|
Post by WaldoW on Dec 7, 2008 5:05:34 GMT -5
Caption:...Charles jr@ North Haven, with Peter, Skean, Bogey, Pim summer, 1931 [Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead AML pg 211]
As the holiday season rolls around we can only wonder exactly where the most famous baby in the world spent Xmas 1932?
The Family had no problems taking stills and movies up in Maine summer 1931....but apparently no additional photos exist of Charlies 3rd Xmas. This photo (above) is nearly the same genre of the wanted poster photo--about 7-8 months outdated? Why?
Bob Aldinger made a big deal about this photo being able to esitimate Charlie Jrs true height by the width of the boards? I dunno bout that--but it is the last photo we have? It might be an estimate of something more important vis-a-vis Charlies life or state of health?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 7, 2008 8:09:10 GMT -5
Gotta look harder Rick. I'd tell you where to find some, but that would take all the fun out of it!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2008 8:29:39 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 7, 2008 10:22:04 GMT -5
That would be cheat'in ;D
Ok, a hint. It's not a still and the background provides a clue to the date. Have fun! ( that's about all I think this particular avenue is good for)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 7, 2008 10:38:16 GMT -5
Kevin, are you talking about the footage of CALjr romping around his crib? I wonder if there also might be a shot or two in a photo collection of Will Rogers, who with his wife visted the Lindberghs in Hopewell two weeks before the abduction. According to Will, we know at least that CALjr existed in mid-February 1932 and through his personal account and anecdotes, seemed to be every bit a normal, happy and well-adjusted toddler.
|
|
|
Post by WheresWaldo on Dec 7, 2008 15:20:12 GMT -5
thank you all for supporting this mystery! My point exactly, there are lots of photos dated Summer 1931....in fact one of Michael's, eg the lower one on the bench with the 2 dogs is clearly the "same date and time" as the one published by Anne Morrow Lindbergh? So where are all the photos of CJr opening all his Xmas presents on Xmas day 1931 @ Next Day Hill? Why did all the photography cease and desist within the Morrow Family itself? Something odd must have occured--maybe Charlie fell off that bench?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 7, 2008 21:13:44 GMT -5
There's no pictures because you haven't seen them?? Cut to the chase.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 7:55:15 GMT -5
I know I haven't. I've seen the films, and the stills from those films but nothing I can say was past late summer/early fall of '31...
Addressing Joe's post concerning Rogers...
It doesn't matter what he said or what he didn't say. We know from the evidence that he wasn't "normal." He was being treated for (supposedly rickets) with a mega-mega-mega dosage of vitamin E, AND placed under a sun-lamp to the point where his skin was being adversely effected. Next we have what the physical evidence (corpse) revealed. Foot, unclosed fontanelle, hair, and this is what we know of......
Now, it could be alleged that it had nothing to do with this crime. That this family secret concerning the child's health proves worthless to solving this crime, OR it could have something to do with his death (e.g. Kidnappers roughly handling a fragile/sick child).
But to say he was a happy, healthy 20 month year old child is simply not true and it doesn't matter who said what at this point because we would have to ignore evidence to show he was.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 8, 2008 10:36:50 GMT -5
What's your source for this, including the assertion that it was not rickets that CALjr was being treated for? On what medical opinion do you base your own opinion that CALjr's treatment dosage was mega-mega-mega? What Vitamin E? And how adversely was his skin being affected by the sunlamp, an integral part of the rickets treatment program to produce Vitamin D for calcium absorption? (other than the side effect of some surface dryness)
Do you really believe this 20-month-old child understood and appreciated all of that? From everything I've seen and read, he certainly does not appear to have hogtied himself into playing the role of abnormal child. And it's certainly not what Anne Lindbergh's diary accounts indicate, before or after the crime.
Or it could be fairly obvious, that's just my opinion though. It could also be alleged that a money-mad, mentally ill German carpenter from the Bronx, acting under the weight of his own delusions to change his world, couldn't have cared less about CALjr's health and well being.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 8, 2008 10:43:46 GMT -5
Kevin, you have my interest, but it's starting to wane. Can you please just spill it, or do we have to wait until next week?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 10:45:17 GMT -5
Viosterol. See The Case That Never Dies. Also, he has other symptoms that do not jibe with Rickets. A sun-lamp treatment to the point of skin irritation (all over his body), in conjunction with this type of dosage - implies overkill doesn't it? The hair, for example, is a sign of sickness unconnected with Rickety condition but something else. How does a rich kid with a perfect diet become so stricken I wonder? It's not like he wasn't getting outside in the sunlight - heck, the photos we do have show that he did.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 8, 2008 11:34:24 GMT -5
I think you're relying too heavily on Gardner as the source here when he talks about 17 drops of Viosterol as being a massive dose of Vitamin E(?) What was the concentration of the administered Viosterol, which actually converts to Vitamin D, for stimulation of calcium uptake?
It seems probable to me that Charlie was actually being given Ergosterol, which is converted into Viosterol by ultraviolet radiation. Would this not explain the sunlamp as part of the rickets treatment? Irradiated Viosterol would probably be pretty unstable in the bottle and have a very limited shelf life. What concentration of Ergosterol, if that's what it was?
The Lindberghs certainly had no qualms about including details of the childs treatment (family secret?) in the press release.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 11:40:13 GMT -5
Lloyd is an Expert so of course I would rely on him, and the documentation. What's your source that it wasn't Viosterol?
Also, I think if you are going to attack Hauptmann in the light in which you do then the same should be brought out about Lindy too.
For example, during their trans-continental flight....one of the first accounts about it from Anne's perspective says she was very uncomfortable but afraid to say anything to him because he would perceive her as being "weak." This is important because later documentation would show she did indeed tell him and he refused to stop resulting in her being "wisked" away to the hospital upon landing. So she is wanting the media to report something different then what the true situation was AND she tips her hand about how Lindbergh's feelings were toward what he perceived as "weakness."
Next, there were unwritten rules about private matters. For example, no where have I been able to find either family, or employee give up Dwight Morrow Jr.'s problems. Yet they were real. Now addressing Anne's disclosure of the viosterol dosage.... I don't believe she was a murderer. While she would protect him that went both ways by defending his normalcy but still hoping to keep his treatment going that she felt was necessary for him. It's more proof of his real condition in my opinion.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 8, 2008 12:33:50 GMT -5
It might well have actually been Viosterol, but it does not strike me that 17 drops daily is a mega-mega-mega dose. For an aqueous solution,we're talking about less than a millilitre over the course of a day here, or about 1/35 of a fluid ounce. And Viosterol is certainly not Vitamin E. I'd still like to know Gardner's source here about the dosage, specifically with regards to concentration; 17 drops means absolutely nothing without knowing the concentration. I'm not saying he is necessarily wrong but I do not accept this statement as fact until I see proof beyond Gardner's simple say-so.
I attack Hauptmann openly because he was an unrepentant killer who sank to the lowest form of depravity by carrying through the exchange of a corpse for blood money. All of Charles Lindbergh's and the Morrows' behavioural weaknesses and shortcomings combined, don't even register on the same scale, period.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 8, 2008 13:58:38 GMT -5
How does this square? I can't see how one can compare the two. Nor can I see how the health of an infant victim is relevant unless there's some damn good evidence which makes it so. If not what's the point? Let's face it, assertions pertaining to Charlie's health have but one purpose and that is a backdoor attack on CAL by very dubious reasoning. Sort of reminds me of accusing a rape victim of promiscuity. Not very honorable and personally I want no part of it. It's the stuff of yellow journalism and it's called yellow for good reason. Now if, on the other hand someone discovers something tangible regarding Lindbergh taking part in the crime or it's planning then I would say the issue of his son's health might be relevant. Where is it? All these Sherlocks around especially one who loves to throw this stuff out and I have yet to see anything but innuendo. If the theory that CAL offed his own son is the goal, then I say prove it or move on. Joe, I will provide the movie though I find this whole avenue of interest distasteful and dishonorable. In the meantime I would hope our intrepid hoaxster would find it himself since this seems to be so important to him and I know how much he values the TRUTH.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 8, 2008 20:34:03 GMT -5
Kevkon, I think you are flying off the handle, here.
I have considered a number of times whether there was something worse wrong with the baby's health/development. In doing so I do think of relevance. I've not thought of it as a back door attack on CAL. I have wondered if it may have played a part in his shielding the servants from police questioning=his strong thing for privacy. I'm not dishonorable in considering the baby's health nor do I see that of others. It's not as if anyone is being callous or insensitive to that poor little baby's all too brief life and the tragedy of his death.
Combativeness just drives people off the forum, which to me is a darned shame.
Peace~~~~Shalom~~~Joy to the world
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 8, 2008 21:17:30 GMT -5
If you can't see anything dishonorable about victimizing a victim, what can I say?
|
|
|
Post by WalterW on Dec 8, 2008 23:59:13 GMT -5
There's no pictures because you haven't seen them?? Cut to the chase. Heyu Kev--why dont you start by ponying up any more recent photos you know about. Time and dates please. We dont need any smoke and mirrors. How about nutting homey? Then--dont worry too much about who is getting victimized OK? They are all dead and we are asking questions about a kidnap murder from 1932.. Dont get all huffy and moral on us? You arnt the gatekeeper on what is discussed or not. Doesnt skitzophrenia run in the Morrow family as well? They are always ordering other people around? Most unfriendly....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2008 6:39:09 GMT -5
I would put money on the fact that Lloyd, a Professor of History, would know something historical like this. And I am quite sure, he wouldn't be reckless and print something of this nature if it weren't properly researched.
But questioning facts is a good thing so I can understand where you are coming from. If you find anything to the contrary please let me know.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 9, 2008 8:08:22 GMT -5
First because this is a dead end issue until someone comes up with something worthy of making it so. Second because you should do your own research and spend your own money. You love to throw out this stuff, why not take the time and effort to validate what you say? Yeah, that might happen.
I don't worry about who is getting victimized , Rick. For example you keep getting victimized on the Hoax site and that really doesn't bother me. However, there is something that seems very wrong about throwing out completely unsubstantiated claims about an innocent murder victim. Hey, maybe it's just me. And on that possibility, that I am the only one who sees something really wrong with this approach and without any desire to "drive people away from this forum" I will leave you and whoever else to enlighten the world with more of the same.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 9, 2008 9:50:36 GMT -5
Hello Kommander Kev! Welcome back! Long time no see. Same olde same olde--some things never change. (good to see you are still attacking ghosts and windmills) Protecting the moral fibre on your own personal discussion board.....
Let me get to your point: you know (or just say you know) where there are more recent photos either stills or movies....but you wont tell us...because(?):
(this is where it gets fuzzy)....someone, CAL, or Charlie Jr. is being victimized? Wow....thats like Psuedo Abnormal Psychology 101? (or just talking thru your arse) Seems to me Charlie Jr. was already victimized on Mt. Rose Hill?
Do you suppose that AML intended victimizing Charlie Jr. by posting his Summer 1931 photo in Hour of Gold ? heavy?Do you suppose Charlie Jr. was also punked by using the outdated Wanted photo? Its good they have you on thier team!
Your turn now--you need to get the 2nd post and last word in as per usual? See you again in 2009. Keep up your vigilence for the rights of the poor and downtrodden........ _________________________________________________ "Was the Body of the Lindbergh Baby Really Found?" Al Dunlap--Editor of "The Detective" Official Publication International Police Chiefs Association. Startling Detective Adventures/May 1933/ pages 10-64: (reference page 410 & 461 Gardner)--the Case that Never Dies)
"To sum up all the evidence, the following are the facts which tend to support that the child found on Mt. Rose was Charlie Jr.:
1. The location of the body near to Hopewell 2. The light curly hair 3. theoverlapping toe on one foot (if the Lindbergh baby was so marked and same toes?) 4. The unusually large head (if the Lindbergh baby was so marked) 5. A condition of rickets in the in body found ( if any similar condition was present in the Lindbergh baby?) 6. The ilone dentification of the Father after 60-90seconds
"However, the following facts tend to prove that the body was not that of the Lindbergh child:
1. Some difference in height accounting for 4 1/2 inches? 2. The unususal and advanced state of decomposition--( ~3-8 months?)** 3. The proiximity of grave near to road and other points seached often carefully. (lack of buzzards?) 4. The unclosed fontenelles indicating either a younger child or one with an advanced case of rickets. 5. the fact that no one other than the distracted (distressed) father ever flatly declared the corpse to be Charlie Jr. 6. The hasty identification , and chance for mistaken identity. 7. The extraordinary chance of error due to the Fathers state of mind (also opined by Ellis Parker) 8. The discitnct advantages arrising from such an identification as far as the search for kidnappers and quelling of public interest and hysteria. 9. The absence of any coroners inquest? 10. Any unusual motivation on the part of the kidnappers to plant a another body at a convenient location in order conduct unhampered negotiations. 11. Known frequency of mistaken identity in similar cases. 12. Total failure to use scientific methods of identification of corpse. 13. Truckery or ruse used in investigation to fool the press. 14. Description of the body as a "blackened skeleton" when such a condition would require presence at this location for as long as eight (8) months.** 15. Statement of the investigators that they could not determine how long the body had lain in this location? 16. The fact that not more than 20 of 72 days were conducive to temperatures causing severe decomposition. 17. Fact that the sex could not be determined. 18. Immediate cremation of the body.
"In view of these facts, and bits of circumstantial evidence, and in view of the height disparity...it seems only one conclusion can be reached....and that is that the Lindbergh Baby was not found?" __________________________________________________ "A picture is worth a thousand words is a proverb that refers to the idea that complex stories can be described with just a single still image, ...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 9, 2008 18:04:27 GMT -5
Hey Rick, glad to see you climb out from behind the alias! So you think I'm just talking thru my arse? Hmm, interesting. Perhaps because you're so used to that particular format I can see how you might believe others do so as well. All I can say is follow your convictions and keep going with this thread. Hey, what's the worse that can happen? Sorry for the stuff about treating victims with some respect. I can see how foolish a notion that is now. I must also sincerely apologize for all of that nonsense about proof and evidence. Again I erred in forgetting that such things have no place in this case. So please do continue to enlighten everyone! Now where were you? Charlie was found at Mt Rose and Charlie wasn't found at Mt Rose. Maybe he was in the Lindbergh's freezer all the time??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2008 19:52:28 GMT -5
I think everyone attached to this case is fair game. For my money there was an inside connection, therefore, everyone on the inside should be properly investigated to the fullest extent possible. This was never done so I find it important to do so which may lead to something important, or then again, show how it doesn't connect up. Original Investigators were afraid of Lindbergh AND Lindbergh was telling them what to do. His beliefs, actions, and tendencies should be evaluated with a fine toothed comb in my opinion. Many behind the scenes were even suspicious of him - but would never dare express this or their careers would be over.
If Lindbergh cared so little about his wife and unborn, for the sake of perception of strength or weakness then later came out as a full blown eugenicist I think its something to consider if the child is sicker then having just a mild case of rickets. Doesn't mean he did anything but it certainly needs to be looked at.
So the child's health could be a factor. First thing is to either prove or disprove whether or not he had an illness. Next is to find out what it was. This, to me, isn't victimizing the victim because it could be a necessary evil in order to solve the crime. Then again, it may not. But the only way is to know all the facts. That includes family secrets. And so it IS important to know whether or not Dwight Morrow Jr. was schizo and confined to a mental institution, or that Elisabeth was an alcoholic/drug addict because it shows private matters were suppressed and/or denied by the family. Now it could also be relevant in other ways too, or maybe not at all but we must know the truth first before we can make an informed decision on the matter.
Don't be driven off Mairi! We have some strong personalities here but I believe its a good thing. It's challenging to know if an issue is raised, especially controversial, we will be strongly challenged. You have an even-tempered and mild-mannered approach that seems to balance things out a bit. Sometimes, I think, debates can look worse then they really are if we know each other like we have come to over the months (and sometimes years). Joe and I, for example, have gotten into heated debates which I am sure to someone not familiar would think we don't like each other, however, quite the contrary is true (on my end of things anyway ;D).
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 10, 2008 8:07:06 GMT -5
OK Kev--your mea culpa is accepted...maybe I have solved your riddle? Maybe you were thinking that any additional photos taken of Charlie Jr. were post-life? That question is still up in the aire--but the ones we know about are stills?
If you are right, the grossest of the autopsy photos are seen in Scaduto page 160+2.......and I seriously doubt that anyone can apply any of the so-called "identifying factors" (see any overlapping toes on that club-foot?). Yuk! VanIngens million dollar double-dare is vindicated. It looks more like a "graveling"?
Also, Gardner claims that the Wanted Posted photo came from Charlie Jr.s first birthday party? (CAPTION: page 210 + 4)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2008 9:00:12 GMT -5
Kevin, you said that Charlie 1+ was in film footage, not stills, correct?
Rick, you're flogging a dead Mr. Ed casting doubt on Charlie's ID. Yo need to git wit the pogrom, yo have nuff trouble with the ladder, homey.
Michael, so true. There is absolutely nothing personal in our exchanges even when the heat gets cranked up. Someday we'll have a pint of Sleeman's lager together, have a laugh and who knows, maybe solve this case..
Mairi, keep posting. You are a great asset to this board and a very important voice here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2008 16:21:53 GMT -5
I rec'd an email today which contained the following information.... The baby was given 14 drops of Viosterol. That's from Mrs. Lindbergh herself. See page 24 of KIDNAP by George Waller. Now this: "In some instances, viosterol, a very concentrated form of vitamin D produced by the irradiation of egosterol, is indicated. Ten drops of a one percent solution of irradiated ergosterol, is equivalent to about 50 teaspoons of cod-liver oil. When it is realized that three teaspoons daily of cod-liver oil is sufficient for a baby, it can be readily agreed that viosterol is a drug which the physician alone should prescribe." [Source]: "The Curative Value of Light: Sunlight and Sun-Lamp in Health and Disease", by Edgar Mayer, M.D., F.A.C.P. D. Appleton & Company, New York, 1932. Page 160-161.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 10, 2008 16:30:56 GMT -5
Yo Joe....you have the wrong idea? I'm not necessarily questioning whether or not the corpse is Charlie Jr....I just want to know when he really went missing? I think the lack of more recent photos could be a hint to something odd, untoward or amiss. Whats-his-name (Wally Post/Will Rogers) may only think he saw the real Charlie Jr. in the Spring of "32? Its Al Dunlap that thinks its another kid? Dr. VanIngen* cant even tell who it was "in person" so how could we do that now? [*At least not under Oath in Court] One thing we are certain of.....that particular body was not lying on Mount Rose Hill in the cold shade for 72 days as argued by the Persecution.....so its been moved there after the fact, likely closer to the discovery.
2. We also know that additional movies were taken up at North Haven Island in the Summer of 1931 which could well have been after his first birthday? They were posted by Sue C. last year and showed Charlie in a window with Ollie Whatleys wife waving at the camera....its on line. But what about later in the Fall or Winter? eg October >>>March?
3. Michael--whats your conclusion? Massive doses of Vitamin D prescibed by VanIngen? After all in Gardner...on the same page as Al Dunlaps Theory....it says Van Ingen said he had a square head and rickets? Not too complimentary?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 10, 2008 17:18:46 GMT -5
Michael, I have no problem with considering Lindbergh suspect. However, put him in the same category as Hauptmann? I just can't see that he is in any way comparable to a self serving convicted felon. As for CAL's beliefs and his personality, so what? Without something further in the way of evidence, I really don't see much that all of this amounts to. There's way too much extrapolation going on here. Charlie was defective + CAL's eugenics + CAL's personality traits = CAL disposing of the child? Two questions immediately arise from this line of "deductive reasoning" , first why would CAL marry anyone but a perfect specimen ( not to mention continue to have more children). Second, where are the actions necessary to plan and execute such a crime by CAL to be found? It's not like no one was ( and is) looking. At the very least there should be a money trail. Perhaps if for some reason beyond my comprehension anyone is determined to pin this crime on CAL, it might be more fruitful to look for evidence of him doing so rather than wasting time on attempting to diagnose Charlie's health.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2008 7:00:41 GMT -5
He's not in the same catagory but should be looked at under the same microscope, which by the way, I don't believe Hauptmann himself has been look under enough.
To answer your question.... How many Father's does it take who kill their children for insurance money before we can say this type of thing happens? How many women kill them for the attention of some boyfriend...., etc. etc.
Lindbergh refused to set his plane down when his wife was suffering. She was pregnant, and, at the very least, in a great deal of discomfort. No, he wouldn't do it or seem weak. His problems stem from his ideas concerning superiority. He did marry into the "royalty" of the U.S. at the time - exactly did what you suggest. Once the health problems of CJ became known, he blamed Anne and her side of the family - just as we would expect because its just not possible it was HIS fault.
Rick - If the child had rickets then he had other issues going on as well. Sometimes rickets can't be cured if there's an underlying cause that is not being treated. It's all guess work at this point. All we have are symptoms of rickets and symptoms that aren't consistent with rickets but of other things.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 11, 2008 8:18:32 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more.
So why would CAL allow another potentially "defective" baby to come along? Why take the chance ? Where and how did Lindy connect with Mr Hauptmann? Which of his funds were used to pay for the whole operation?
|
|