|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2012 5:40:30 GMT -5
You just aren't getting my point at all.
The title of you reference is: Perspectives in Nutrition
Rickets is not common in developed nations. Why? Because children eat a proper diet, and in this country get plenty of sunlight. Those who do not are a risk. Back during the depression many children were starving. Show I waste my time searching for something to post about children and nutrition during the Depression? Or in the poor prior thereto?
Charles Jr. was out in the sun every day. Charles Jr. had a healthy diet. Charles Jr. had the very best Doctors. But he developed Ricket-like symptoms.
Did you read the recommended dosage of cod liver oil in the article you posted? Please do.
I think here is part of the problem. I have a source that says Van Ingen said he had certain symptoms which he associated with a rickety condition.
Could you find another document for me that talks about rickets and misdiagnosis from 1900-1935? You see, this could go back and forth for a long time but I can tell you there is nothing you will be enlightening me with.
I don't know why you keep saying this. Again, they were common, but not at these ultra mega dose levels.
It's not hard to answer - if you indeed want to answer it.
Again, you are assuming that's what he had. But anyway, there are many, many, many firsts that I had never seen or heard about until I stumbled upon them at the Archives. Match that up with the known facts concerning Lindbergh's beliefs and he is a proper suspect.
I realize that some people hate this idea. They'll ignore everything in order to say he isn't. But in reality, he is, and should have been back then.
Anyone who has this idea about the Race, Intelligence, and Eugenics or a sick sadistic prankster who had hidden his child 2 times previously claiming he had been kidnapped in order to scare his family should be looked at closely when his sick and slow developing child gets kidnapped - again, and ransom is the exact amount that was asked for his sister-in-laws extortion attempt.
There's no way around it. You can continue to try if you like, but this tells me no matter what will come out which may look badly for him, and there will be a lot, you will continue to resist it. That's ok really because it exemplifies yet another point I've made in the past (about the Police).
People have theories. And then they have anti-theories. Mention Lindbergh and certain people get upset. All I can do is say research his actions, what he said, and what he did. Tie it in with he belief systems and personality and you have a Suspect.
Look, I would never say Anne should be but no one should be off the table. I would never say Anna was, but again, if there's something out there then I won't be closed off from it.
That's how this thing get solved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2012 6:51:57 GMT -5
Just to compliment my points above I am going to tell a little story....
When I was little I happened to be over my Great-Grandmother's house. She had this "secret" passageway through the back of the closet which led up some stairs into a room she used for storage. She was cleaning out that room and I saw a scrapbook. (I was old enough to read but not old enough to think before I started grabbing stuff). So I snatched it up and saw an article pasted in it which caught my eye. It was about this man from Lambertville who had six, or maybe seven, dogs that he would walk along the train tracks everyday. It mentioned how everyone who he encountered would pet the dogs, certain people at the station would give the dogs treats, and he would stop to chat along his route.
One day as he was walking his dogs, and for whatever reason, he didn't hear the train coming and it hit him. I remember it saying he was alive but lay on the ground badly bleeding. People saw what happened and raced to help. The dogs however had a different idea. No one could get near him and those who tried were bitten. As more and more help arrived it was decided they would have to kill the dogs in order to save him. And so they did, one by one, until the last one went down. As I recall, each and every dog had to be killed and not one ran away or backed down.
By the time they were all dead the man had already bled out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2012 8:29:16 GMT -5
Somehow this arguement about Lindbergh, though interesting, is completely missing the central point. It's not a question of whether or not Lindbergh could murder his own son. Parents do sometimes kill their own children and sometimes for reasons beyond our comprehension. So ricketts or whatever, eugenics, bedwetting, and who knows what else are sadly all possible as motives for infanticide.
The only really relevant question in regard to a suspect is, does the crime reflect the individual in question? It doesn't matter if the suspect in question tries to hide his involvement, disguises it, or hires others to actuall perform the crime. His or her signature will still be present. The answer regarding Lindbergh is clearly no. This crime has far too much improvisation, far too much sloppiness, and far too many uncontrollable elements in it's makeup for a man like Lindbergh.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 24, 2012 8:44:09 GMT -5
Well, I know we agree to disagree and there’s no disagreement there.
I’ve always believed that Lindbergh primarily, acted very naively in this case and I don’t defend him or deride him for this. The actions of the man consistently speak of one who insisted on taking charge of a very personal and single minded mission, while at the same time allowing his general fear of interaction with people, outside his comfort zone of aviation, to severely impair his judgment all along the way.
There’s no double argument here at all, Michael. What I have suggested in my previous post is that Lindbergh was not in the state of panic that you assume and that he acted about as calmly and rationally as someone of his character possibly could in that situation.
We know this is a man who was raised from childhood in a mechanistic environment, taught to stand up on his own two feet and work out his own problems, thrust into self-imposed fame and then left somewhat in bewilderment by the sudden filling in of a huge social vacuum he had lived in until that point. Family life was a great step forward for him and while I don’t believe he was fully prepared to take on parenthood when he did, from most indications, and not all, he was doing the best he could to be a loving and supportive role model.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2012 9:09:10 GMT -5
That's exactly right. But something happens when you mention Lindbergh's name concerning this. It's like saying something negative about George Washington or Abe Lincoln.
I submit taking over the investigation and preventing its solution as a possible signature of involvement (among many others). To deny the Police use of the lie detector to the Morrow and Lindbergh Staff by professing his undying belief and confidence in their innocence but telling others he suspected them as such stark and illogical contradictions that this too could be construed as a signature of involvement. To testify that his dog wasn't expected to bark when everyone else on the planet, his Staff, his Wife, etc. etc. said otherwise, I look to this as what could be considered a tip to the possibility of involvement.
These are all things that I believe people ignore concerning him that would never be ignored concerning anyone else. And so if you can satisfy in your mind the certain oddities behind his actions, his contradictions, and obstruction of justice supposedly based upon certain things (he would later disprove as being true) simply consider there is more then just these things I have listed above.
Again, I am not now making any specific claims of his guilt as a party. My position is that he should be and should have been a Suspect.
I respect your opinion regarding him. But I also realize its based upon what you know about him. That's important. It's my opinion, and of course its just a guess, that if I revealed certain facts to you this position would change.
But again, its just a guess.
Joe, since you are on the other side of things concerning how I am thinking here - I like to hear your "take" in explaining Lindbergh grabbing a gun, running into the darkness with no regard for anything, then suddenly becoming a Master Sleuth with the restraint of a pillar of stone not to open that letter and to safe-guard for prints KNOWING he did the exact opposite once Jafsie received the letter from CJ even after CJ warned him not to open it right away. The argument to keep the Police off of that drop was to protect the child by listening to the Kidnappers.
For me, and perhaps I am wrong, if we apply a "defense" in one place that "defense" should be applied anywhere the same circumstances exist. If it is ignored or doesn't work then we must ask "why?" These things must be applied evenly if we are going to use them to explain away certain suspicious actions as being mundane or normal to the person who they are assigned.
It would be irrational not to.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2012 9:46:03 GMT -5
It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of those far more knowledgeable on criminal behavior. Knowing more facts about Lindbergh would not really change that assessment for two reasons. One, would these facts be balanced with those that might show the opposite? Two, the assessment of Lindbergh is based on behavior and psychological profile which he has exhibited over a lifetime. It's not his specific actions or opinions that matter as much as how he carries out those activities.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 24, 2012 10:56:49 GMT -5
Michael, I can't profess to be inside the man's head in order to completely satisfy the nth degree of analysis that he acted appropriately and within the confines of his character each and every step of the way. In a world that is largely subjective, purely because we shape it through our own mind and eyes, that to me would be a bit irrational.
Again, what I have suggested in this situation, and without defending or deriding Lindbergh's actions, is that he behaved in a manner that was, at least broadly consistent with his character and the needs of the situation. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that whereupon discovering his son had probably been abducted, Lindbergh went out into the night "with no regard for anything." Could these not possibly be considered the actions of a protective male parent seized with the necessity of wishing to protect their child, first and foremost? Perhaps you can expand and suggest how he should have behaved here or any at any other point in the case for that matter.
I know you're working towards a book and I understand it's a tough row to hoe when you feel you can't divulge all information along the way, but the bottom line is that unless you're ready to spill the basket of cherries you claim to hold, and which clearly you've indicated over the years is damning to Lindbergh, rather than continually tossing out carrots on a stick, that element of the debate is going absolutely nowhere on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2012 12:56:02 GMT -5
I have been doing some reading on rickets also. Yes, he was being treated for rickets and as agressively as was possible for 1932. What I think gets overlooked here is that Charlie was not responding to the treatments the way he should have if all he had was rickets. There are other metabolic illnesses that will interfere with the body absorbing vitamin D. IMHO his corspe reveals he could have had another underlying condition because of the size of the fontanelle opening in the skull. It just wasn't closing the way it should have. Something else was going on there. What kind of knowledge did they have about metabolic disorders back then??
"We know this is a man who was raised from childhood in a mechanistic environment, taught to stand up on his own two feet and work out his own problems, thrust into self-imposed fame and then left somewhat in bewilderment by the sudden filling in of a huge social vacuum he had lived in until that point. Family life was a great step forward for him and while I don’t believe he was fully prepared to take on parenthood when he did, from most indications, and not all, he was doing the best he could to be a loving and supportive role model." (JOE)
When reading about how he grew up, it is clear to understand why he found it difficult to have healthy emotional relationships. He never had anything like that role modeled for him. He idolized a father who had very little time for him and was raised by a mom who did not believe in demonstrating physical affection. This lack of emotional bonding did leave him unprepared for fatherhood. I don't see him doing his best to be a loving and supportive role model either. He did seem to be amused by Charlie at times but also did things that were not in the best interests of his son's well being. One of the incidents that I find disturbing is best told by A. Scott Berg in "Lindbergh". On page 234 he writes, "And one day that winter, Lindbergh built a huge pen out of chicken wire outside their wing of Next Day Hill. When he had finished, he told Betty Gow to bundle Charlie up, to select one of his toys, and to place him in the pen "to fend for himself." For hours, the little boy stayed there alone, sometimes crying. Betty Gow went to Anne, insisting they rescue him. Although Anne was close to tears, she said, "Betty, there's nothing we can do." No one did anything to help that little boy.
This is just one of numerous hurtful things he did. What was going through his mind when he came up with this plan? Was his objective to make Charlie feel scared and abandoned? Charlie wasn't even two years old yet. He wasn't teaching his son anything by doing this. He was hurting Anne too. These are not loving and supportive actions.
Was a psychological profile ever done on Lindbergh? I would be interested in reading such a profile if it exists. Charles Lindbergh should be looked at as a suspect just like everyone else. He shouldn't be an exception just because he flew across the Atlantic in 1927.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2012 16:26:09 GMT -5
There is a huge difference of opinion and I want to emphasize again that its a good thing in the world of debate. Even if neither side opens up to or concedes something from the other - it still shows how the same thing can be viewed differently.
What I think you are saying is that your mind is made up no matter what I may tell you. Think about that for a minute because its exactly what I have been saying all along. Not that Lindbergh is guilty but that a certain level of bias exists which prevents his consideration when - if someone else were doing the exact same things it would command full attention to them.
Point One: I have yet to see what I already posted as having been balanced out. And so do I expect anything else I show to if this is the case?
Point Two: No one appreciates this science more them me. But these profiles can only be done on what is known about the person.
And as a caveat. I said it before that considering Lindbergh as a Suspect does not mean he really meant this to be murder or a real kidnapping. If you like, consider the "Mother of All Pranks" gone wrong theory that A&M proposed and tweak it a little to fit the facts. Would his profile prevent him from engaging in a fake kidnapping to prank his family? I remember when I first started researching this Crime and there were those who said Lindbergh would never hide his child then pretend he was kidnapped. That A&M made this up or that their source made it up. But in order to find out I had to research and research and research. That research revealed it actually did occur. In fact, it happened more then once. Imagine stuffing an infant into a closet in order of getting the pleasure of terrorizing your family into thinking he'd been kidnapped?
And to suggest this guy isn't capable of certain things? That he wouldn't risk this - or risk that? That he is a caring and nurturing Father?
But here's the point I think you're missing Joe.... I don't need the cherries to make the point that I have. What I see is that they are roundly ignored or excused because of one thing and one thing only - they are attached to Lindbergh. This is precisely why I do look at him as a potential suspect. Look at what they did to Red for a minute. Jung was indirectly threatened with death. Yet there's nothing on them like what I've listed attributable to Lindbergh. I guess what I am saying is that I don't see the point in going further if no one sees what I do in this stuff.
Exactly. But this type of thing seems to offend people. Officially the Police would say, in essence, it has nothing to do with the case.
Looks like Amy is doing her homework. I think this one episode could mean so many things. Did Jr. need toughening up? What would happen if he turned out not so tough - weak even? Was this a caring act - or a selfish one? For me, there has always been much to think about. For others maybe just a shrug or two. When you pursue this line, the examples begin to pile up. If you don't then there's nothing to see.
Again, all of my efforts here have been just to consider Lindbergh a Suspect. That's it. And that's not to say I am free of bias. I haven't even read Zorn's book and I've already dismissed his Suspect. However, if someone tells me Knoll's number is in Hauptmann's book then my mind will change. Do you see my point? It won't be because Hauptmann never went by "Bruno" but to embrace this theory, even a little bit, on so much less then what stands before me concerning Lindbergh is just something else that has me scratching my head wondering about.
Anyway, we can proceed with the discussion without considering him a Suspect and still get somewhere - that much I do know as a matter of fact.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 24, 2012 17:48:01 GMT -5
I, for one, have no problem at all considering Lindbergh a suspect. Parents are almost always (at least nowadays) the first suspects when their child disappears or is murdered, so fine. And since so much of Lindbergh's gilded image has long since worn off, I'm not sure why others (at least on this board) would resist considering him (or even that they are, really). But his bizarre behavior towards the baby (caging him outside, hiding him, etc.), either to "toughen him up" or for some other reason, could, as you say, mean so many things. Additionally, it's very true the police didn't investigate Lindbergh and allowed him to control things because he was such a mega-celebrity. For this reason (coupled with his closed-off general demeanor), he remains something of mysterious, sphinx-like figure in the whole thing. It's easy, therefore, to fill in so many of these blanks and say that he had something (or everything) to do with this, but, as others seem to suggest, I think harder facts are needed with regards to this angle.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 25, 2012 1:26:24 GMT -5
Michael, I didn’t refer you to statistics from the Depression. I asked you to look at the stats from the 1920s, pre-Depression years when America was reputedly at the height of prosperity. Furthermore, the article doesn’t say they were drawing the stats from “the poor.” For example, we read this: "In Baltimore, 50% of a group of well-nourished, breast-fed babies had rickets by the end of March." So even “well-nourished” babies were getting rickets in high numbers back then. Since rickets was very common then—even in well-nourished babies—I don’t see why Lindbergh would consider rickets an embarrassment—such an embarrassment that he’d hire abductors to kill the baby over it. It’s really not all THAT far from saying “Lindbergh killed the baby because he contracted chicken pox.” Now let’s look at the viosterol. Charlie was getting 14 drops per day. Was this a “megadose” for a child with rickets? Let’s quote the article “Viosterol (Irradiated Ergosterol) : Prophylactic and Therapeutic Dosage” from the Journal of the American Medical Associaton (1930), www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19312700903.html;jsessionid=8B7464EEC377D65601C6C53CF3D0F5CASo we see that the 14 drops Charlie was getting was within the normal range for a case of rickets; 14 drops was presumably the dosage prescribed by Dr. Van Ingen. It is a very clear from this and the other references I cited, in particular The Curative Value of Light: Sunlight and Sun Lamp in Health and Disease 1932books.google.com/books/about/The_Curative_Value_of_Light.html?id=N_IidU6xREACthat Charlie was being treated with what were two normative approaches for rickets in 1932: a sunlamp and viosterol. You say they overused the sunlamp? Maybe so. In the cold of the winter, it was probably harder to get the baby out for normal sunlight. But Michael, if you are looking for some mysterious disease here, to justify a “eugenicist Lindbergh murdered his baby” theory, I don’t think you’ve found it. I think you’ve found a case of rickets.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2012 6:16:52 GMT -5
I think the first obsticle to get past is just admitting he should have been a Suspect. If you can get there then it shows a willingness to look. That's the key to it. Next, what's known about can be bulit upon by identifying even more things that most seem to ignore because it is Lindbergh we're talking about. Imagine if I had simply accepted what everyone had been saying when they claimed A&M "made up" the fact Lindbergh had hidden his child in the previous "kidnapping" episode? So one can accumulate this stuff starting with what Amy posted. Just with what's out there you will be able pile them up high enough to build a skyscraper. Now, to actually claim involvement of some kind is going to require certain facts which isn't known or mentioned among the historical evidence reguarding this case. It could be there aren't any, but that's okay. At least he's not eliminated when he absolutely should never ever be. ***BR - I understand you are against this. If you don't want to consider it then don't. But in order to disprove something you have to know what it is. I state some things, you disagree, then you attempt to disprove one, find something you think disproves it, state it as a matter of fact - then say this disproves everything. That's not how things work. If it were I could disprove the Earth is round. You are wasting your time. Lloyd researched this. From what I remember there are different strengths of Viosterol. The dosage here was equivalent to a bottle of cod liver oil (Gardner p.410) And you continue to disregard that Charles Jr. had the best diet, a routine which brought him out into the sunlight each and every day - and of course the best Doctors. He wasn't malnurished or locked in a closet (that is when Lindbergh didn't put him there). BR, the child had more then Rickets. I've consulted Experts - good ones who gave me their time out of their very busy schedules to answer my questions and give me their opinions. And as you know years and years and years up to my elbows in paperwork at the Archives. So, as you can see, I've spent a lot of time on it and not just one night on google looking for something (anything) so that I can announce something as a matter of fact. I on the other hand, am not trying to justify anything. I have spent my time trying to bring out all of the unknown facts of the Case. I would have really enjoyed proving Hauptmann had nothing to do with it. But that's not where the facts led me. These facts are upsetting. If you are resisting just this possibility that his boy was ill then you will never ever believe the other things I have uncovered. There are a ton of theories out there. A ton. One being the "Jews" did it. Aside from Fisch, after 12 years of research, I see not one scentilla of evidence to suggest there's anything behind that claim. YET, if someone comes along with a name I've heard over those 12 years then it justifies a look-see. I could be wrong of course, but I am personally certain that everyone involved is mentioned somewhere in those files.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 25, 2012 7:27:56 GMT -5
I think you are missing the point. In regard to Lindbergh as a person, my mind is certainly not made up. In fact, I 'm not even sure I care. You are talking about Lindbergh's capability to engage in infanticide, I don't agree or disagree with that assessment. I am talking about how Lindbergh would go about carrying that out. That's the basis for profiling. An artist may paint many different types of scenes and subjects, but the manner in how he paints is his signature.
My point is that by missing the how and concentrating on the why it becomes a good vs evil debate. Surely in your professional role you encounter men who can have good attributes even though they are incarcerated for doing something very bad.
Not true. Profilers look at the crime and through years of research they can make very accurate assessments regarding the personality of the perpetrator without actually knowing him. The chief aim here is to narrow the field for the investigators. The LKC has many revealing clues to the type of personality behind it. When I said it didn't matter to me what you could offer up on Lindbergh it was not because I have made up my mind. It's because however flawed Lindbergh was and whatever bad he was capable of is simply not the issue. The issue is how would Lindbergh go about it.
As far as this whole debate on Charlie's health, it also misses the point. Besides the point that any assessment at this late date is highly questionable, a father capable of infanticide doesn't need such a drastic reason to kill. And not to seem as a Lindbergh supporter, it seems to me that had Charlie been seriously ill there would certainly be more of a medical trail. Given Lindbergh's mechanical personality I would expect him to throw himself into a solution to whatever serious ailment Charlie may have been suffering from. That's more consistent with Lindbergh's signature.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5
Now that I better understand your position I agree. It's not that I now have come to a revelation because I always have when considering him. I won't go into detail but just know that I agree with this, and if he was involved I would attempt to satisfy it. The whole dichotomy of good and evil is a primitive myth. For example, there's patience, and immediate gratification. These are learned behaviors. You could be the most intelligent person on the planet but do something stupid because you cannot control yourself. There's also the "risk vs. reward" type of situation. It happens to all of us. A situation is presented to us and we consider the risks involved then make an intelligent decision as to what we should do. Some people, despite their intelligence, simply ignore the risks if the rewards are high enough. I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought he was profiled - not the crime. Like, for example, if it could be shown he killed all of his neighbors cats by burying them alive just to watch them die when it had never before been known. Stuff like that, which I think would be worthy of consideration. (Just a hypothetical example). We pretty much agree about everything while seeing it from different angles. The Family was extremely secretive about such personal matters (e.g. Elisabeth, DMJr.) Let's say the rumors were correct that CJr. had convulsions or possibly epilepsy...just as an example. What solution did Lindbergh submit to the Public as to how to deal with that? I could be wrong and will need to look it up but I believe sterilization. Now, was Lindbergh the type of person who would make an exception for his own son - or not? Next, was Lindbergh an obsessed pratical joker to the point where he may have pushed the envelope for the "Mother of all Pranks" or wouldn't he do such a thing? Of course this is all just for debate.....
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 25, 2012 8:50:29 GMT -5
Michael, you are saying I am “against” this and “resisting just this possibility that his boy was ill.” I can easily disprove this. Sorry to have to resort to quoting myself, but you’re forcing the issue, so here’s what I said on this board at lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=783&page=10Further in that thread I said: So you see, Michael, I am not “resisting just this possibility that his boy was ill.” I am just looking for real evidence. Here’s what got me going on the google research (which isn’t such a bad way to find things out). You said this on page 6 of this thread: You seemed to think that was pretty weird, so I did some research and cited (1) a 1932 book showing sunlamps were being used in combination with viosterol to treat rickets and (2) a 1930 article from the Journal of the American Medical Associaton showing that the dose of viosterol Charlie was on was quite typical for a child with rickets. You asked if that was “normal.” And the answer is a resounding YES—for a child with rickets. Maybe they overused the sunlamp, but it WAS a treatment of choice for rickets back then. So who’s “resisting” here? You didn’t even acknowledge the clear information in the AMA article. Instead you fell back on Lloyd saying 14 drops of viosterol was the equivalent of a whole bottle of cod liver oil. Michael, get a medicine dropper, and put out 14 drops. It won’t even fill a ¼ teaspoon measurer in your kitchen. 14 drops is about 1/7 of a teaspoon. On the other hand, the smallest bottle of cod liver oil sold on Amazon is eight ounces. Eight ounces would be about 240 teaspoons. If we conjured up an image of the Lindberghs pouring a whole bottle of cod liver oil down Charlie’s throat, that would be strange all right. But all Charlie was getting was about 1/7 teaspoon of viosterol per day, a perfectly normal dose for a kids with rickets in 1932. When Lloyd talks about about “equivalency,” I presume he is just talking about the amount of Vitamin D—viosterol was a highly concentrated form of it. How much time someone spends on something doesn’t make it right or wrong. If a person is right he's right, and if he's wrong, he's wrong. As the article A History of Rickets in the United States pointed out, Michael, there were many kids back then getting rickets despite being well-nourished. Also, there are cases of congenital rickets, which have nothing to do with the baby’s nutrition. As a final thought, if anyone thinks Lindbergh would kill his son because he was “embarrassed” that the world might find out Charlie had rickets—then why would he publish the baby’s diet including the viosterol? As soon as the Lindberghs published the information on viosterol, they were letting the whole world know their son had rickets. So obviously, Lindbergh was NOT obsessed with some sort of eugenicist fear that the world would learn he had fathered a son with a disease.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2012 9:01:52 GMT -5
Those who reject this idea usually say something like: "he only had a simple case of rickets." But by doing this it tells me the persons heart isn't in it.
Rickets, as you know, isn't caused by a virus randomly afflicting children. It is caused by a lack of Vit D, Calcium, and something else which I don't have time to look up right now. If its a "simple case" these things are introduced and improvement is seen right away. However, some cases of Rickets are caused by much bigger problems. Genetic, Liver Disorders, Kidney Disorders, and Digestive Disorders. In these cases ordinary treatments do not solve the problem. Then there's the possibility of misdiagnosis.
For example, if I go to the Doctor with Flu-like symptoms I will be treated for the Flu. I don't expect the Doctor to immediately put me on a drug coctail for HIV. My own Grandmother was misdiagnosed, not long ago, many times until finally - months later - she was properly diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease.
The child had other symptoms not associated with Rickets too. And as a result I asked for help by Experts. Experts give educated opinions that you and I just aren't qualified to give. That's why I asked them.
We are going to have to agree to disagree BR. Let's just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 25, 2012 18:20:57 GMT -5
what other symptoms did he have mike?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 25, 2012 18:25:28 GMT -5
It’s fine with me if we drop the subject, Michael. As far as rickets, viosterol and the sun lamp go, I’ve said my piece and (just personally) I consider these matters resolved. If you think there was a significant disorder beyond rickets going on, I believe you will need to specify what it was if you intend to make a convincing case for a eugenics-motivated murder.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 25, 2012 21:17:09 GMT -5
according to todays doctors theres two types of rickets. who knows what type he had. one is serious if not found in time, making bones grow funny and giving soft heads
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2012 8:38:20 GMT -5
Good luck with that And now for something completely different. Michael, of all of the acquaintances of Hauptmann that you know of, how many do you consider as possible accomplices? Also, does the NYPD still have Lindbergh files and if they do, have you been able to see them?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 26, 2012 10:15:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2012 16:18:44 GMT -5
I am trying not to bring out my files on this so I will just give you something off the top of my head (no pun intended). His hair. Joe deserves the credit for first bringing this to my attention many years ago. I found more on it at the Archives but it took a good amount of time because its in a weird place down there.
I wanted to add one more thing to my previous response to you Kevin... That would be loyalty, committment, or principal. One might put themselves in a real bad position because of any of these things.
Does Condon count?
I have to be careful how I answer this. It might be me, or my style, but I believe I am oft misunderstood about things.
I consider all of them first. Then I eliminate when I am convinced they weren't involved. Now "involvement" could mean several things. For example, based upon Breckinridge's observations, the Needle Salesman, and Scissors Grinder were connected to the "Kidnappers." But it could be these people were randomly selected, offered $1 or so to do what they did, then report back what they saw or heard. Or, in the alternative, they could have been people who were involved from the beginning.... or after wards but engaged in more then just this one thing.
Since we know that J. J. Faulkner was not penned in Hauptmann's handwriting then someone else was involved here too. But I've seen it suggested he had someone else write it under the guise that he was illiterate. It doesn't make any sense that someone with that kind of money could pull that off but let's say he did. Then this person would ultimately know they were the dupe....yet no one came forward. We can't possibly assert that person never heard of J. J. Faulkner since because here we are still talking about it today and it was ALL everyone was talking about then. So whoever wrote it knew they wrote it and never came forward. Why? Either guilt or fear. My point being we must apply this situation to the rest of the evidence that is similar in nature.
Anyway, I have (3) people I am interested in. One isn't anybody new, and I have a new piece of evidence to apply here. Another is just my own personal feeling from certain things I have read about in the Reports. And the 3rd is someone I won't drop off the radar yet. These would be known associates. I certainly believe he knew some people that it cannot be proven he did yet. And I say yet because I continue to find new stuff all the time.....most of which I missed because I wasn't as "knowledgeable" about the situation. That's one of the biggest problems.... the more you study the more you learn. The more you learn the more you realize how much you've missed. And if you are obsessed with finding the absolute truth as much as I am it is hard to stop researching to write knowing this fact.
There are several Archives out of NY that have files on the Case. I have been in touch with all of them via email. I have also spoken with those who have been. One person in particular who has been to NJ and NY. I am convinced I have everything I need so as not to make the trips up there in person. Just as a quick example: I won't say "all" but just about every investigation from NY was CC'd to NJ. It's not easy, but if you search every file in the building, like I have, you will find that copy eventually where ever its final resting place may be.
As I recall, The NYC Public Library has the Gaston Means diaries. Whether I drove up there or not I could get copies if I wanted them. But considering the price, and the fact that Means constantly lied, I wouldn't trust what he wrote in them anyway so I made a decision to save my money. Someone like Vovina may have gotten them since this is the only angle he is really interested in - but for me I believe I have enough on Means in the multiple files I have already assembled without those diaries.
Another situation that has occurred often with me is that another Researcher may visit an Archive then we'll swap reports. This happened not long ago concerning the Michigan State Police Records. I found many among HRO's stuff but there were many holes to fill. This trade did the trick for me.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 26, 2012 19:31:27 GMT -5
joes right. it was in a old 80s documentry when a scientist for the njsp examined the hair. he said a few things, i havnt seen it in a while. i will have to dig it out
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 26, 2012 20:01:21 GMT -5
Here's the actual statement by Alan T. Lane, Senior Forensic Scientist (now retired) with the NJPSP.
When I examined it under the microscope, I found nodes along the hair, little bumps along the shaft, and I had never seen this before. I've examined quite a few hair specimens and I'm not sure what caused this. It could have been from some disease or just some abnormality in the hair. I don't know why they were there, but they were present on the specimens that were taken from the house, prior to the kidnapping. The same nodes were present on each strand of hair that I looked at, that was recovered from the scene at the time the baby was found.
What's I think is of particularly significant about the hair is that, not only did it compare in all of the other ways, the color, the texture, the medulla and the cortex; all of those things compared. But these nodes made it so much different and what really is the probability of finding such unusual hair on a child along the side of the road, at just the particular time when you don't see this normally. So, I think it's quite conclusive that it, or certainly very strongly points that that definitely was the baby.
His comments appeared in the 1989 PBS program Reliving the Lindbergh Case, narrated by Edwin Newman and produced by the New Jersey Network.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 26, 2012 21:00:57 GMT -5
This may have been the condition called trichorrhexis nodosa. At emedicine.medscape.com/article/1073664-overview we read I want to call attention to the phrase “lengthy and repeated ultraviolet exposure.” As Michael has pointed out, the babv was receiving heat lamp treatments, evidently to excess. I am going to hazard a guess, premature though it may be, that this may have been the cause of the hair nodes Alan T. Lane observed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 27, 2012 8:25:04 GMT -5
Here is a suggestion, instead of everyone playing medical examiner why not just concede that Charlie was suffering from some dire medical condition. So now what? Is this some sort of smoking gun? I'm sorry but all this talk about Charlies health issues and Lindbergh the eugenicist doesn't mean anything without some proof. So where is it? Who did Lindbergh call to get this ball rolling? I listen to these arguments and what I see is a bias at work. If we are going to hold Lindbergh up as a suspect due to his parental behavior and scientific views then we must also assign equal value to his methods. So, how does Lindbergh embark on this crime given his known personality traits? You can't cherry pick the man's behavior.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 27, 2012 9:06:49 GMT -5
We do know that Lindbergh was concerned enough about his sister-in-law Elisabeth's heart condition to throw himself into a world of potential cures through his publicized research.. and which led to the development of a mechanical pump capable of circulating blood through a body during the short period required for an operation. Now I could be wrong here, but I do believe he was actually undertaking activities like this not so much to find a quicker way to hasten her departure and lower the level of the inheritance pool, but out of compassion and a desire to improve her odds for a more normal life. Would he not have demonstrated at least the same energy and commitment towards the wellness of his own son, if that was actually required? But alas.. assuming Junior really was beyond all hope, who would Lindy call to do the deed? Breckinridge, his lawyer and very close confidant, would be my first and only guess. Because of his devout loyalty to Lindbergh, he just might be the one willing to risk everything he'd worked towards and achieved in his own life, right down the toilet..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 27, 2012 16:00:22 GMT -5
I think if anyone reads through what I've written you will see exactly how I am thinking on Lindbergh as a "suspect" and what that means exactly. I completely understand your position Kevin, but for me, its impossible to over-rule what I see as suspicious behavior, therefore I cannot rule him out. I am also not so keen on someone doing something that is counterproductive or contradictory. Contradictions are red flags for me. There are motives for them, although I must admit, they could be for something completely different then what we suspect. Nevertheless, we must not hand Lindbergh a blank check until he's been properly looked at and his actions are given at least a coherent explanation.
For example, why would he lie about Wahgoosh's tendency to bark? I can think of no good reason. Does it mean he's guilty of something? No. But its not something someone does without a reason. It could be he was so convinced of Hauptmann's guilt that he took it upon himself to mislead the Jury in order to erase the point the Defense was making. But it still doesn't answer the question as to why the dog didn't bark from Lindbergh's true perspective. I look at it and consider to myself that he may not have much confidence that Wahgoosh being in a different room as strong enough - so he ends all speculation by saying what he did. So that at least suggests Wahgoosh should have barked, or that Lindbergh thought it possible. It could not have been he believed what he testified to because his Staff, his Wife, and Police who were at Highfields ALL said the exact opposite.
You see, there's something to be gained from this evaluation instead of ignoring it.
That would be why I cannot simply dismiss things because it's been determined that his personality wouldn't allow for the exact way this happened to occur. Common sense tells me something could easily be missed if one were to do that especially when there are other options to consider in order to explain certain things.
I simply suggest we look at him, as well as everyone else, under a microscope. Are his actions that of a grieving Father? Absolutely no. But his involvement and actions are explained as if that's why they occur. So I agree with your statement above that one cannot cherry pick his behavior most especially when that behavior has been assigned an adjective that doesn't modify it accurately.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 29, 2012 9:45:08 GMT -5
I understand your position, Michael. I just have a problem with interpreting individual actions, especially second or third hand. This caused the nightmare of the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I prefer real evidence and viewing that evidence in it's totality.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2012 16:05:31 GMT -5
I don't know much about the JBR Case because I have way too much on my plate with this one and I don't want to be distracted with more information which could push me into "overload" status. However, when Karr confessed to the crime, I did note how some Handwriting Experts were saying he Authored the Ransom Notes: So I look at this then compare it to our case. Now fast-forward to Zorn's book. Although I haven't read it I have been reading what others are saying. One review says a Handwriting Expert has concluded within 95% that Knoll wrote the Ransom Notes. So I would ask you if this is the type of "real evidence" to which you refer to above? For me, Experts making contradictory claims neutralizes their findings. For others they may include their own interpretations then decide who they believe and who they do not. See my point? All it shows me is that the Science still has a long way to go, or that some people shouldn't be calling themselves "Experts." Which is it I wonder? I honestly have no idea. But I sit on the sidelines trying to make heads or tails of all of the evidence - to include this stuff which some would claim is "real" evidence. I would have to ask you whether or not Knoll is tied to the ladder in Zorn's book since I haven't read it, and if its strong enough to consider. Was a ransom bill traced back to Knoll? If we don't have any of this stuff then we absolutely must interpret certain actions or things about him. I submit that whatever I am interpreting concerning Lindbergh's actions are based on very real acts. I plan on simply laying them out, a la Lloyd Gardner's style, then letting whoever reads it decide what to make of it. In fact, unless I change my mind, I will do that for everything. Here on the board is a different story. I will argue just about anything in order to get to the bottom of whatever snag or pit-fall I see developing. This board is very useful in that way because there are so many different intelligent perspectives. So while I do understand what you are saying, I think its hard to qualify exactly what "real evidence" is without straying away from that definition in other places, phases, or even within that exact element itself. I realize that Lindbergh is the sacred cow that everyone hates to talk about. Just knowing the public information available is way too interesting for me not to take a hard look at it. It's what led me to all of the unknown stuff. And not just about Lindbergh. I personally think the more facts or real information that's known the better instead of all of this BS and Bill of Goods history has been sold on the matter. I believe we've done that with Rail 16 so why stop there?
|
|