Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 8:29:37 GMT -5
LJ, I like the way you have linked Thayer, Condon, Hauptmann and Fisch. Thayer worked for Breckinridge if I am remembering correctly. Even though Condon and Hauptmann denied knowing each other doesn't mean they didn't know of each other. It could have been why Condon was chosen as the go-between.
I am just going to start on William Norris' book "A Talent to Deceive". This should provide information about the possibility of Dwight being involved with what happened to Charlie. Elizabeth is another angle in this case that I need to learn more about. Perhaps Biehn's book would be helpful with that. Their are so many theories to consider in this case.
Keep looking for that smoking gun, LJ. You may find out all kinds of things by doing that.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Jul 14, 2012 9:06:57 GMT -5
I first have to comment on what a great thread this is. It has really opened my eyes in many ways on how probabilities, logic and unknown variables can lead one down a path of reason that seems likely but which may actually be completely flawed.
I really enjoy BR’s well-crafted and though out posts.
My hats off to Michael for being so insightful and direct in stopping and identifying precarious trails of thought before they can seriously pollute people’s minds. That is something that is only possible through having his level of knowledge and also by being uncompromisingly truthful and adamant about pointing out the potential fallacy of their conclusions. That being said, it did kinda’ hurt reading some of it… but that’s ok, (I’m also sure it was nothing personal).
The whole eugenics angle is really very interesting and will require further investigation on my part.
And to add to Michael’s list, even though I mentioned it in a previous thread in a very descriptive way, I’ll list it here again:
# 5. List yours here: I am sure anyone could come up with one I haven't heard of yet.
We have one indisputable fact: The child had an enlarged cranium. (I don’t think his head swelled to that size because he was the son of Lindbergh…)
Not being in the medical profession there are likely many causes for an enlarged cranium besides rickets, such as Hydrocephalus or Craniosynostosis amongst probably a myriad of others, which are often accompanied by an increase in intracranial pressure.
Form here on out all I have to say is pure conjecture on my part since I have no facts to back up any of my beliefs. I think that little Charlie may have had Hydrocephalus and suffered from increased intracranial pressure which often causes seizures. This was not something that was easy to successfully deal with in the early 1930’s. I believe his days were already numbered and that during some sort of a terrible seizure, he was put out of his misery in possibly not too pretty of a way, by someone in an act of great desperation and ultimate compassion and, that act had to obviously be covered up for many reasons. The whole kidnapping story was the ultimate, but necessary cover for that tragic event.
I currently attribute his death to not eugenics (which I don’t rule out at all) but to euthanasia.
I also believe that Lindy was a womanizer and think it very likely that Charles Jr was actually Elisabeth’s child which would give us a double motive at least as far as some involved participants might be concerned, so whacking Charlie Jr. was actually killing two birds with one stone (or was that a 2 x 4?)…
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 14, 2012 11:07:50 GMT -5
ZH, I have worked with victims of hydrocephalus, and it was a jolt the first time I saw such a child. Go to “Google images” and type in “hydrocephalus” and you will see what I am talking about. Then Google “hydrocephalus” and look at the signs and symptoms, and see if you think Charlie presented those symptoms, based on what we know. Did his eyes gaze downward? Do we have evidence of vomiting and seizures? If he was having vomiting and seizures--so bad that they decided to "put him out of his misery"--would they let him attend preschool? Someone may want to argue “it could have been mild hydrocephalus.” If that’s true, I doubt that that we’re talking about something to motivate murder.
Charlie’s enlarged cranium is more consistent with rickets than hydrocephalus. The evidence for rickets is plentiful: 1—receiving viosterol 2—on heat lamp treatments 3—forced to go on formula in early infancy, at a time when formula wasn’t fortified with vitamin D as it is today 4—Unclosed fontanelle 5—Enlarged cranium 6—Pediatrician states he had “moderate rickety condition.”
Ask yourself which diagnosis the data better fits—hydrocephalus or rickets.
By the way, Joe—Thank you for your kind comments.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 14, 2012 11:17:23 GMT -5
God, these scenarios would be a detective's dream. Can you imagine the evidence trail? Even the simplest of these "Lindbergh did it" scenarios would require all sorts of planning, recruitment, communication, monetary transactions, etc. This is exactly why pursuing a motive based investigation is so dangerous. It's also a good reason to look at the Jon Benet Ramsey case to see what exactly happens when you try to pursue an investigation from the motive side while ignoring the evidence or worse yet, subverting it. I really can't believe there is not a bias at work here given; - The total lack of physical evidence suggesting a Lindbergh involvement
- The amount of separation between a known participant and Lindbergh.
- Ignoring the salient fact that as an extreme eugenicist, Lindbergh's wife is pregnant with another potentially inferior child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 11:27:39 GMT -5
ZH. I have considered Hydrocephalus but not seeing any more recent pictures than summer of 1931, I just don't know. Plus, if he was still attending preschool in the fall of 1931 as BR mentions, then the larger cranium could be because of rickets.
BR, I was wondering if you would share your thoughts as to why Mrs. Morrow approached Dr. Van Ingen about Charlie's physical condition. Surely she knew about the rickets. Do you think she might have been suspicious about the whole kidnapping?? I realize this is a thread about Eugenics related death. I am not trying to change the direction of this thread. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 14, 2012 13:04:48 GMT -5
Amy, this is an excellent question and one that has troubled me also. It is too bad that we don’t have Mrs. Morrow’s letter of inquiry (to my knowledge) to go with Van Ingen’s reply. From the exact words in his reply, it appears that she asked him about “physical peculiarities” of the child, although this could be Van Ingen’s rephrasing of her words.
There are different possible interpretations that have occurred to me.
The newspapers had carried rumors that something was wrong with Charlie. These rumors probably reached Mrs. Morrow’s ears. At the time of the LKC itself, I expect that all kinds of rumors were flying around—even rumors about Lindbergh. Mrs. Morrow had probably heard about the closet pranks. There was Garrson wanting to see if the baby was disposed of in the furnace. Perhaps Mrs. Morrow was beginning to fear the worst, and wanted to resolve a question in her own mind if Lindbergh got rid of the baby for a health motive.
There may also have been a less sinister reason for the inquiry. As we know, health problems ran in the Morrow family—Elisabeth’s heart problem, for example. This letter was written before the body was found. Perhaps Mrs. Morrow was worried that if Charlie had a health problem, he would not be able to endure prolonged captivity with the kidnappers.
It is interesting that Van Ingen mentions the unclosed fontanelle, but not rickets (even though he later said in his pretrial deposition that Charlie had a “moderate rickety condition.”) He mentions the dry skin, but doesn’t mention heat lamps. He mentions cod liver oil, but not viosterol. I almost get the impression that Van Ingen is hedging on directly mentioning rickets.
Part of the explanation could be this. It’s possible that the Lindberghs were not satisfied with the progress of Charlie’s rickets under Van Ingen, and took him to see a specialist, who put Charlie on viosterol instead of the old-fashioned cod liver oil, and also advised heat lamps. It is possible this was done without Van Ingen’s knowledge. This would be unusual in that a specialist will normally communicate with the primary physician. It’s conceivable, however, that the Lindberghs made an independent move.
I am going to speculate on another reason why Van Ingen hedged. It’s just possible that when Van Ingen originally diagnosed rickets, Anne told him: “Dr. Van Ingen, please don’t tell my mother this. She’s already so worried about my sister’s and brother’s health problems—I don’t want to give her something else to worry about.” Then later, when Mrs. Morrow sends this inquiry to Van Ingen, he’s got a dilemma. He has promised Anne to keep the rickets confidential—in fact, a doctor is always obliged to observe client confidentiality. But Mrs. Morrow is part of the family and a powerful person in her own right. Perhaps Van Ingen decided the safest thing to do was walk the tightrope—drop clues about rickets without saying it expressly. That way he could keep his pledge to Anne—but if Mrs. Morrow later blasted him for failing to mention rickets, he could say, “Well, yes, but I mentioned observations that were consistent with it.”
Of course, one could also take a more sinister view of Van Ingen’s letter and its seeming to hedge—namely, that he was covering up some disorder far more serious than rickets.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 14, 2012 14:03:25 GMT -5
I don't presume to read it. I do read it. You said: "there is this to consider: very soon after Charlie was found missing, and before the ransom note was opened, the local and state police were notified.
And you say it again right after saying I made a presumption:
There is no presumption because you make no caveat or further explanation about what Lindbergh's intent acutally was - so it is misleading.
You make a point about who arrives but ignore who was actually supposed to as it relates to Lindbergh's original intent. That is important, perhaps not to you, but to me a person's original thoughts or plans are.
And I explained why I thought using that example doesn't work.
I disagree. That wasn't how Lindbergh operated. If his son wasn't normal he would do everything he could to force him to be.
He worked out of Col. Donovan's law office.
That certainly wasn't my intent and I appologize for whatever it was. I am sure what I wrote was misunderstood.
I believe there's some "evidence" concerning what he was being treated for. The other evidence could be associated with Rickets. Or something else. Or both Rickets and something else.
I think all it would take is a phone call. The man forced J. Edgar Hoover back in line by going to the President.
This is true but why wasn't there? You had footprints. Members of the household claimed some where theirs and others were not. Did the Cops check? No, its right in the Trial Transcripts. They simply took their word for it. Now, if this wasn't Lindbergh, and he wasn't running the investigation - do you believe that would have happened?
This is certainly an obsticle. But it exists just about with any theory other then the Lone-Wolf, yet, we all (pretty much all) know there was at least one other person in all of this.
He believed himself to be of Superior stock. Next, I think you are ignoring something else here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 14:54:14 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for correcting me about Thayer. I think I am reading too many books at the same time and getting things mixed up a bit.
Since Lindbergh had 5 more children with Anne, I don't think he was concerned about having anymore inferior children with her. I was thinking that he saw her pregnancy as the opportune time to have Charlie go missing. Anne would have another baby in a few months to help her cope with her grief and the newpapers would have another child to focus on.
BR, thanks for the detailed answer to my question. Like you mention, perhaps she was not told by Charles and Anne exactly what little Charlie was being treated for. If she didn't know about the rickets, then they must not have had a sun lamp at Next Day Hill. She would have seen it in the nursery and asked Anne and Betty about it.
It does indeed seem that Van Ingen dances around the whole issue of Rickets in that letter. His mentioning of the fontanel being open but should be closed at Charlie's age should have prompted Mrs Morrow to make a follow-up phone call to him on the private phone number he gives her.
Being with Anne during those early weeks of the kidnapping, I am sure that mother and daughter did much talking and crying together. They must have been very concerned that Charlie might not survive his captivity, especially if he has physical needs that require daily doses of Viosterol.
I also wonder if Anne would have talked to her mother about any conversations that might have occurred between Anne and Charles about having Charlie put into an institution. I would think this would have made Mrs. Morrow seek a more detailed account of Charlie's true physical condition.
I, too,wish we could see Mrs. Morrow's letter to Dr. Van Ingen. Then we would be clear on why she felt a need to consult with him.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. They are all good points to consider.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 14, 2012 17:18:08 GMT -5
Michael Baden, Medical Examiner. That's the name I had lost my grip on. Google in his name .."and Lindbergh baby". Amy, I know just what you mean about reading so many LKC books. I did the same and stay scrambled about details and sources. Wish I'd had the foresight to start a notebook. Hopefully you're smarter on that than I was.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 14, 2012 17:52:24 GMT -5
Okay, how about this--a theory that takes a little bit from everything everyone’s been saying, while attempting to account for the personalities of those involved, as well as the evidence trail (and lack thereof). Here goes:
Suppose, in accordance with many rumors to this effect, that CAL Jr. was sick during the last year or so of his life. Suppose that while there may've been periods where he seemed healthy enough, there were also bouts (especially during that last year) when he very much was not--when he was generally unwell, rickety, and just not thriving as he should, to the point where Lindbergh didn’t even want pictures taken of him. It may not have been anything terribly specific or severe--just a generally weak, sickly constitution, all perhaps due to a combination of various conditions (possibly hereditary or caused by Anne Lindbergh's high-altitude flights and resultant exposure to carbon monoxide while pregnant). And while CAL Jr. had started off fine, maybe these conditions cropped up and grew worse later, after Anne became pregnant again, and, now that she was, it was imperative that Lindbergh find out what was wrong with their first child and how to treat him.
In Lindbergh’s mind, all this could’ve been reinforced by his work with French biologist Dr. Alexis Carrel, whose eugenicist/hereditary views certainly rubbed off on Lindbergh, but not to the point where he’d become such a staunch eugenicist that he would euthanize his own son. Rather, Lindbergh needed to solve the problem constructively, to figure out what was wrong. Conversely, it may also have been that there really wasn't anything seriously wrong with CAL Jr., rather that Lindbergh, after his work with Carrel and coupled with his own sense of perfectionism, began to perceive or exaggerate minor problems and imperfections in his own mind.
Either way, despite the doctors’ advice and all his father’s efforts to “toughen him up” (sending him to kindergarten early, leaving him outdoors in his crib to “fend for himself”, etc.), CAL Jr. was not improving in Lindbergh’s view, so the next step had to be taken. This wasn’t a problem for a regular pediatrician. Rather, CAL Jr. needed to be put in a hospital and treated there, possibly the nearby Skillman Institute. Anne, having already been separated from her child for months while she was abroad and not liking the idea of him possibly being sent away for any extended period of time, wouldn’t have wanted this, so she had to be gotten around. But even if Anne did go along with it, the image-conscious, privacy-obsessed Lindbergh still couldn’t be seen sending his son away for any reason. Instead, CAL Jr. had to be removed in such a way that was apparently beyond Lindbergh’s control--i.e. a kidnapping. So a kidnapping had to be staged to get CAL Jr. into an institution, at least until it could be determined what was wrong with him (if anything).
As utmost discretion was required for this, Lindbergh might’ve gone to one of his most trusted friends, attorney Henry Breckinridge. Not only was Breckinridge a discreet and consummate professional who could keep the strictest confidence, but also, based in NY, he knew a ton of people. For instance, Breckinridge could’ve known (or known of) a certain local celebrity of sorts--a garrulous, mawkish old schoolteacher in the Bronx named Condon, who worshipped Lindbergh and would do anything in his power to help him. Even more useful, Condon knew everyone in the Bronx. Breckinridge could’ve approached Condon with this phony kidnap scheme. Eager to be of assistance to his hero, Condon agreed and, in turn, approached a local carpenter named Hauptmann, and (as he would later with the ransom box maker) instructed Hauptmann to build a ladder to very unique specifications, using a mixture of different woods from different sources. Condon (or Breckinridge) then found 2-3 other guys to actually smuggle CAL Jr. out of the house--maybe some locals, familiar with the Hopewell area.
The “kidnappers” are paid an advance, though not enough to raise suspicion with whoever has access to Lindbergh’s finances. Outside of this, nothing’s on paper and the people involved are very minor figures, so the links connecting Lindbergh to Condon and Hauptmann et al. are so tenuous that no one will ever connect the dots. Furthermore, nothing but the most necessary, need-to-know information is given to each participant, making it that much harder for anyone to connect the dots (including the participants).
Condon writes a phony ransom note, in which a $50K ransom is stipulated--the same amount demanded in a kidnapping threat made against Lindbergh’s sister-in-law a few years before--and a date of March 1st is set. Now, that being a Tuesday, the Lindberghs weren’t usually at Highfields, so one or more of the servants might be suspected of tipping someone off and being in on the crime. However, not only will Lindbergh direct the investigation away from the servants, but, since they really didn’t have anything to do with it, no blame will ultimately fall on them.
The kidnappers drive to Hopewell in two cars, seen throughout the afternoon by locals. They meet on the little-used Featherbed Ln. behind the house before both cars drive to Highfields. As walking to the house with the cumbersome ladder might be difficult, they park at the driveway entrance, transfer to one car with Hauptmann’s ladder, and drive up the lane to the house (the tire sound Anne said she heard before Lindbergh got home). Two kidnappers get out with the ladder, the driver heading back down the lane and parking by the other car and an easy-to-spot abandoned house near the driveway entrance. The other two kidnappers wait by the house for Lindbergh to get home, staying on the boardwalk or flagstone court (no approach footprints to or around the house). Pretending to have forgotten a speaking engagement in NY (canceling an engagement followed by his son getting kidnapped might look like something was deliberately planned), Lindbergh arrives home a very short time later to oversee the operation. He leaves the front door unlocked. He’s previously given instructions that the nursery is not to be entered for the first few hours after CAL Jr. has been put down, so the servants are anywhere in the house but the nursery. And he has Anne downstairs, first at dinner, then in the living room. It’s about 9pm. It’s time.
One kidnapper--Kidnapper A--leaves his shoes outside to quiet his footsteps and goes in through the front door, sneaking upstairs into the nursery. Meanwhile, Kidnapper B sets the ladder against the house by the nursery window, climbs up and waits at the top. Once inside, Kidnapper A wipes down key areas of the nursery--places that an intruder entering and exiting through a window would have to touch. This is to deflect any potential suspicion away from the notion that the kidnappers got in and out by any other route than the nursery window, thereby ruling out any possibility that they could've been somehow let in by an insider accomplice. And since the kidnappers obviously wouldn’t have wanted to leave their own fingerprints to communicate this window entry-exit trail, the only remaining option is to erase existing prints with a wipedown of certain spots in the nursery, hence no fingerprints being found in that room.
So far, everything is going to Lindbergh’s plan, but, unbeknownst to him, these guys have other ideas. Rather than take him out of the house and to an institution (whether Skillman or someplace else), CAL Jr. is murdered in the crib (probably by a swift blow to the head, possibly with the butt of a pistol the kidnappers may’ve brought along). Kidnapper A then drags the body out from under the covers, bags it, and hands it off to Kidnapper B, waiting outside on the ladder. Kidnapper A heads out the way he came in (through the front door) as Kidnapper B climbs down with the body. But, as he tries to take it down, the ladder scissors, the two sections slapping together (the breaking wood noise Lindbergh said he heard a few minutes after 9pm). The two kidnappers meet outside. They dump the ladder in the backyard--tossing it to the ground and causing the side rails to split--and head for the mouth of an access road behind the house, stopping for the stocking-footed kidnapper to put his shoes back on. This road connects up with the driveway at a point near the abandoned house and driveway entrance, where their cars and driver are waiting. Having left a trail of absent fingerprints in the nursery, a trail of footprints away from the house, and a ladder dumped en route (along with a chisel, apparently brought to jimmy open the nursery window), it will now be convincingly telegraphed to any observer that a break-in and kidnapping has just taken place.
CAL Jr. is discovered missing about an hour later. Having at least a rough idea what the envelope on the windowsill contains, Lindbergh, not realizing he's been double-crossed, feels no need to open it right away. He calls his lawyer Breckinridge first, maybe as a signal that everything went to plan (he thinks), then calls the police--but only the local police, perhaps because he knows that he has to call the authorities to keep up appearances, but, at the same time, wants to keep this as small and localized as he can, assuming that his son will be returned shortly, possibly in as little as 2-4 days, before any nationwide manhunt can get fully underway. That 2-4 day wait period, mentioned in the ransom note, could’ve originally been the amount of time it would’ve taken to run tests on CAL Jr., to keep him under observation in an institution for a few days before he was supposed to have been returned. That may’ve been the plan, before Lindbergh's kidnappers decided to double-cross and extort money from him instead, killing CAL Jr. for lack of a place to stash a live child, and, in addition to what they’d already been paid, deciding to go for the $50K mentioned in the first ransom note (which they proceed to jack up in the subsequent notes). Further, maybe the thumbguard was put in the driveway later as a prompt to pay this “ransom”--a threat from the kidnappers to either pay up or the “ransom” would be raised even more and/or they'd go public with the whole scheme.
Now, I think Lindbergh would’ve realized he’d been double-crossed in pretty short order, but when he would’ve realized his son was actually dead, I have no idea. Later on though, at Hauptmann’s trial, Lindbergh could’ve mentally focused as much blame on him as possible (as the whole country did), testifying against Hauptmann with the mindset of “Even though I know you weren’t the only one, you were still involved in double-crossing me and the resultant death of my son; you’re going down.” Anyway, Lindbergh would’ve had to support the prosecution’s lone wolf theory as much as he could, since allowing for the possibility of others might eventually lead back to him.
Now, in all this, I don’t know who the actual kidnappers were, or where the body was before it was discovered in the woods (or if it ever was anywhere else, and, if it was, why it would've been transferred to the Mt. Rose/Hopewell-Princeton Rd. to be found at all).
Either way, this is all just a theory, which, as I said, I'm throwing out there, based on things everyone has suggested as well as the evidence trail (and lack thereof). Please, everyone and anyone, pull it apart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 18:00:52 GMT -5
Hi Mairi,
I bought a notebook a couple days ago. Michael gave me the same suggestion. I am going to start putting stuff into it this week. I have started tagging pages in books and printing out things posted on this blog by all the knowledgeable people who post here (including you). I am trying to decide how I will label the sections. Will probably disappear for several days while I am getting the notebook organized.
I will google Michael Baden and check out what he has to say about the Lindbergh baby. I am sure it will be something to add to my notebook. Thanks Mairi!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 18:20:31 GMT -5
LJ, I just read through your theory. I like it! I am printing it out so I can go over it more closely and make a better response to it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 14, 2012 21:46:50 GMT -5
Yeah, see what you think. I don't know, just earlier today I read something about how Lindbergh didn't want anyone in the nursery between certain hours after the baby was put down. I'd read that before and it always stuck in my head. Now, granted, I don't think this rule applied only on March 1, 1932, but, either way, reading about it again made me ask why--was it to keep the baby unguarded and vulnerable for some reason? I then started remembering other observations and questions raised on this board and one thing after another started falling into place (not necessarily correctly) in my mind. Before I knew it, I had the above tangent. Just something to consider, sculpt, or discard altogether if need be.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 15, 2012 9:52:50 GMT -5
Thanks Michael and LJ for the "how". So, just let your fingers do the walking ( or kidnapping). Now just look at the evidence trail that each step in this process from diagnosis to the kidnap/ murder would leave behind. That doesn't even include ending up with herr Hauptmann in little Germany. Btw, Hauptmann was not listed in the yellow pages.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 15, 2012 13:07:14 GMT -5
This post may not belong with this thread, but I as I read here, there is an overwhelming amount of effort put on searching for the kidnapper in NY. Was NY a hotbed of eugenics activity at the time of the disappearance? Were any of Lindbergh's colleagues, besides Carrel, believers in eugenics? One of the things that has always concerned me regarding the investigation of the kidnapping was the "total" focus on NY for the kidnapper. Secondly, seizures especially in the very young can be the result of fevers and may not be any more significant than a rapid change in body temperature. I have also been concerned about the proximity of the dead baby's body to the orphanage in Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 15, 2012 14:26:37 GMT -5
Now how in the world am I supposed to know, with any certainty, Lindbergh’s intent? Knowing people’s intent seems to be your specialty: You presume to know MY intent, it looks as if you presume to know Lindbergh’s intent, and you say I’m “misleading” because I don’t talk about Lindbergh’s intent. All this has nothing to do with the simple point I was making—that I didn’t believe Lindbergh would be so crazy as to involve the police in a practical joke. If you want me to say what I personally think Lindbergh’s “intent” was in calling the police—I think his intent was to alert them that his son was missing and to seek their assistance. You aren’t connecting with what I’m saying. I’ll say it again: I used the Martian example simply to exemplify why investigators should not invest much time chasing after highly improbable scenarios. Logicians have traditionally used these types of analogies to make a point. The example DOES work for the purpose I intended it for. And right now, Martians seem no less real than this exchange we’re having. (The context here is my question—if Cal Jr. was terribly sick or defective, why would Lindbergh permit him to attend preschool. Michael is evidently saying Lindbergh made Cal Jr. attend preschool believing it would “force him” to be normal—Michael is again presuming to know Lindbergh’s intent.) This is nuts. On the one hand, Lindbergh supposedly kills his son so that people won’t know he was terribly sick. On the other hand, he lets him go to preschool, which risks LETTING PEOPLE KNOW HIS SON IS TERRIBLY SICK. You’ve said it many times, Michael: “You can’t have it both ways.” Three of the important qualities to retain in a criminal investigation are (1) operating from facts, not assumptions; (2) to borrow your expression, “let the chips fall where they may”; and (3) impartiality. While I see you observing these in other threads, I often see you acting differently in this eugenics thread. Let’s look at assumptions. When I asked why Cal would let a sick, defective son attend preschool, you said: OK. That’s a generality. Can you provide specific documentation that shows Lindbergh sent him to the preschool for that reason? Otherwise we’re dealing in assumption, not fact. Similarly, when I asked why Anne would leave on a long trip to the Orient if she had a terribly sick baby, you said: OK, fine. Once again, a generality. Do you have any documentation that proves this in regard to the Orient trip? Otherwise, once again, you’re giving us an assumption, not a fact. If Anne left a very sick baby with Mrs. Morrow in 1931, Mrs. Morrow would have noticed he was very sick. Otherwise, why did she wait until after the kidnapping to ask Van Ingen if there was anything wrong with Charlie? It all makes no sense. Regarding “letting the chips fall where they may,” in the course of this thread I provided evidence that (1) Charlie could have rickets because Anne stopped breast-feeding him early due to a breast abscess, and that formula back then was not yet being fortified with Vitamin D as it is today. You never acknowledged the point—instead you attacked Hour of Gold, saying I treated it as “the Bible.” But why would Anne Lindbergh lie about having a breast abscess?—Not exactly what most women would regard as “good PR.” (2) You have consistently stated that Charlie was getting a “mega-dose” of viosterol. When I provided documentation that the dose he was getting was quite typical for kids back then (only 4 drops more than the AMA-prescribed MINIMUM of 10 drops for rickets prevention), you never acknowledged it—you didn’t “let the chips fall.” And regarding impartiality, are you impartial when it comes to Lindbergh as a suspect? Since you claim to know my motives and intents, I guess yours are open to analysis too. Turnabout is fair play, right? First, it should be pretty obvious to anyone who’s read your comments on this thread that you would never be nominated as president of the “Charles Lindbergh Fan Club.” You call Lindbergh a “sick sadistic prankster.” I think that’s a pretty narrow picture of the man. When I said we should have a balanced view of Lindbergh, and not leave out the good things, you said this: OK, I guess we can write off the transatlantic flight, his declining millions of dollars in endorsement deals, his work on the heart perfusion pump, making flights to help the Chinese with flood relief (hm, I thought the guy wanted to eliminate other races), flying combat missions in World War II, etc. Now maybe not all that stuff is in the NJSP “source documentation,” but it’s all true nonetheless. When I said that some people thought Lindbergh held “quasi-Nazi” views, you said this: When I then asked if you expected me to call Lindbergh a “Nazi” you said: So it would appear that Michael not only hates Lindbergh, but based on what he said above, it appears he also believes he was a Nazi—not merely a man with eugenicist views, but a Nazi. I am going to hazard a guess here. It may very well be wrong. But again, I feel OK about doing this, since Michael has been openly discussing what he “knows” my motives are. There has to be some reason why Michael reacted so strongly to this thread, in contrast to the way he reacted to my other threads. There also has to be a reason why his reaction has been so different from that of other board members. I am going to hazard a guess that this thread struck a raw nerve for Michael, perhaps because it contradicts something he’s planning to say in his book—perhaps even a theory he intends to propose. Maybe, maybe not. I prefer to put it indirectly. Many of you are no doubt familiar with the “Direct TV” commercials. You know, “Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch,” “Don’t have a grandson with a dog collar,” “Don’t sell your hair to a wig shop.” Well, if you haven’t seen them, here’s a sampling on Youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdeYmCnhwXU I think they’re hilarious. Anywhere, here’s a Direct TV commercial for this “eugenics-motivated murder” thread. You have to imagine the announcer’s voice and visualize Lindbergh in each scene (looking angrily at Charlie and such). When your son is on 14 drops of Viosterol, it means he’s getting a MEGA-DOSE. When he’s on a mega-dose, it means he has a DREAD DISEASE. When he has a dread disease, you arrange his kidnapping and murder because he might embarrass you as a EUGENICIST. When you’re a eugenicist, it means you’re a NAZI. And when you’re a Nazi, you put on jackboots and a swastika armband, and have a portrait on your desk that says, “Love, Adolf.” DON’T put on jackboots and a swastika armband, and have a portrait on your desk that says, “Love, Adolf.” Switch to Direct TV.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 15, 2012 22:08:13 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, Bookrefuge. If I can interpret, your objection seems to be about extremes, that something has to be either A or B. To an extent, I agree. But what I'm asking (and what I tried to put forth in my previous post here) is, why did the baby have to have either a dread disease or nothing at all? Why couldn't it have been something in between, something which maybe Lindbergh considered more serious than it was (possibly influenced by his own perfectionism and further enhanced by his association with the eugenicist Carrel)? This is something of a middle ground, and doesn't make and out-and-out cold-blooded eugenicist of the man. In any case, I find the truth often lies in the middle. At the same time, I realize there's probably no hard, smoking-gun proof of this--but, then again, I don't know that there would be at this point.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 16, 2012 8:02:15 GMT -5
Hi, LJ. Since you’ve read my comments, you know I don’t believe Cal Jr. had “nothing at all.” I believe, based on the evidence, that he had a moderate form of rickets. In other words, I DO believe in “the middle ground.” However, moderate rickets was not something to kill over. As I said in the original post, when Lindbergh allowed the baby’s diet to be published, including the viosterol, he was admitting to the world his son had rickets. Since he was publicly acknowledging his son had rickets, he was obviously NOT embarrassed by this fact, and would not have murdered his son to prevent the world from discovering it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 16, 2012 8:13:29 GMT -5
I still think the Dingo ate the baby.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Jul 16, 2012 9:13:43 GMT -5
BR, he may not have been embarrassed to have the world know that he had a defective child. He also may not have wanted a defective child. Those are two very separate and different things. His publicly sharing facts that the child may not have been perfect does not rule out that he might have wanted him removed from his immediate surroundings in any of many ways that that could take form...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2012 9:40:24 GMT -5
Hi Bookrefuge. Yes, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest that you think the baby had nothing at all. Clearly, there was at least some form of rickets here (or something similar), and you've stated this. I also agree that wouldn't be anything to kill over. I guess what I mean by "middle ground" (and I should've been clearer in my definition of that) is, whatever was wrong with the baby (if anything), why did that have to either A) have everything to do with the crime--that is, a motive for cold-blooded euthanasia, or B) nothing at all to do with the crime--that is, completely unrelated to a crime committed entirely by outsiders? The "middle ground" in between those two extremes is what I'm suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 16, 2012 11:56:41 GMT -5
Hi, ZH. In the discussions of Lindbergh having his own child murdered, a motive I have seen prominently given is that, as a eugenicist, he couldn’t tolerate the idea of having a defective son that didn’t measure up to public expectations.
But let’s take your thesis for a moment: Lindbergh doesn’t care if the world knows he has a defective son, he just doesn’t want a defective son around. But why then have him murdered? Was this defective son interfering with his life? No. Charles and Anne took off on a trip to the Orient that lasted from July to October 1931. Betty Gow watched the baby. Did the baby stop him from working on the heart perfusion pump? Prevent him from building Highfields? The Lindbergh-Morrow family had plenty of money for caregivers—and all they mostly used was Betty Gow, who was not even a nurse in the medical sense.
As I’ve said before, if Lindbergh didn’t want the child, he could have drowned him in the bathtub, and claimed it was accident. Then you’ve got no kidnap team to involve, no NJSP headquartered in your garage for weeks on end—much simpler and easier.
Well, there was SOME motive for this crime—ransom, eugenics, revenge, practical joke gone wrong, protecting a family member, etc.
One of the proposed motives for the kidnapping (and the topic of this thread) is eugenics over a heath issue. It seems to me the either the baby’s health motivated the crime or it didn’t—in other words, I do think the health issue really is a sort of “either-or.” I don’t see the baby’s health somehow combining with another motive—such as revenge, joke or ransom. That would suggest a “double motive” for the crime. I expect the motive was more singular, and I don’t think that’s choosing an “extreme.” But I’m probably not getting your meaning. When you talk about the baby’s health factoring into some sort of “middle ground,” what do visualize taking place?
By the way, Kevin, I do like your dingo thesis. I didn't mean to ignore that. The main problem I've been having with it is how the dingo built the kidnap ladder. Say, do you you think he might have hired carpenter ants?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2012 12:26:27 GMT -5
Hi Bookrefuge. Well, I've proposed in my big long tangent above that it could've been not that the baby was deathly ill, or even that he had anything seriously wrong at all, but that, either way, Lindbergh felt there was something wrong with him--minor illnesses and sickliness (rickets being one example) could've been exaggerated in Lindbergh's mind by his own perfectionism and further reinforced by his work with the eugenicist Carrel. He doesn't want to kill the baby; he doesn't even necessarily want him off his hands permanently, but rather checked out thoroughly in an institution of some sort, to determine what (if anything) seems to be the problem. But this has to be done discreetly to A) get around Anne, who wouldn't like the idea of her child potentially being sent away permanently, and B) to maintain Lindbergh's Superman image for the public (his stock must be seen to be pure). So then, the baby has to be removed in such a way as to be apparently beyond his control--that is, a kidnapping. Through Lindbergh's associates in NY, a small group of minor unconnected guys is assembled to stage this and get the baby out of the house. But rather than take the baby to an institution or wherever, these guys double-cross Lindbergh and blackmail him, turning what was their $50K fee into an actual ransom and jacking it up, pretending to hold the baby hostage when they'd actually already killed him, for lack of a place to stash a live child (which obviously Lindbergh doesn't know yet). I describe in more detail above how this could've been pulled off, and, in all this, Lindbergh is not some cold-blooded eugenicist villain, but rather someone who, because of his own perfectionism and some eugenic theories he'd recently be exposed to, felt he had to come up with a scheme that he subsequently just lost control of--hardly admirable, but not out-and-out evil either. This, among other things, is the middle ground I mean.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 16, 2012 12:57:40 GMT -5
Hi, LJ. If the baby was having problems, I don’t think Anne would have objected to having him evaluated to see what the cause was. It would be extremely difficult for hired abductors to check a baby into an institution—really, it would have to be done by his parents. I suppose Lindbergh had the power to arrange something like that in advance, but as soon as he notified the police of a kidnapping, he was no longer going to be free to drive over to a place like Skillman, unnoticed, to check on any progress. And once the baby was in there for the “evaluation,” how long before he would be recognized, with the nation’s largest manhunt in history underway?
By the way, Kevin, I think we’ve got it figured out:
--The Dingo was brought to America by Schippell’s brother
--The Dingo arranged to have the kidnap ladder built by carpenter ants. At first I had my doubts about this, but I’ve since discovered that the ants were from the Bronx, where the Schippells had a separate residence. The dingo and the ants had a clandestine meeting at Palisades Park. For me, this just about sows it up.
--The insider was Wahgoosh. He was the one who tipped off the Dingo that the Lindberghs would be at Highfields that Tuesday. The “dirty dog” sold out his masters for a box of biscuits. Then he pulled a “flop” during the kidnapping,
--The police were actually watching the Dingo for a long time, but unfortunately Wilentz called them off once BRH was arrested.
We needn’t fret, however. In the end, justice was done. Cruella Deville had the Dingo skinned.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2012 13:23:20 GMT -5
Right, I've considered the points you've brought up too. First, I agree that Anne wouldn't have objected to having the baby evaluated, but rather to the potentiality of him having to stay in a hospital or institution for any length of time. Having been separated from him for so long while they were abroad, I think the idea of this would've scared her and she wouldn't have wanted to let him go. But in any case, I do think Lindbergh could've arranged for a hospital stay in advance, without the baby having to be checked in by his parents--though, admittedly, the logistics of all that is something I'm unsure of. I've also speculated that the wait period stipulated in the note could've been the amount of time it would've taken to run tests on the baby before he was very quickly returned--that is, before the largest manhunt in history ever had a chance to get into full swing. Either way, as to the unlikelihood of doctors in any potential institution not knowing who their patient was, you're probably right: Maybe they very well would have recognized the baby, but would have also been obliged to keep their mouths shut (doctor-patient confidentiality combined with Lindbergh's powerful status). But as none of this ever ended up happening one way or the other, it's hard to say. And I don't know that Lindbergh wouldn't have been able to sneak away to check on the baby's progress in the meantime. After all, he pretty successfully sneaked away to the Bronx to visit Condon later on.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 16, 2012 13:25:34 GMT -5
One of the things I dislike about this topic is that you either end up defending or prosecuting Lindbergh. I have no interest in either. What I see in this method of investigation is an awful lot of brushing aside the details and thus the evidence those details would leave behind. And, of course, there just isn't any evidence in this vein which then gives me cause to wonder why this eugenics avenue is even taken slightly seriously. And that doesn't even take into account the reality of eugenics. So in reality, the Dingo theory has as much credibility as the notion that Lindbergh took the most extreme and radical view of Eugenics possible and applied it to his first born for reasons that no one will ever know despite the child's exposure to two households and a doctor. BTW BR, did you know the old saying " Dingoes tell no tales"?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2012 14:08:07 GMT -5
I don't think you necessarily have to either prosecute Lindbergh or defend him with this topic. At least, I don't think that's what I'm doing here. As I said, I don't believe he was an extreme eugenicist. I think he was a perfectionist with some eugenicist views. That much I think we know anyway. Given that, it might be (and I've described how) that he tried to pull something off in which he wound up neither wholly a victim nor wholly a villain--not much of a prosecution or a defense of him either way. In any event, I've tried to use the details to paint a picture, not brush any aside to fit any preconceived theory. If I am, however, forgetting any specific details that refute the above theory, I'm anxious to hear what they are. As I said, pull it apart.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Jul 16, 2012 15:15:22 GMT -5
BR,
"But why then have him murdered? Was this defective son interfering with his life?"
I did not say he wanted to or had him murdered. I said “he might have wanted him removed from his immediate surroundings in any of many ways that that could take form..."
That he’s not interfering with his life is irrelevant. He wants him gone, capich? Like an old junk car in your driveway that doesn’t run anymore, it doesn’t interfere with your life, but you’re just tired of it…
“As I’ve said before, if Lindbergh didn’t want the child, he could have drowned him in the bathtub, and claimed it was accident.”
That’s really a gross oversimplification. If you think about what it would take for Lindy to drown him in the bathtub, there are many elements that would need to line up and in addition he probably would be very concerned that Ann would suspect him if he were alone in the house and the baby “accidentally” drowned –whoops! sorry honey… not to mention the possible suspicion of outsiders.
Just because the baby didn’t drown in the tub doesn’t mean that Lindy didn’t whack him or take actions to ensure that end. Coming to that conclusion is an extremely narrow and fixed point of view…
And I’m not trying to debate any thesis one way or the other, I was just suggesting that Lindy wasn’t bothered by any “embarrassment” and possibly had other reasons to not want his son around anymore…
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 16, 2012 16:51:22 GMT -5
LJ, a prolonged stay in a hospital is not normally required for evaluation of a medical condition. Assuming there is no surgery involved—as when you’re looking for a tumor--most evaluation is pretty quick—physical assessment, bloodwork, x-rays. Evaluations usually don’t require extended stays. Sometimes, when we suspect heart irregularity, we might have a patient stay overnight in the hospital attached to a device that records rhythm so we can get a picture over an extended period. One example of prolonged evaluation is mental disorders—where the shrinks want to get a good long look at someone who’s behaving oddly.
So I’m not saying it’s impossible—just unlikely, especially trying to keep it a secret with the whole country hunting for this kid.
ZH, I’m not saying it would have been easy for Lindbergh to drown Charlie—just a whole lot less complicated than staging a fake kidnapping, which embroils you with a team of abductors who could compromise you later, gets the police staked out at your home, etc.
Personally, I don’t think Lindbergh was “tired” of this kid “like an old junk car in your driveway” as you put it. Lindbergh was traveling by air extensively, and was involved in many activities. Betty and Anne were managing the hands-on care of Charlie, he was a nice-looking kid—so what’s to get tired of? And remember, at the time of the kidnapping, Anne is already pregnant with Jon. If Lindbergh got tired of babies that easily, why would he keep having more with Anne?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 16, 2012 22:38:22 GMT -5
Basic reading comprehension.
Lindbergh told Whateley to call the Sheriff, therefore, his intent was for the Sheriff to be called. It's not Rocket Science.
It absolutely does. You see, here is your intent that you just confessed to above: You personally do not believe Lindbergh was crazy enough to involve the Police so you point out who came but not who he originally wanted. Why not? Because YOU don't think its necessary, and (coincidentally perhaps) makes your point look better.
Now, that is misleading. Whether or not you like that I pointed it out is a whole different matter. But one for you and not for me since I've already explained why it had to be done regardless of "why" you did it in the first place.
If you don't get it then you don't get it. But I am not going to waste my time constantly explaining things over and over thinking that maybe you will eventually figure it out.
Hold on a second. You came to this board to push a totally unsupported position that Warburg was behind the crime. Now you're an Expert about everyone else's theories?
It's called research. I cannot teach you in a post what took me over 12 years to learn. Your challenge is absurd. I can show documentation to support my position. And there's many examples out there to support it as well. Your personal fixation on whatever point you think you've scored does just the opposite here. How? Well, I suggest you do a little research instead of throwing things at the wall to see what happens to stick. Or making a diagnosis concerning a hair shaft defect THAT YOU'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN.
Do you even know what evidence is and what it isn't? You offered a point you think supports a position you happen to hold. There's a connection with Rickets and some breast fed babies.... plus, there is so much you are ignoring, overlooking, or simply do not know. Look, I cannot do this with you, I simply do not have the time.
Interesting. I countered it already and you've ignored that. This was properly researched. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about and I am not going to chase my tail trying to get you to see something you do not want to see.
I've referred to the Wave of the Future once before. There are many things Lindbergh said publicly that go way behind his convictions for Eugenics - the level at which were bad enough. I say if these things exists we shouldn't pretend they do not. In fact that has always been my position. Lindbergh got a pass about everything. Even he realized it confiding that he himself should have been a suspect.
Oh boy BR, there's a Catch-22 for you!
What you mean to say is, based upon the evidence that you have seen and the other evidence you have ignored. Take this "moderate rickets" diagnosis you've given the child for example. How soon does a child respond to treatment?
If he wasn't responding as he should, are there any other reasons this could happen? The answer is about a million. For example, one would be a parathyroid hormone malfunction which could cause a Vitamin D deficiency. Ever hear of DiGeorge Syndrome? Neither did VanIngen because it wasn't discovered until 1965.
So of course CJr. was being treated for what he was being treated for - but it doesn't mean anything conclusively. It only means that's what he was being treated for.
Now before BR quotes me as saying CJr. had DiGeorge Syndrome, which I obviously did not say, I just want to head it off. It's an example.
Now tomorrow I will go back to LJ's original theory as well as everyone's applicable responses so that I can intelligently add comment.
|
|