|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 27, 2019 15:34:43 GMT -5
Before you render the conclusion that Charlie had dental problems, you might want to show the film posted here to a dentist that you know. Seems offhand that their is precious little basis on which to make a determination. BTW, the Mitchell autopsy report does NOT suggest any particular abnormalities of the teeth, and the numbers and locations of the teeth present were consistent with a normal child of approximately Charlie's age. (This should not be taken to mean that the corpse which Mitchell examined was necessarily that of CAL Jr; it might have been another child of approximately the same age with the same normal tooth pattern.)
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 27, 2019 16:49:24 GMT -5
I agree with you Hurt, I don't see anything wrong with him, or his teeth based on this video. If there were something seriously wrong it happened after his first birthday because in every photo or film I see he appears quite normal. I'll be interested in what Michael has to say about this in V3 though!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 17:12:06 GMT -5
One thing to keep in mind when discussing the teeth of a child with rickets, is not just the amount of teeth but how well they are erupted above the gum surface. Dr. Mitchell does note that the lower canines are diverting towards the incisors. He makes no comment on the condition of the first year molars at all. These are very important to a young child's ability to chew foods, especially things like meat which Charlie should be eating. However, if you review Anne's published diet after the kidnapping on what Charlie's diet consisted of, you will note that no meat is included in that diet. It is basically soft foods and liquids. Late developing or slow erupting of the molars may be the reason for the type of diet Charlie is eating at almost 21 months old.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 28, 2019 15:06:13 GMT -5
The baby that they found in the woods had bad teeth.... Charlie Jr. didn't.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 28, 2019 21:47:32 GMT -5
The baby that they found in the woods had bad teeth.... Charlie Jr. didn't. I would agree that the baby's body found in the woods may not have been that of Charlie. But NOT based upon differences in the teeth. You can't state that Charlie didn't have bad teeth unless you have access to previous dental records. In so far as we on this board know, Charlie never saw a dentist. Seems like young children in that era, even young children of privileged backgrounds, did not generally visit dentists too often. It was just the custom then. Nowadays, the situation in this regard is much different.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jan 27, 2020 14:10:53 GMT -5
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jan 27, 2020 14:58:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 28, 2020 18:03:04 GMT -5
Aimee, the images you posted of your (adult) father's right toes and CAL Jr.'s right toes are much too blurry to make any meaning out of them. Your father's middle toe deformities which you claim are NOT the same toe deformities of CAL Jr. noted by Dr. Van Ingen in his letter to Mrs. Morrow. There, Dr. Van Ingen stated that the little toes of both feet were slightly turned in and overlapped the next toe. So there is NO MATCH with respect to the toe deformities. Plus, there is NO MATCH between the toes deformities of CAL Jr. described in his letter and the toe deformities of the child whose corpse was found in the woods as described in Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report. I would have to say that these were three different individuals.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jan 29, 2020 11:21:22 GMT -5
Hurtelable: The deformed toes are on the left foot.. both of my dad and Charles Jr.(you should know that). My dad's legs were crossed. I will try to add a smaller photo , as it keeps blowing up.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Feb 22, 2021 18:05:53 GMT -5
Hello everyone..I'm still around.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 23, 2021 12:14:27 GMT -5
Hurtelable, while I have no comment on Aimee's claim, I'd venture whatever right/left toe discrepancy you claim is the basis for your discounting the corpse found on Mt. Rose Hill is that of Charlie, is based upon someone's inaccurate reporting of the information, plain and simple. There are far too many conclusive points of identification here that I'm sure you're aware of and that confirm it was in fact, Charlie. Assuming though for a minute, the substitution of another corpse for that of Charlie, what would the odds be that all of these other identifiers also happened to have lined up as they did and would whoever dumped the corpse, not have considered this might be one of the first things investigators would have been looking for?
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Feb 24, 2021 1:48:18 GMT -5
Hi Aimee - so glad you posted. Good to hear from you.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 24, 2021 8:41:17 GMT -5
Hi Aimee, nice to see you here!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Feb 24, 2021 9:12:40 GMT -5
According to Dr. Charles Mitchell's report (written on Walter H. Swayze's stationery), the left leg of the child found on Mt. Rose was entirely missing from the knee down so we cannot draw any conclusions about the left foot and toes. On the right foot, the "first toe" completely overlaps the large toe and the second toe of the right foot partially overlaps the large toe. The description of the teeth does not indicate that they are "bad teeth." The report is dated May 12, 1932, so the examination was conducted shortly after the body of the child was found.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Feb 24, 2021 9:30:43 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I note that the Hesshaimers were proven to be Lindbergh's children through DNA in this century. DNA tests could also indicate whether other claims are valid as well. The Lindbergh family is in possession of some of the found child's remains; whether these are in any condition to be tested for DNA is a question, but if someone thinks he or she has a serious claim, then living members of the Lindbergh family could be asked to verify the truth of this and so put an end to the speculations. Has anyone reached out to Reeve Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by BROADWAY GEORGE on Feb 24, 2021 15:02:55 GMT -5
Hi, It is now known through Lise Pearlman, author, that the photo circulated by Col. Lindbergh during the kidnapping was one year old, and therefore did not represent at all what Charlie looked like at the time of kidnapping. First of all, he weighed 33 pds. and large for his age - tall and wide. He looked 3 yrs old (opinion of both grandmother and mother). He had a case of rickets and was being treated w/vit. A. He was unsteady on his feet because of that and curled toes. His head was overly large (encephalopathy). Taken all that, was that your father? Question: why did Lindbergh send all around the world an old photo?
|
|
|
Post by BROADWAY GEORGE on Feb 24, 2021 15:12:33 GMT -5
Reeve Lindbergh? Anyone have up-to-date info? I am sure in the year 2000, she was (1) living in Vermont and (2) was in her mid-fifties, the youngest of the Lindbergh children (not counting the colonel's other 3 families in Germany).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 26, 2021 17:55:45 GMT -5
According to Dr. Charles Mitchell's report (written on Walter H. Swayze's stationery), the left leg of the child found on Mt. Rose was entirely missing from the knee down so we cannot draw any conclusions about the left foot and toes. On the right foot, the "first toe" completely overlaps the large toe and the second toe of the right foot partially overlaps the large toe. The description of the teeth does not indicate that they are "bad teeth." The report is dated May 12, 1932, so the examination was conducted shortly after the body of the child was found. I think we've all been down this road so many times over the years, it's time to put any and all claims that the corpse found on Mt. Rose Hill was not Charlie, to rest once and for all.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 26, 2021 20:17:53 GMT -5
Hi, It is now known through Lise Pearlman, author, that the photo circulated by Col. Lindbergh during the kidnapping was one year old, and therefore did not represent at all what Charlie looked like at the time of kidnapping. First of all, he weighed 33 pds. and large for his age - tall and wide. He looked 3 yrs old (opinion of both grandmother and mother). He had a case of rickets and was being treated w/vit. A. He was unsteady on his feet because of that and curled toes. His head was overly large (encephalopathy). Taken all that, was that your father? Question: why did Lindbergh send all around the world an old photo? What evidence do you have which indicates Charlie was unsteady on his feet? I'm pretty sure Wahgoosh wouldn't agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 26, 2021 21:47:22 GMT -5
According to Dr. Charles Mitchell's report (written on Walter H. Swayze's stationery), the left leg of the child found on Mt. Rose was entirely missing from the knee down so we cannot draw any conclusions about the left foot and toes. On the right foot, the "first toe" completely overlaps the large toe and the second toe of the right foot partially overlaps the large toe. The description of the teeth does not indicate that they are "bad teeth." The report is dated May 12, 1932, so the examination was conducted shortly after the body of the child was found. i am either confused or dumb; isn't the "large toe" (or big toe) usually considered the "first toe"? how could it overlap itself?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 26, 2021 22:24:14 GMT -5
According to Dr. Charles Mitchell's report (written on Walter H. Swayze's stationery), the left leg of the child found on Mt. Rose was entirely missing from the knee down so we cannot draw any conclusions about the left foot and toes. On the right foot, the "first toe" completely overlaps the large toe and the second toe of the right foot partially overlaps the large toe. The description of the teeth does not indicate that they are "bad teeth." The report is dated May 12, 1932, so the examination was conducted shortly after the body of the child was found. i am either confused or dumb; isn't the "large toe" (or big toe) usually considered the "first toe"? how could it overlap itself? A pathologist at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia prepared this photo for me that clearly shows the first toe overlapping the big toe -
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 26, 2021 22:34:35 GMT -5
The pathologist enhanced the original photo to make it a littler clearer -
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 27, 2021 10:59:40 GMT -5
The pathologist enhanced the original photo to make it a littler clearer - View AttachmentGreat photo enhancement Wayne! I understand Hurtelable's thoughts that Dr. Van Ingen, when he stated in his May 4, 1932 letter to Mrs. Morrow, "both little toes were turned in and slightly overlapped the next toe" might be perceived as the two smallest toes overlapping the middle toe. At the same time, Van Ingen was not 100% clear in the reporting of his observation. And clearly your photo accurately identifies what we know from other sources, as the true condition of Charlie's turned-in toes. By the way, there were two very interesting research psychologists at Columbia Presbyterian University Medical Center in the 1970's, Drs. Helen Shucman and Bill Thetford, who produced some groundbreaking work in "spiritual research."
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Feb 27, 2021 15:26:12 GMT -5
Thanks so much for the photos! As far as the DNA tests go, you may recall that the bodies of the Romanoff family were compared with their living relatives thought DNA samples. These were provided given by relations of the Czarina's family, and this was several generations later. One donation came from Prince Philip, consort of Queen Elizabeth. So Aimee's own DNA could be tested to find compatibility with the Lindbergh's DNA to see if there is a match. Lindbergh was no longer alive when several of his German children were tested and found to be what they claimed--his sons and daughters.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Feb 27, 2021 15:31:35 GMT -5
It was claimed on this board that someone with crossed toes served in the U.S. Navy in WW II. A friend of mine who served in the Navy told me that a close friend of his also applied to serve in the U.S. Navy but was turned down because he had crossed toes. This was considered a deformity which would interfere with service. Another branch of the service might accept someone with crossed toes, but not the U.S. Navy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2021 18:24:32 GMT -5
I think we've all been down this road so many times over the years, it's time to put any and all claims that the corpse found on Mt. Rose Hill was not Charlie, to rest once and for all. I know that many believe this was Charles Jr. (including me) but we have to remember there were quite a few people who believed it wasn't. If you go to footnote #911 in V1 you'll see a reference to Sgt. McDonough of the Trenton PD. To go a step further he was someone who didn't think the corpse was Lindbergh's baby. I think I've explained "why" so many didn't think the corpse was "him" but to be fair I think we shouldn't stifle anyone who still believes this. I want them to feel free to share or engage in debate no matter what their position currently is. Know what I mean? What evidence do you have which indicates Charlie was unsteady on his feet? I'm pretty sure Wahgoosh wouldn't agree with you. Aren't most toddlers are unsteady regardless?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 27, 2021 19:39:21 GMT -5
I think we've all been down this road so many times over the years, it's time to put any and all claims that the corpse found on Mt. Rose Hill was not Charlie, to rest once and for all. I know that many believe this was Charles Jr. (including me) but we have to remember there were quite a few people who believed it wasn't. If you go to footnote #911 in V1 you'll see a reference to Sgt. McDonough of the Trenton PD. To go a step further he was someone who didn't think the corpse was Lindbergh's baby. I think I've explained "why" so many didn't think the corpse was "him" but to be fair I think we shouldn't stifle anyone who still believes this. I want them to feel free to share or engage in debate no matter what their position currently is. Know what I mean? No, not really. It either was or wasn't the Lindbergh baby on Mount Rose Hill, right? So what really is your point? The further advancement of speculation, when the substantial proof is already there? One of the main reasons this case keeps waffling to and fro here, is the lack of a coherent plan to resolve it. It may sell discussion and books, but it serves little true purpose.
What evidence do you have which indicates Charlie was unsteady on his feet? I'm pretty sure Wahgoosh wouldn't agree with you. Aren't most toddlers are unsteady regardless?
No issues there. It would seem though that many here attempt at pretty much all costs, to conclude that Charlie was scarcely able to stand on his own two feet, when that was clearly not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 28, 2021 10:04:35 GMT -5
Aren't most toddlers are unsteady regardless?
No issues there. It would seem though that many here attempt at pretty much all costs, to conclude that Charlie was scarcely able to stand on his own two feet, when that was clearly not the case. I agree with you guys. I think the confusion about Charlie not being able to stand on his own feet comes solely from Lloyd Gardner's find that Dr. Van Ingen told prosecutors that "it was almost impossible to get him (Charlie) to stand up straight in order to measure him." That's the extent of reports of Charlie being unstable on his feet. This photo is from the summer of 1931 taken in North Haven. Charlie had no trouble standing then -
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 28, 2021 10:29:41 GMT -5
I agree with you guys. I think the confusion about Charlie not being able to stand on his own feet comes solely from Lloyd Gardner's find that Dr. Van Ingen told prosecutors that "it was almost impossible to get him (Charlie) to stand up straight in order to measure him." That's the extent of reports of Charlie being unstable on his feet. This photo is from the summer of 1931 taken in North Haven. Charlie had no trouble standing then - View AttachmentYes, that is the source that has publicly been repeated many times in support of some kind of perceived physical affliction, which potentially would have had Lindbergh thinking about eliminating his son. A case of simple cause and effect logic and seeing what one wants to see, considering the child was somewhat spoiled and at the ideal age for tantrums with relative strangers.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 28, 2021 10:59:19 GMT -5
"it was almost impossible to get him (Charlie) to stand up straight in order to measure him."
Charlie was clearly in the midst of the "terrible twos". Charlie just didn't want to stand up straight, not that he couldn't stand up straight.
|
|