|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 26, 2014 14:03:13 GMT -5
I can only comment that those prints of Charlie are of very substandard quality and were in all probability useless for comparison purposes.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 26, 2014 14:25:46 GMT -5
The main focus of law enforcement in its later dealings with Dr. Van Ingen was to get him to identify the body in the woods as that of Charlie. If Van Ingen saying that Charlie in real life had the exact toe deformities on the right foot as those on the corpse, that would only help seal the positive identification, so of course it would be important to them. But Van Ingen never quite said that; he said wrote something similar to it but not quite the same. Remember he could not positively identify the body at the funeral parlor.
Flash forward a few years later after Hauptmann's arrest. Now the pressure on Van Ingen was amped up. The NJ prosecutors interviewed him as part of their trial preparation, trying again to get a positive identification of the body out of him. Unlike some of the state witnesses who eventually were convinced by prosecutors to change their stories and later testified at the Hauptmann trial as they had been coached, Van Ingen refused to go along, and was not used as a trial witness. (Fortunately for prosecutors, he wasn't need anyway because the Hauptmann defense never challenged the state's argument that the body was indeed the remains of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 26, 2014 15:14:02 GMT -5
Amy, as to your question about why Betty Morrow would ask Dr. Van Ingen for a letter describing CAL Jr.'s physical state/appearance when she spent a significant amount of time with CAL Jr.--so, yeah, why would she need to have this documented...? Here's my take: Let's assume for the moment there was something physically wrong with CAL Jr. (hence the lack of photos leading up to the kidnapping). We know there were rumors to this effect at the time, that these rumors were starting to circulate. If CAL Jr. was having serious issues, Betty Morrow would've of course been aware of this and of the rumors surrounding it, as you say. So then, to short circuit these rumors and protect her grandson from a public who, in her view, didn't need to know there was something wrong with him, she may've asked Van Ingen to supply as normal-sounding a physical report on CAL Jr. as ethically possible, so the family could have something on paper, something to point to should the rumors about CAL Jr.'s problems get out of hand. So Van Ingen wrote up a report that mentioned certain things (an oversized head, unclosed fontanel, overlapping toes, rickets, etc.), which, taken individually--broken down and spread around--might not sound particularly serious. In other words, telling the truth up to a point--preemptively couching, re-framing and playing down the reality so people will be satisfied enough not to dig deeper.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 26, 2014 16:57:01 GMT -5
To All:
Or is the other way around? In other words, did autopsy report writer borrow from Dr. Van Ingen's letter when, e.g., they mentioned the length of the corpse to be 33", that the corpse maintained the anterior fontanel on the skull, and that the corpse had 16 teeth, etc.
BTW, it would be very difficult for the person doing the autopsy to accurately measure the length of the corpse because of the state of decomposition. That's a hint that the 33" figure might have been plagiarized from Dr. Van Ingen's letter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 21:15:46 GMT -5
Amy, as to your question about why Betty Morrow would ask Dr. Van Ingen for a letter describing CAL Jr.'s physical state/appearance when she spent a significant amount of time with CAL Jr.--so, yeah, why would she need to have this documented...? Here's my take: Let's assume for the moment there was something physically wrong with CAL Jr. (hence the lack of photos leading up to the kidnapping). We know there were rumors to this effect at the time, that these rumors were starting to circulate. If CAL Jr. was having serious issues, Betty Morrow would've of course been aware of this and of the rumors surrounding it, as you say. So then, to short circuit these rumors and protect her grandson from a public who, in her view, didn't need to know there was something wrong with him, she may've asked Van Ingen to supply as normal-sounding a physical report on CAL Jr. as ethically possible, so the family could have something on paper, something to point to should the rumors about CAL Jr.'s problems get out of hand. So Van Ingen wrote up a report that mentioned certain things (an oversized head, unclosed fontanel, overlapping toes, rickets, etc.), which, taken individually--broken down and spread around--might not sound particularly serious. In other words, telling the truth up to a point--preemptively couching, re-framing and playing down the reality so people will be satisfied enough not to dig deeper. I appreciate your thoughts on this LJ. When you read Dr. VanIngen's letter to Betty Morrow, he gives her Charlie's height, weight and number of teeth as seen by him on February 18, 1932. He also gives her what changes might have occured 3 months hence in his height, weight, and teeth under normal conditions if he were still alive at the time Dr. VanIngen is writing this letter to Mrs. Morrow in May 1932. According to the biography on Lindbergh written by A. Scott Berg, Berg mentions that Betty Morrow believed Charlie was dead right from the first night he went missing. Do you think that Betty might have wanted this information from Dr. VanIngen so that when Charlie's body finally turned up she would be able to confirm for herself that Charlie didn't live past March 1? No height change, no teeth change, open fontanel still being present, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 21:20:44 GMT -5
To All:
Or is the other way around? In other words, did autopsy report writer borrow from Dr. Van Ingen's letter when, e.g., they mentioned the length of the corpse to be 33", that the corpse maintained the anterior fontanel on the skull, and that the corpse had 16 teeth, etc.
BTW, it would be very difficult for the person doing the autopsy to accurately measure the length of the corpse because of the state of decomposition. That's a hint that the 33" figure might have been plagiarized from Dr. Van Ingen's letter. There was no need for Dr. Swayze to plagerize Dr. VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. Dr VanIngen was present during the autopsy. See The Case That Never Dies by Lloyd Gardner on page 411.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 27, 2014 1:03:34 GMT -5
Amy, Betty Morrow did indeed probably think CAL Jr. was dead from the outset, but I still think she was protecting him from rumors about his health. The information about his height and weight etc. could've been included as general information, mixing in the more unusual stuff and camouflaging it in the mundane.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2014 7:27:22 GMT -5
There was no need for Dr. Swayze to plagerize Dr. VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. Dr VanIngen was present during the autopsy. See The Case That Never Dies by Lloyd Gardner on page 411. This is a mistake. VanIngen wasn't there during the Autopsy. He did see the corpse but in the early morning hours of the 13th.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2014 7:37:09 GMT -5
Amy, Betty Morrow did indeed probably think CAL Jr. was dead from the outset, but I still think she was protecting him from rumors about his health. The information about his height and weight etc. could've been included as general information, mixing in the more unusual stuff and camouflaging it in the mundane. VanIngen told Peacock: "They brought him in to see me every so often and I measured him, weighted him, etc. and they called me up and wanted to know if I would send them the measurements, or identification marks - if I could send them - which I mailed to Mrs. Morrow." I take it to mean "they" as the persons who brought him to see VanIngen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 8:10:38 GMT -5
There was no need for Dr. Swayze to plagerize Dr. VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow. Dr VanIngen was present during the autopsy. See The Case That Never Dies by Lloyd Gardner on page 411. This is a mistake. VanIngen wasn't there during the Autopsy. He did see the corpse but in the early morning hours of the 13th. Thanks Michael. I did not know this. So VanIngen saw the remains on May 13th. That must be when he wrote that note about Charlie having the same basic measurements etc. as the corpse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 8:16:01 GMT -5
Amy, Betty Morrow did indeed probably think CAL Jr. was dead from the outset, but I still think she was protecting him from rumors about his health. The information about his height and weight etc. could've been included as general information, mixing in the more unusual stuff and camouflaging it in the mundane. VanIngen told Peacock: "They brought him in to see me every so often and I measured him, weighted him, etc. and they called me up and wanted to know if I would send them the measurements, or identification marks - if I could send them - which I mailed to Mrs. Morrow." I take it to mean "they" as the persons who brought him to see VanIngen. So would 'they' be Charlies and Anne Lindbergh since they are the parents? Or possibly even Anne and her mother? Would you know if Mrs. Morrow's letter was available to Dr. Swayze and Dr. Mitchell while they were doing the actual autopsy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 8:28:17 GMT -5
Amy, Betty Morrow did indeed probably think CAL Jr. was dead from the outset, but I still think she was protecting him from rumors about his health. The information about his height and weight etc. could've been included as general information, mixing in the more unusual stuff and camouflaging it in the mundane. Perhaps then the letter really was to aid in identification of any remains that might turn up of children, to distinguish if they could possibly be Charlie or not. After the ransom was paid on April 2 and there was no return of Charlie, prospects of ever finding Charlie alive must have been almost non-existent, especially among law enforcement. Having the latest measurements, etc would be helpful to LE if and when a body might be found. I think I understand better now the need for this letter to Mrs. Morrow.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 27, 2014 10:21:06 GMT -5
well. Harold olson a famous Lindbergh baby, had his fingerprints compared to the latent prints taken off the toys and they didn't match. I knew Harold we talked a lot he had a great sense of humor and I broke his chops many times
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2014 12:43:17 GMT -5
So would 'they' be Charlies and Anne Lindbergh since they are the parents? Or possibly even Anne and her mother? Would you know if Mrs. Morrow's letter was available to Dr. Swayze and Dr. Mitchell while they were doing the actual autopsy? Before this particular discussion I had always believed "they" meant the Police, and that VanIngen was turning it over to Mrs. Morrow to do with it as she saw fit. But looking at what he told Peacock more carefully and in its context I think you are right. It was the family asking and since its sent directly to Mrs. Morrow I think its a safe bet she was, or believed she was a party to this request. Mitchell and Swayze were not in possession of this letter prior to, or during the Autopsy. Once Van Ingen arrived they all did confer, so there's no doubt the information contained in that letter became known to them during this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 27, 2014 12:44:22 GMT -5
Well, if Dr. Van Ingen wasn't physically present, there's a possibility that either he or Mrs. Morrow may have told them the details of the letter by telephone or cable.
BTW, I repeat that Swayze was NOT a doctor, rather an undertaker. The fact that he did the autopsy, albeit under Dr. Mitchell's supervision, was technically illegal. (Dr. Mitchell was unable to use his hands because of severe arthritis.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 14:12:50 GMT -5
So would 'they' be Charlies and Anne Lindbergh since they are the parents? Or possibly even Anne and her mother? Would you know if Mrs. Morrow's letter was available to Dr. Swayze and Dr. Mitchell while they were doing the actual autopsy? Before this particular discussion I had always believed "they" meant the Police, and that VanIngen was turning it over to Mrs. Morrow to do with it as she saw fit. But looking at what he told Peacock more carefully and in its context I think you are right. It was the family asking and since its sent directly to Mrs. Morrow I think its a safe bet she was, or believed she was a party to this request. Mitchell and Swayze were not in possession of this letter prior to, or during the Autopsy. Once Van Ingen arrived they all did confer, so there's no doubt the information contained in that letter became known to them during this conversation. Dr. Van Ingen being there on the 13th of May and sharing what his findings were about Charlie's physical condition in February certainly aided in confirming that the corpse must be Charlie even though Van Ingen could not say it definitively. Betty Morrow requesting from Dr. Van Ingen the details of his last physical and also receiving how Charlie's development would have progressed after March 1 up till May 4 had he continued to live during the time he was being held really brought home the grim reality that she was correct in her belief that Charlie was dead March 1st. It also shows the cruel psycological game played out in those ransom notes of how Charlie was being cared for by two women and he was being fed the diet that Anne put in the paper. All the assurances he was fine, just needed to eat more food. All of it glaring lies laid bare by the facts in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to her. Thanks Michael for your input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 16:48:40 GMT -5
Well, if Dr. Van Ingen wasn't physically present, there's a possibility that either he or Mrs. Morrow may have told them the details of the letter by telephone or cable.
BTW, I repeat that Swayze was NOT a doctor, rather an undertaker. The fact that he did the autopsy, albeit under Dr. Mitchell's supervision, was technically illegal. (Dr. Mitchell was unable to use his hands because of severe arthritis.)
Thanks Hurtelable for bringing out the fact that Swayze was not a medical doctor. He was just a coroner. Apparently it was not necessary to be a doctor in order to be a coroner. Here is a link to a picture of Walter Swayze: www.ebay.com/itm/1932-Press-Photo-Walter-H-Swayze-New-Jersey-County-Charles-Lindbergh-Coroner-/351162316640?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item51c2e7b760I am glad that Dr. Mitchell was in attendance even though he couldn't perform the necessary procedures himself. I don't think that determining cause of death in criminal cases should be left up to a coroner who isn't a doctor.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 27, 2014 18:10:29 GMT -5
I don't think reilly was aware of the secret between Mitchell and Swayze about who did the actual autopsy. im sure he would have brought it up at the trial
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Sept 27, 2014 19:30:09 GMT -5
There has been alot of talk about Charlie being deaf and dumb. If you look at the 2nd video Amy posted on 9/22/14 it seems as if someone is telling Charlie to smell the the plant, which he takes a hefty sniff (26 seconds in the video) This tells me he could hear. As far as the size of his head...well, I don't see it. My son's head was big at that age too. Thank god he grew into it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2014 8:12:49 GMT -5
There has been alot of talk about Charlie being deaf and dumb. If you look at the 2nd video Amy posted on 9/22/14 it seems as if someone is telling Charlie to smell the the plant, which he takes a hefty sniff (26 seconds in the video) This tells me he could hear. As far as the size of his head...well, I don't see it. My son's head was big at that age too. Thank god he grew into it. The "deaf and dumb" rumor was certainly out there and never did go away. Whether he was deaf or not I could not say. Your observation could disprove that or it could be someone was showing him instead of telling him - or it could be neither. I think my observation about his head could be neutralized, as I believe your example proves, if and only if its the only thing that can be relied on. Know what I mean? I personally believe there was something wrong with him that went beyond Rickets, and I am drawing on the combination of things - not just the size of his head or the idea that a well fed toddler, who was outside in the sun all the time, was somehow struck with a case Rickets. People have always said even if this were true it doesn't have anything to do with the kidnapping. It's all debatable of course because there's only a certain amount of material we can draw from. By the way, I wanted to post the very best picture I have ever come across at the NJSP Archives. It was donated there by our Member poppie66: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/user/341
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 28, 2014 10:59:56 GMT -5
whats the difference if the baby was sick, this notion that the father killed him because of this reason is absurd. I never bought it and many researchers never did either.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2014 11:44:52 GMT -5
whats the difference if the baby was sick, this notion that the father killed him because of this reason is absurd. I never bought it and many researchers never did either. I think the idea comes from the fact CAL was a Racist, a Eugenicist, and an Elitist. He believed he was of superior stock, as was his Wife. Before his child was born the Media was boasting he would be among the brightest and best America had to offer. Now suppose, just suppose - this wasn't the case. Let's say, for arguments sake, Dr. Hawks didn't even believe the child would survive, and that eventually it became noticeable to CAL that not only wouldn't he live up to his standards, he wouldn't be among the "normal" in everyday society. Would he want his son bouncing around institutions like his Brother-In-Law causing shame and embarrassment on himself and his family? And so I think it's not so absurd, if the situation was similar to this hypothetical, to consider CAL might possibly arrange to have his child "disappear" in a way that made himself look strong rather then the Father of a "defective" child, or someone who was negligent in some way leading to an "accident."
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 28, 2014 11:50:32 GMT -5
Quite true Michael, but those who are apparently satisfied with just lobbing nothing more than the occasional (and pretty useless) "Pfft, nuh-uh!" might not want to hear it. Now, who was Dr. Hawks and when did he say CAL Jr. wouldn't survive?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 28, 2014 12:15:08 GMT -5
In these films there are many indications that Charlie could hear, you could see that he was studying the face of the person who was speaking to him and his eyes would narrow a little, he was babbling in another, he was clapping. Also, toddlers tend to have large heads and their bodies grow into them, I don't think the curly hair helps! It could be something developed duringhis second year. One thing that struck me though is that he never smiles.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 28, 2014 12:22:25 GMT -5
Oh, and shaking his head no, probably in responce to a question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 14:00:07 GMT -5
I don't think that Charlie was deaf and dumb either. I think the videos show he is responsive to what someone is saying to him. He is clearly saying no by shaking his head to whatever someone was saying to him. I really wish those videos had sound so we could hear the verbal sounds he is making at various points.
I do feel that Charlie must of had some issues after he was delivered by Dr. Hawkes. The reason I say this is if you have Anne's Hour of Gold Hour of Lead diary and read about Jon's birth in August of 1932 you will find that Anne writes that after she started to come out of the anesthesia the first thing she wanted to know was if the baby was in her words, "all right (italics as it appears in book), perfectly all right". Later when she is clear headed and the baby is brought to her she says "I was blissfully happy, relieved, saying and thinking over and over, the baby is all right, all right, he is here, he's all right."
Anne then writes a letter to Mrs. Lindbergh that evening of Jon's birth. She tells Evangeline how happy and relieved she was, "The baby is here - a fine, big (7 lb. 14 oz.) boy, strong and well and absolutely perfect physically. (italics as it appears in book). I cannot tell you what a relief it is, and what a miracle it seems."
Jon's being born normal physically is a huge thing for Anne. She was obviously worried and fearful that this baby might also have something wrong like Charlie did. Could Anne's fears have been just about another baby with overlapping toes or were her fears based on other issues that might have affected Charlie? Was she afraid of CAL's reaction if Jon, too, would have had physical problems?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2014 17:13:06 GMT -5
Now, who was Dr. Hawks and when did he say CAL Jr. wouldn't survive? Like Amy says below, he delivered the child. What I wrote below I declared as hypothetical, but yes, I have used real situations in the past, in one way or another, in the guise of being a fictional suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 28, 2014 17:44:00 GMT -5
Okay, well, let me phrase the question another way: IF Dr. Hawkes did in fact say this, how would this be documented and where would one go to find it?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 28, 2014 17:51:21 GMT -5
In NORMAL human growth and development, the ratio of the length of the head to the length of the entire body decreases with increased age, from about 1/4 at birth until about 1/8 at maximum adult height. It's not that children's bodies grow into their head sizes, it's that the rest of the body grows at a more rapid rate (proportionally) than the head does as an individual matures from birth to full height.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 28, 2014 18:24:27 GMT -5
if your referring to me lightening jew about useless posts when I read your nonsense I think the same thing
|
|