|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2023 22:11:40 GMT -5
The photo in Fisher's book is one of these 8. How Fisher got this photo, I have no idea. According to Mark Falzini, it is not at the NJSP. I've tried to contact Fisher and ask him where he got it, but no luck. If someone here knows Fisher, please ask him and get back to us. From what I remember being told, Plebani made available to him all the photos from the NJSP in 1986. As Sue pointed out, he credited this photo as coming from the NJSP. I believe that's where it came from, however, we both know it wasn't there when Mark took over. Maybe it was mishandled, accidentally destroyed, or perhaps someone even swiped it. It's like all the other stuff that's missing. The "Scaduto" chisels for example. Some have said Scaduto "made it up" but there's no way I believe that. There's also the Bucks Brothers 3/4" chisel, the various files missing from the Hoffman Collection as well as the State Police Collection, etc. etc. The State Police collection makes sense since various Troopers took some of that stuff home after Hauptmann's execution. Some trickled back in after the civil actions started, so if not for those, there would be even less today. However, Hoffman's makes less sense so we're back to the three options I laid out above concerning these too.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 29, 2023 22:19:03 GMT -5
Interesting. All that makes sense.
Do you happen to have any contact info for Fisher? I have a lot of questions for him.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 30, 2023 5:43:04 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne for clearing this up, do you think these pictures were taken in New Haven, CT and that's why they are at Yale?
Could Lindbergh have given the New York Times the film taken 2 weeks prior (which turned out to be blank) and the older photo of Charlie at the same time?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Mar 30, 2023 6:55:28 GMT -5
Great post, Wayne.
The following paragraphs reference Charlie's hair in 1931. It's interesting that the Fisher photo shows Charlie's hair to be a lot less curly than some of the other ones taken during this period. I wonder then if that particular photo was taken following a trim by Betty Morrow or Betty Gow, to make him "look more like a boy," as Berg indicates. Charlie received his final haircut just a few weeks prior to the kidnapping.
[Lindbergh, Scott Berg, p. 228]
Surrounded by Morrows all summer, Charlie played on the beach, swam in the pool, and went on boating trips to neighboring islands. He took food only from his Grandma Bee or Betty Gow, both of whom recited poems, read books, and sang to him. When the baby’s hair grew too long for a boy, they cut it, saving every “snip of gold.” That summer little Charlie began putting words together, and he took his first steps. As the Morrows returned to Englewood at season’s end, and epidemic of infantile paralysis struck New York City. It was decided that Charlie and Betty Gow should remain in Maine until the crisis had passed.
[Hour of Gold Hour of Lead, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, p. 205] (written in December)
C. says your vacation begins the day after Christmas, so perhaps you could just get there for Christmas. I think it would be lots of fun. We’re not going to make much of Christmas, except for the boy. We will stay down there, as long as you can stay with us. I am so crazy to have you see C. Jr. The doctor says there’s nothing wrong with him except he needs a haircut! But I don’t want to cut his curls off until you see him. He has great fun with his father now. C. says “Hi, Buster” to him whenever he sees him, so the other day when Charles came into the room the baby looked up and said “Hi! Hi!” and the other day when C. left the room the baby said, “Hi, all gone.”
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 30, 2023 8:02:11 GMT -5
Charlie and Betty Gow spent the summer and part of the fall of 1931 in New Haven, Maine--not CT. Anne and CAL were on their trip to the orient from late July to the middle of October that year and could not have been taking photos of Charlie at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2023 9:22:07 GMT -5
[Hour of Gold Hour of Lead, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, p. 205] (written in December) C. says your vacation begins the day after Christmas, so perhaps you could just get there for Christmas. I think it would be lots of fun. We’re not going to make much of Christmas, except for the boy. We will stay down there, as long as you can stay with us. I am so crazy to have you see C. Jr. The doctor says there’s nothing wrong with him except he needs a haircut! But I don’t want to cut his curls off until you see him. He has great fun with his father now. C. says “Hi, Buster” to him whenever he sees him, so the other day when Charles came into the room the baby looked up and said “Hi! Hi!” and the other day when C. left the room the baby said, “Hi, all gone.”Thanks Joe! So based on this source, the baby must not have developed "rickets," his toes became deformed, and his overall growth hadn't start delaying until after Christmas. Too bad Anne didn't testify this way about how the baby talked. But now we have the possibility of the speech regressing after x-mas too if this source to be believed 100%. Since you seem to like this source, I'd like to hear your response to Guest's observations about it. I'm surprised you didn't whip up a rebuttal - or is this it?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 30, 2023 9:44:28 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne for clearing this up, do you think these pictures were taken in New Haven, CT and that's why they are at Yale? Could Lindbergh have given the New York Times the film taken 2 weeks prior (which turned out to be blank) and the older photo of Charlie at the same time? Hi Stella, The October 1931 photos were taken at New Haven, Maine. It looks like CAL collected all of the photos he had of Charlie, listed them in the 2 page compilation, then donated them all to Yale. I have no idea why CAL gave the NYT and the NJSP such old photos. No idea. Here is the March 3, 1932 NYT headline claiming the photo was taken "about two weeks ago" -- Here is the uncropped version of that photo. You can clearly see that the birthday cake with 1 candle has been cropped out -- This photo was taken 8 months prior, not 2 weeks. Also, just think about it. The NYT claims that the photo was taken at the end of February. Take a look at what Charlie is wearing. Do you have any idea what the weather is like in New Jersey in February?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Mar 30, 2023 10:46:52 GMT -5
[Hour of Gold Hour of Lead, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, p. 205] (written in December) C. says your vacation begins the day after Christmas, so perhaps you could just get there for Christmas. I think it would be lots of fun. We’re not going to make much of Christmas, except for the boy. We will stay down there, as long as you can stay with us. I am so crazy to have you see C. Jr. The doctor says there’s nothing wrong with him except he needs a haircut! But I don’t want to cut his curls off until you see him. He has great fun with his father now. C. says “Hi, Buster” to him whenever he sees him, so the other day when Charles came into the room the baby looked up and said “Hi! Hi!” and the other day when C. left the room the baby said, “Hi, all gone.”Thanks Joe! So based on this source, the baby must not have developed "rickets," his toes became deformed, and his overall growth hadn't start delaying until after Christmas. Too bad Anne didn't testify this way about how the baby talked. But now we have the possibility of the speech regressing after x-mas too if this source to be believed 100%. Since you seem to like this source, I'd like to hear your response to Guest's observations about it. I'm surprised you didn't whip up a rebuttal - or is this it? You're welcome, Michael, but I also believe you've just shot the messenger here. I simply posted these sources to identify the visual appearance of Charlie's hair at the time the North Haven photos, and also just prior to Christmas. I made absolutely no claim or opinion around the context of Anne Lindbergh's complete statement, so it's basically your preferred speculation that I "like them" here. I will say though you have the hairiest of triggers when it comes to any mention of Charlie's overall health being demonstrated and interpreted as "more normal" than you would like to acknowledge. Regarding Anne's comment about there having been "nothing wrong" with Charlie, perhaps both her and Charlie's doctor were implying the lack of anything other than what were already known to be existing conditions, ie. probability of rickets and crossed toes. As we're on the subject now though, I see no conclusive evidence from the many independent eyewitness accounts that Charlie's clinodactyly or his "moderate rickety condition" were at all negatively impacting his overall development in terms of his height and weight, gross and fine motor skills, speech and language, cognitive and intellectual, and social and emotional skills, right up to the time of his death.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2023 12:05:51 GMT -5
This photo was taken 8 months prior, not 2 weeks. Also, just think about it. The NYT claims that the photo was taken at the end of February. Take a look at what Charlie is wearing. Do you have any idea what the weather is like in New Jersey in February? I have a source, which I can't find at the moment, that gives us a look into this a little more. I didn't put this in my book but should have, but once combined with the other sources we can see something's off here. What I remember is the Press was asking Lindbergh for pictures, but he was saying he didn't have any. So they told him they could take the home video and have it released to theaters as well as break it down into pictures for the papers. Lindbergh claimed there was no such film. At this, several reporters called him out, telling him it was common knowledge that the Morrow family had such a film. Supposedly, Lindbergh called Englewood, "discovered" there was such a film, and it was shared with the press. Not to beat a dead horse, but there's still the issue of Lindbergh telling the New York Times NOT to share the baby's photos with the Reporters/Newspapers he did not like. Again, there's something "off" here when we consider everything about this.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 30, 2023 12:37:43 GMT -5
This photo was taken 8 months prior, not 2 weeks. Also, just think about it. The NYT claims that the photo was taken at the end of February. Take a look at what Charlie is wearing. Do you have any idea what the weather is like in New Jersey in February? I have a source, which I can't find at the moment, that gives us a look into this a little more. I didn't put this in my book but should have, but once combined with the other sources we can see something's off here. What I remember is the Press was asking Lindbergh for pictures, but he was saying he didn't have any. So they told him they could take the home video and have it released to theaters as well as break it down into pictures for the papers. Lindbergh claimed there was no such film. At this, several reporters called him out, telling him it was common knowledge that the Morrow family had such a film. Supposedly, Lindbergh called Englewood, "discovered" there was such a film, and it was shared with the press. Not to beat a dead horse, but there's still the issue of Lindbergh telling the New York Times NOT to share the baby's photos with the Reporters/Newspapers he did not like. Again, there's something "off" here when we consider everything about this. Totally agree that something is off here. And the simply fact is this... if CAL did not give the photo to the NYT, he could have easily have commented to any of the hundreds of reporters around him that the photo was 8 months old and that the NYT made a mistake. He didn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 30, 2023 15:48:35 GMT -5
The picture of Charles Jr running that appears in Fisher's book is at the NJSP archives. It is located in the P Collection, File #74 if anyone wants to go look at it. This info comes from someone who did archival research at the NJSP archives.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 30, 2023 16:12:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2023 20:25:49 GMT -5
The picture of Charles Jr running that appears in Fisher's book is at the NJSP archives. It is located in the P Collection, File #74 if anyone wants to go look at it. This info comes from someone who did archival research at the NJSP archives. Thanks for sharing. Do you happen to know if this researcher was there before or after Mark Falzini took over? Regardless, I'm quite familiar with the "P" files, and there are a ton of photos in that collection so its the one place (well, the Thelma Miller photo collection is another but that doesn't count here because that donation came after Fisher) that I could have missed this picture. My last "real" go through was way back in 2004. I revisited it many times since but I "cheated" in some folders because the first picture would allow me to remember the content of the envelopes and I might skip over them. The photos in this collection are in groups and tightly inserted inside envelopes so its very possible I somehow missed it there. I plan on returning to the Archives in the future if I ever kickstart V5 because I need a picture that's in the FBI correspondence files so I'll check it out. The specific file number is extremely helpful if or when that occurs. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2023 20:41:58 GMT -5
You're welcome, Michael, but I also believe you've just shot the messenger here. I simply posted these sources to identify the visual appearance of Charlie's hair at the time the North Haven photos, and also just prior to Christmas. I made absolutely no claim or opinion around the context of Anne Lindbergh's complete statement, so it's basically your preferred speculation that I "like them" here. I will say though you have the hairiest of triggers when it comes to any mention of Charlie's overall health being demonstrated and interpreted as "more normal" than you would like to acknowledge. Really? I've already stated, numerous times, that the only trigger needed were the deformed toes. But of course we were dealing with more than that as the evidence proves. Regarding Anne's comment about there having been "nothing wrong" with Charlie, perhaps both her and Charlie's doctor were implying the lack of anything other than what were already known to be existing conditions, ie. probability of rickets and crossed toes. As we're on the subject now though, I see no conclusive evidence from the many independent eyewitness accounts that Charlie's clinodactyly or his "moderate rickety condition" were at all negatively impacting his overall development in terms of his height and weight, gross and fine motor skills, speech and language, cognitive and intellectual, and social and emotional skills, right up to the time of his death. Is that what "nothing wrong" means in Canada? Well, here in the States if someone says there's nothing wrong that means there's nothing wrong. Not a case of Rickets, deformed toes, unusual dry skin, under development, etc. As far as his overall development goes, you might want to check the sources. Whether or not it had to do with Rickets is anyone's guess. Especially since Vitamin D deficiency can be brought on by other health problems and/or other variables such as certain medications preventing absorption. And of course, it was 1932, so it may have been something else entirely and the Rickets was a misdiagnosis. All this stuff should be considered, especially since a normal healthy child who wanted for nothing and had the very best Pediatrician shouldn't have had "Rickets" in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 31, 2023 16:15:22 GMT -5
The picture of Charles Jr running that appears in Fisher's book is at the NJSP archives. It is located in the P Collection, File #74 if anyone wants to go look at it. This info comes from someone who did archival research at the NJSP archives. Thanks for sharing. Do you happen to know if this researcher was there before or after Mark Falzini took over? Regardless, I'm quite familiar with the "P" files, and there are a ton of photos in that collection so its the one place (well, the Thelma Miller photo collection is another but that doesn't count here because that donation came after Fisher) that I could have missed this picture. My last "real" go through was way back in 2004. I revisited it many times since but I "cheated" in some folders because the first picture would allow me to remember the content of the envelopes and I might skip over them. The photos in this collection are in groups and tightly inserted inside envelopes so its very possible I somehow missed it there. I plan on returning to the Archives in the future if I ever kickstart V5 because I need a picture that's in the FBI correspondence files so I'll check it out. The specific file number is extremely helpful if or when that occurs. Thanks again. Hello Michael. Mr. Falzini was the archivist there at the time this researcher came across this picture. You're welcome. I hope it is helpful for you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 1, 2023 7:57:42 GMT -5
You're welcome, Michael, but I also believe you've just shot the messenger here. I simply posted these sources to identify the visual appearance of Charlie's hair at the time the North Haven photos, and also just prior to Christmas. I made absolutely no claim or opinion around the context of Anne Lindbergh's complete statement, so it's basically your preferred speculation that I "like them" here. I will say though you have the hairiest of triggers when it comes to any mention of Charlie's overall health being demonstrated and interpreted as "more normal" than you would like to acknowledge. Really? I've already stated, numerous times, that the only trigger needed were the deformed toes. But of course we were dealing with more than that as the evidence proves. Did your research also reveal that crossed toes or clinodactyly can be reversed through passive treatment when bones are still relatively malleable, or failing that, corrective surgery when the child is old enough for it? Of course, Charlie never reached the average eligible age of 6 years for this to become a reality. Does your research indicate this condition was causing Charlie pain, distress or hampering his physical development in any form? Did he require some artificial means or aids to help him get around, other than perhaps shoes with enough toe space to keep him comfortable? Does Anne ever make any reference to this condition as a sole or joint parental concern within her diary? Yes, you have stated numerous times in both veiled and direct forms that Charlie's clinodactyly was a problem that required 'drastic measures.' Time and time again though, this condition appears to remain much more of a problem for you than it apparently was for either Charles or Anne Lindbergh.
As for your statement that "we were dealing with more than that as the evidence proves," consider first who is "we" and what is "more than that?" Perhaps it would be best for you to first apply the same degree of scrutiny as in the above example, before lumping whatever other items you choose to add to this specific theme list, so that we can reasonably determine if they really belong in a dirty laundry bag at all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2023 12:52:42 GMT -5
Did your research also reveal that crossed toes or clinodactyly can be reversed through passive treatment when bones are still relatively malleable, or failing that, corrective surgery when the child is old enough for it? Of course, Charlie never reached the average eligible age of 6 years for this to become a reality. Does your research indicate this condition was causing Charlie pain, distress or hampering his physical development in any form? Did he require some artificial means or aids to help him get around, other than perhaps shoes with enough toe space to keep him comfortable? Does Anne ever make any reference to this condition as a sole or joint parental concern within her diary? Yes, you have stated numerous times in both veiled and direct forms that Charlie's clinodactyly was a problem that required 'drastic measures.' Time and time again though, this condition appears to remain much more of a problem for you than it apparently was for either Charles or Anne Lindbergh.
As for your statement that "we were dealing with more than that as the evidence proves," consider first who is "we" and what is "more than that?" Perhaps it would be best for you to first apply the same degree of scrutiny as in the above example, before lumping whatever other items you choose to add to this specific theme list, so that we can reasonably determine if they really belong in a dirty laundry bag at all. Several things.... First and foremost, there are multiple ailments that could represent the child's condition. I personally don't know exactly what he had and neither do you. By trying to sound smart you are doing the exact opposite. And by stating that I " stated numerous times" that " Charlie's clindoctyly was a problem that required 'drastic measures'" is a load of crap. I've stated no such thing - ever. So please, if you are going to quote me try actually quoting me. Imagining things, then acting on those thoughts, is reckless. Next, it wasn't my research that I've relied on about the toes and if you read my book you'd know that. Next, I'm not a Eugenicist who's child was predicted to be a Professor and the kind to exemplify the best of the human race while others, defective types, were considered "dead wood" resulting in talk of sterilizing undesirables so they could not produce such offspring. I held no such beliefs but you know who did? Yes "we." "We" being anyone who has actually read and considered all sources. Like the one that indicted the child most likely was dead the night of the kidnapping, its corpse found laying in a shallow grave on May 12 eaten by animals, but despite this its heart and liver still present while all the other organs were obviously consumed. I'd wager you've seen your share of roadkill over the years. How many dead fawns would still have their hearts and livers under these circumstances? We both know NONE. The remains might be a leg or two, a rib cage, its head, and some fur. And yet, you sweep this under the rug. Ask yourself why. Instead of impersonating a Podiatrist (and one who never made an examination), focus on what you actually know to be true instead of hoping no one notices what you pretend not to see. Everything is also laid out in my books. It's why I wrote them in the first place. I don't have the time to rewrite them over and over in posts because you've chosen not to or would rather ignore them for your own purposes. And so again, from everything I've researched, there can be no doubt Lindbergh was shocked just to see the condition of his newborn's toes. Flagg putting him in touch with Carrel seems hard to ignore. Doctors warned Anne against that flight. There's a source that Morrow Sr. forbid it. We have sources that Anne was carried out of the cockpit once it landed and by her own admission she was sick from gas and exhaust fumes ON TOP of the thin air from the altitude the plane flew. There are sources that Lindbergh was flying so high and so fast his instruments broke. Do you know the effects these conditions could have on a fetus? My guess is no. You'll want to stay as far away from this subject as possible.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Apr 1, 2023 19:05:53 GMT -5
Did your research also reveal that crossed toes or clinodactyly can be reversed through passive treatment when bones are still relatively malleable, or failing that, corrective surgery when the child is old enough for it? Of course, Charlie never reached the average eligible age of 6 years for this to become a reality. Does your research indicate this condition was causing Charlie pain, distress or hampering his physical development in any form? Did he require some artificial means or aids to help him get around, other than perhaps shoes with enough toe space to keep him comfortable? Does Anne ever make any reference to this condition as a sole or joint parental concern within her diary? Yes, you have stated numerous times in both veiled and direct forms that Charlie's clinodactyly was a problem that required 'drastic measures.' Time and time again though, this condition appears to remain much more of a problem for you than it apparently was for either Charles or Anne Lindbergh.
As for your statement that "we were dealing with more than that as the evidence proves," consider first who is "we" and what is "more than that?" Perhaps it would be best for you to first apply the same degree of scrutiny as in the above example, before lumping whatever other items you choose to add to this specific theme list, so that we can reasonably determine if they really belong in a dirty laundry bag at all. Several things.... First and foremost, there are multiple ailments that could represent the child's condition. I personally don't know exactly what he had and neither do you. By trying to sound smart you are doing the exact opposite. And by stating that I " stated numerous times" that " Charlie's clindoctyly was a problem that required 'drastic measures'" is a load of crap. I've stated no such thing - ever. So please, if you are going to quote me try actually quoting me. Imagining things, then acting on those thoughts, is reckless. Your quote from a couple of posts ago: "Really? I've already stated, numerous times, that the only trigger needed were the deformed toes." What exactly does this mean, Michael?
Next, it wasn't my research that I've relied on about the toes and if you read my book you'd know that. Next, I'm not a Eugenicist who's child was predicted to be a Professor and the kind to exemplify the best of the human race while others, defective types, were considered "dead wood" resulting in talk of sterilizing undesirables so they could not produce such offspring. I held no such beliefs but you know who did? You're beyond stretching the truth here as to what Lindbergh openly espoused and demonstrated within the research and development he was carrying on with Carrel between the time Charlie was born and died. Please provide one example where he echoed your hollow claims in terms of open demonstration of these radical principles. Who's being reckless here?
Yes "we." "We" being anyone who has actually read and considered all sources. Like the one that indicted the child most likely was dead the night of the kidnapping, its corpse found laying in a shallow grave on May 12 eaten by animals, but despite this its heart and liver still present while all the other organs were obviously consumed. I'd wager you've seen your share of roadkill over the years. How many dead fawns would still have their hearts and livers under these circumstances? We both know NONE. The remains might be a leg or two, a rib cage, its head, and some fur. And yet, you sweep this under the rug. Ask yourself why. Why do you continue to carry on this charade, if you believe that the body was "returned" to Mt. Rose Hill just prior to its discovery on May 12, 1932?
Instead of impersonating a Podiatrist (and one who never made an examination), focus on what you actually know to be true instead of hoping no one notices what you pretend not to see. Everything is also laid out in my books. It's why I wrote them in the first place. I don't have the time to rewrite them over and over in posts because you've chosen not to or would rather ignore them for your own purposes. I question much of what's written in your books especially when it come to your brand of openly-professed conspiratorial undercurrent, as everyone here should. There's no fait accomplis here my friend, as you would like to believe.
And so again, from everything I've researched, there can be no doubt Lindbergh was shocked just to see the condition of his newborn's toes. Flagg putting him in touch with Carrel seems hard to ignore. Doctors warned Anne against that flight. There's a source that Morrow Sr. forbid it. We have sources that Anne was carried out of the cockpit once it landed and by her own admission she was sick from gas and exhaust fumes ON TOP of the thin air from the altitude the plane flew. There are sources that Lindbergh was flying so high and so fast his instruments broke. Do you know the effects these conditions could have on a fetus? My guess is no. You'll want to stay as far away from this subject as possible. Everything that you've researched.. what is your source that Lindbergh was "shocked" to see the condition of his son's toes, and what is your source that he was put in touch with Carrel for reasons other than the weak condition of his sister-in-law Elisabeth Morrow's heart? The rest of the above statement says nothing in the absence of any conclusive proof that Charles Lindbergh would ever have considered such a mindless scheme as a faked kidnapping to have his son eliminated from his and all of the other lives that loved him. These kind of mealy-mouthed insinuations just don't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2023 21:07:13 GMT -5
Your quote from a couple of posts ago: "Really? I've already stated, numerous times, that the only trigger needed were the deformed toes." What exactly does this mean, Michael? Joe, you just proved that you did not quote me and that you made up what you wrote. So thank you for that. Why you seem to be crowing like a cock after placing both quotes together is baffling. Next, what it means is self explanatory. Reread it and if you do not understand get a grade school aged child to explain it to you. You're beyond stretching the truth here as to what Lindbergh openly espoused and demonstrated within the research and development he was carrying on with Carrel between the time Charlie was born and died. Please provide one example where he echoed your hollow claims in terms of open demonstration of these radical principles. Who's being reckless here? I think you need to research Eugenics first then get back to me. Lindbergh didn't even thank Allen after he discovered his child giving the family closure. No "thank you," no nothing. In fact, Lindbergh wouldn't even let Allen into his home after the NJSP brought him there. This idea that he morphed into an Eugenicist only after the entire ordeal is a product of your imagination. He admitted as much in his autobiography and if you read my book, or the autobiography itself, you would know that already. Why do you continue to carry on this charade, if you believe that the body was "returned" to Mt. Rose Hill just prior to its discovery on May 12, 1932? You are evading the question by asking one instead. That's weak. But I get it because that was the very point I was trying to make in the first place. You see something you don't "like" so you completely ignore it. And what charade? Don't you believe that was the child's corpse? I question much of what's written in your books especially when it come to your brand of openly-professed conspiratorial undercurrent, as everyone here should. There's no fait accomplis here my friend, as you would like to believe. You're welcome to question anything I've written. It's why I have the footnotes at the bottom of the pages for easy access. But its hard to do if you aren't reading them, or worse, ignoring them. They all speak for themselves. You act like I wrote the sources or something. And so, of course you don't "like" what's written so what do you do when that occurs? Hint: See above. Fact is, you have on multiple occasions expressed that you believed more than Hauptmann was involved. That's a "conspiracy" Joe. Everything that you've researched.. what is your source that Lindbergh was "shocked" to see the condition of his son's toes, and what is your source that he was put in touch with Carrel for reasons other than the weak condition of his sister-in-law Elisabeth Morrow's heart? The rest of the above statement says nothing in the absence of any conclusive proof that Charles Lindbergh would ever have considered such a mindless scheme as a faked kidnapping to have his son eliminated from his and all of the other lives that loved him. These kind of mealy-mouthed insinuations just don't cut it. Reread my post. It's in plain English. Then reread my other posts. Then read my books and check out the footnotes and citations. This tactic to get me to rewrite everything here, then ignore it again is tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 6, 2023 12:14:04 GMT -5
1. "Ricketts" does not mean paralyzed from the neck down. It only means that the bones are thin and subject to curvature--literally, bow-legged. So, just because he was able to stand and walk and run doesn't rule out Ricketts. At all. 2. In real life, they took pictures of Charlie before and after his first haircut only a week before he was "kidnapped." They show a face much more filled out than the baby pictures The Colonel handed out to the press. In other words, Charley no longer looked like those old pictures. Now, why would the Colonel defy the ransom note with a 3-ring media circus just to distribute pictures that DIDN'T look like Charley any more? If he wanted the public to spot him? I ask because, Gerald McCann and Scotland Yard did the EXACT SAME THING. There were digital photos of Madeleine taken the day before HER phony "kidnapping" that, again, looked VERY different from the old ones given to the press. It's almost like both of those dads did NOT want anyone to recognize their "missing" child...
|
|
|
Post by Miakat on Oct 16, 2023 9:11:12 GMT -5
The second picture is really interesting to me. The claim that this picture was taken two weeks prior to the kidnapping is dubious at best because it only shows only 3 teeth. The "autopsy" report says there were 8 upper and 8 lower teeth. If this photo really was taken 2 weeks before the kidnapping then it's difficult to believe the body found in the woods was Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 16, 2023 12:22:31 GMT -5
The second picture is really interesting to me. The claim that this picture was taken two weeks prior to the kidnapping is dubious at best because it only shows only 3 teeth. The "autopsy" report says there were 8 upper and 8 lower teeth. If this photo really was taken 2 weeks before the kidnapping then it's difficult to believe the body found in the woods was Charlie. Those photos...both...we're taken during the summer of 1931, at least 6 months before the ALLEDGED kidnapping.
|
|