|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2023 16:20:10 GMT -5
I will be posting information here about this newspaper series and what Joe has (so far) said or insinuated about them here.
First thing is to consider that there are other sources to cross with these articles. Things like pictures, letters, reports, and statements to name but a few. So the pictures of the deformed toes of the corpse would have to be fake, or it wasn’t the child, if we are to believe he was a perfectly normal child. Or the “autopsy” that reveals an oversized head and underdeveloped body. Or the unclosed fontanelle and medicine he was taking for this health condition. And how about VanIngen’s pretrial interview describing the child as, dare I say, “spoiled.”
Next, if Red actually wrote these himself without any help, editing, or embellishments, consider that Red spelled his last name “Johnsen” meaning he misspelled his own name in this series of articles.
But IF Red actually wrote or said everything exactly as printed, would he have reason to say the child was perfect when he was not?
Answer: He had several.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2023 21:00:35 GMT -5
Point 1. Red Johnson's real name was Finn Henrik Johansen. His nickname, "Red," was because of his hair. In America he was referred to as "Red" and sometimes as "Henry." Apparently, they also "Americanized" his last name as well by pronouncing it "Johnson." So, we can see by the signature below, Red dropped the "a" in his name but retained the "e" when spelling it: How the article spelled his name: From the time police first arrested Red on, they spelled it "Johnson." The Reporters and Newspaper Editors also spelled it "Johnson." However, Red signed his statement "Finn Henrik Johnsen." Even after his departure to Norway, he wrote several letters to people here in the States and he continued to sign his "Finn Henrik Johnsen" with "Henry Red Johnsen" in parenthesis.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2023 21:19:01 GMT -5
Point 2. Here is an iso on the toes from the picture of the corpse (thanks to Wayne): Those toes ain't "normal" or "healthy." A child with Rickets isn't healthy. Several sources indicate this condition as the examples below: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/vaningen.pdfThe second "official" autopsy: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/autopsy.jpgNot healthy and not normal, yet, isn't that how Johnson describes him? So we now have to compare and contrast. What source is correct and which is not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2023 21:26:51 GMT -5
Point 3.
Was the child "spoiled?"
According to Dr. Van Ingen he was. He claimed that "he was a rather spoiled youngster and it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight." So far, Red is batting a 1.000.
So what's going on? It's called kissing ass folks. And why would he do this? That is my next point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2023 21:36:15 GMT -5
Point 4.
Why was Red embellishing?
1. He was sitting in jail. There was an order of deportation. There was a $50,000 bail imposed merely for being in the country illegally. According to Mark Falzini, that was the largest in the country's history. Suddenly, Elizabeth Morrow got involved, and thru her efforts others got the bail dropped. They got the order of deportation removed. And they got him released from jail. Would Red later repay this favor by saying anything other than what he did?
2. Lindbergh. Nobody crossed him without paying a heavy price.
3. Red was in love with Betty Gow. As far as he was concerned, she was responsible for the fact he was around the baby in the first place. Had he said anything other than what he did, it would reflect poorly on her in the eyes of the Morrows and Lindberghs.
4. Red planned on returning to the United States. Disparaging the family in any way would have ended this idea permanently.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Mar 12, 2023 2:29:59 GMT -5
Point 3. Was the child "spoiled?" According to Dr. Van Ingen he was. He claimed that " he was a rather spoiled youngster and it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight." So far, Red is batting a 1.000. So what's going on? It's called kissing ass folks. And why would he do this? That is my next point. Even Anne in her diary described the child as "arrogant", which to me is the same as spoiled. Red got out of trouble with no problems financially or legally. Of course he is going to lie about things. I laughed reading the article...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2023 8:54:39 GMT -5
Even Anne in her diary described the child as "arrogant", which to me is the same as spoiled. Red got out of trouble with no problems financially or legally. Of course he is going to lie about things. I laughed reading the article... The bottom line for me is that sources like this need to be considered but with a skeptical eye. It's not all BS. Some of it is true, some not, while other stuff is at varying degrees of it. We also have to remember Red was being paid for this. Next, although Joe thinks he was a great writer and should be President or something, this clearly had someone else's hand in the mix. That "hand" is an important consideration as we all know from the Skean newspaper article mis-identification, or the other examples when reporters paid someone to leave the shovel behind at the grave site or make footprints in the mud so they could send their editors pictures of the "kidnapper's" footprint at Highfields. Or when they quoted both Lupica and Moore, in separate pieces, as identifying Hauptmann when both called these articles "lies." The bottom line was money. What would sell and what wouldn't. Take another example as I wrote in V4. There was information that would have potentially helped Hauptmann stave off execution. But the talk was to wait for his death before writing because it would have a better effect after he was dead. Or the bribery mentioned in V3. It never ends and needs to be taken into account. Next, my experience with manuscripts leading to newspaper/magazine articles proves that changes get made for any number of reasons, but ultimately its the most amount of money without getting smoke. Liberty, for example, was feeling it because of all the lawsuits some of their articles were generating. At some point, they backed off the case entirely to avoid them. McLean's manuscript, as an example, changed when it was published by Liberty. Since I have some of the original, its how I could cite what Frank Swayze so precisely said about his observations and disgust of and toward Betty Gow. I am lucky enough to have the "before" and the "after." I also know McLean had nothing against Gow, therefore, wouldn't be motivated to smear her like that. Furthermore, she wouldn't hesitate to repeat whatever someone else said unless of course it was a confidential conversation with Hoover or something like that. In the end, we cannot upset known facts with things like this. Claiming the child was "healthy" defies documentation we know is true so seeking to neutralize it with the likes of this series is absurd. We should be searching for the unknown. If this helps in some way that's good, but using it as a distraction from the facts we already absolutely know to be true is not. Claiming an Eugenicist, as another example, wasn't one when there is documented proof they were, doesn't help either. One thing might not have anything to do with the other, but inventing a narrative does not disprove it.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Mar 12, 2023 11:54:48 GMT -5
Even Anne in her diary described the child as "arrogant", which to me is the same as spoiled. Red got out of trouble with no problems financially or legally. Of course he is going to lie about things. I laughed reading the article... The bottom line for me is that sources like this need to be considered but with a skeptical eye. It's not all BS. Some of it is true, some not, while other stuff is at varying degrees of it. We also have to remember Red was being paid for this. Next, although Joe thinks he was a great writer and should be President or something, this clearly had someone else's hand in the mix. That "hand" is an important consideration as we all know from the Skean newspaper article mis-identification, or the other examples when reporters paid someone to leave the shovel behind at the grave site or make footprints in the mud so they could send their editors pictures of the "kidnapper's" footprint at Highfields. Or when they quoted both Lupica and Moore, in separate pieces, as identifying Hauptmann when both called these articles "lies." The bottom line was money. What would sell and what wouldn't. Take another example as I wrote in V4. There was information that would have potentially helped Hauptmann stave off execution. But the talk was to wait for his death before writing because it would have a better effect after he was dead. Or the bribery mentioned in V3. It never ends and needs to be taken into account. Next, my experience with manuscripts leading to newspaper/magazine articles proves that changes get made for any number of reasons, but ultimately its the most amount of money without getting smoke. Liberty, for example, was feeling it because of all the lawsuits some of their articles were generating. At some point, they backed off the case entirely to avoid them. McLean's manuscript, as an example, changed when it was published by Liberty. Since I have some of the original, its how I could cite what Frank Swayze so precisely said about his observations and disgust of and toward Betty Gow. I am lucky enough to have the "before" and the "after." I also know McLean had nothing against Gow, therefore, wouldn't be motivated to smear her like that. Furthermore, she wouldn't hesitate to repeat whatever someone else said unless of course it was a confidential conversation with Hoover or something like that. In the end, we cannot upset known facts with things like this. Claiming the child was "healthy" defies documentation we know is true so seeking to neutralize it with the likes of this series is absurd. We should be searching for the unknown. If this helps in some way that's good, but using it as a distraction from the facts we already absolutely know to be true is not. Claiming an Eugenicist, as another example, wasn't one when there is documented proof they were, doesn't help either. One thing might not have anything to do with the other, but inventing a narrative does not disprove it. And, remember the hair dresser who cut Charlie's hair a few days before the kidnapping...he grunted. He didn't talk. Anne was there with a book to keep him still in the chair. She would point to an animal in the book and he would grunt. Directly opposite of Condon's assertion that he would be able to tell it was Charlie because Charlie could...and did...name his toy animals. The hairdresser had no dog in the fight. She was telling how cute he was and just related what she experienced.
|
|