in public for fear of some more serious condition being exposed? Gross behavioural issues and demonstrating cognitive impairment? Anything more than those select letters and pieces of information that you've carefully culled from the flood of received public mail? Yes. I've checked out everything that is known to exist. What does not exist, does not erase what does. Try looking at my footnotes again - you will be amazed to know you missed quite a bit there. When it comes to the child's health, as an example, I've got legitimate sources from 1932 thru 1980. I don't simply refer to Waller or something Roy Rogers once said. Frankly, that's reckless. And you've shown nothing to prove that this child was worthy of being consigned to oblivion by someone you don't really have much of a read on at all, despite all of your research and claims.
Do you at all, take into account that Charlie was was taken “ceiling flying” from the age of six months, knocked over by pillows in February of 1932, attended The Little School at 16 months, chased around with Wahgoosh and Skean, memorized all of his thirty Ark animals, seen regularly by, and having interacted with dozens of family members and friends and being loved and having affection shown by both parents in clearly documented accounts? Anything to demonstrate he was not developing normally from the standpoint of physical, mental and emotional abilities and capacity, in spite of his rickets and crossed toes? I've already answered that, but again, you feign ignorance. I'm guessing its to try to "score" points of some sort. Regardless if friends and family called the child a genius, in the end, he was not a healthy child. Even less so to an Eugenicist. Of course, that alone doesn't mean Lindbergh had a hand in this, but its idiotic to conclude it shouldn't be considered because Lindbergh was the father. That's silly. You've answered that already? What you've expressed is your opinion that Charles Lindbergh would have had his son killed for his being less than perfect in your own mind. Therein lies the idiocy.Your notion that Charles Lindbergh, who at the time was engrossed within work to provide possible answers for his sister-in-laws deteriorating health condition, would have seen nothing within the above considerations but the decision to have his own son “destroyed,” seems not only short-sighted and under-informed, but a draconian and unreasonably-cruel judgment. Don't quit your day job. I don't plan to, but maybe they'll take you back so you have something else to do.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 29, 2022 20:05:40 GMT -5
I've discounted it because I really do think Hauptman was highly involved in the kidnapping and not just extorting or laundering the ransom money, so it seems unlikely that this was coordinated in just 24 hours, but I still keep the idea afloat. I have a hard time thinking anyone would deliberately kill that child. There's no question that Charles Lindbergh after being jettisoned to fame, ultimately came to espouse so often a rigid, almost grating and even atmospheric level of professed personal ethics, principles and standards. It's also for this same reason that he wouldn't have cared less about what the press or public had to speculate about his son's health if they suspected it was less than perfect. That sentiment seems to pervades here for some, so much more than it actually did in son Charlie's lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2022 21:30:38 GMT -5
Deep down I still believe Charlie somehow got hurt and it wasn't taken seriously until it was too late and then panic set in and for some stupid reason the cover up began with a bogus kidnapping on Tuesday morning. Maybe they thought the country would turn against them for being so wealthy and not getting help right away. Skull fractures are hard to diagnose by family. I like that you are exploring possibilities. Nothing about this is written in stone. I've discounted it because I really do think Hauptman was highly involved in the kidnapping and not just extorting or laundering the ransom money, so it seems unlikely that this was coordinated in just 24 hours, but I still keep the idea afloat. I have a hard time thinking anyone would deliberately kill that child. There are several different variations to consider. The idea that Lindbergh presented this as a means to move the child to a home has been mentioned. This could have been the original intent. I personally believe Lindbergh's ultimate goal was to get rid of him and that the death was no accident. But I always recommend everyone to listen to their guts, and if that doesn't seem like something you'd accept, just adjust your options accordingly. It's never has to be "one or the other."
|
|