|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 6, 2014 22:36:53 GMT -5
To Michael, amy35, et al:
From the link you posted, Greystone Park would be what we would today call a psychiatric hospital, but back in 1932 might be called an insane asylum. Thomas Christian signed his report as "Pathologist". Today a pathologist would be by definition an M. D. (or perhaps a D. O.). Yet Christian puts no such initials next to his name, which would be very odd if he was doing such a report today. This raises the issue of qualifications for comparing the two hair specimens, although his comparison seems rather superficial. Also, if he worked for Greystone Park, it seems as if he would use a Greystone Park letterhead in his report to the NJSP, yet he does not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 8:58:10 GMT -5
To Michael, amy35, et al:
From the link you posted, Greystone Park would be what we would today call a psychiatric hospital, but back in 1932 might be called an insane asylum. Thomas Christian signed his report as "Pathologist". Today a pathologist would be by definition an M. D. (or perhaps a D. O.). Yet Christian puts no such initials next to his name, which would be very odd if he was doing such a report today. This raises the issue of qualifications for comparing the two hair specimens, although his comparison seems rather superficial. Also, if he worked for Greystone Park, it seems as if he would use a Greystone Park letterhead in his report to the NJSP, yet he does not.
I think you need to take a closer look at what Dr. Christian wrote to Col. Schwarzkopf and see what it really is. It is not a report. It is a memo to Col. Schwarzkopf to give him a short summary of his findings. This is nothing unusual. Col. Schwarzkopf would not have to read the whole report immediately to know the results. A memo doesn't need all the formality of a report. It is also not a letter so does not need to be on letterhead. Schwarzkopf knows who Thomas Christian is and knows his qualifications to be making such examinations of evidence and drawing reliable conclusions. Dr. Chrisian doesn't need to put all the alphabet letters after his name for a memo. He can save that for an official report. This memo was strictly for Schwarzkopf. Just because Dr. Christian didn't sign a memo with all his official abbreviations does not call this man's qualifications or his findings into question. That is just plain absurd!!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 7, 2014 9:07:11 GMT -5
Thank-you Amy, for pointing this out.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 7, 2014 14:18:36 GMT -5
So what is the exact relationship here between Schwarzkopf and Christian? Both of them are professional employees of the State of New Jersey, presumably in different state agencies. What exactly did Schwarzkopf task Christian to do, and on what basis? Did Christian receive a fee (taxpayers' money) for his services?
In other words, this was, or should have been, official state business. It was part of the state police record. It could have determined whether of not a man lived or died. It was too important a matter to have been handled with a little message from one friend to another. If the memo was intended merely as a short summary, a more detailed formal report on a letterhead should have been submitted by Christian as well.
It's all about ACCOUNTABILITY of state employees to the public that hires them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2014 15:58:25 GMT -5
What exactly did Schwarzkopf task Christian to do, and on what basis? Did Christian receive a fee (taxpayers' money) for his services? He didn't have to have any type of relationship at all. First thing you must do is look at the date of this crime: 1932. NJSP did not have a Forensic Lab. This is why they utilized Squibb. It's also why the ladder was brought to D.C. to the Federal Agencies then later sent in pieces to FPL. The hair was a specific item sent to Christian for his examination and opinion. If you look at the other examples then the logical inference is that he possessed some sort of expertise concerning hair. We don't get to see what they were or how they could have been countered because Riley ruined the Defense's strategy to challenge the identity of the corpus delecti once he admitted it was Charles Lindbergh Jr. in Court. As a result, there was no need to use this evidence or have Dr. Christian testify.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 7, 2014 18:36:28 GMT -5
Yes, I'm aware of that. Reilly was obviously incompetent as Hauptmann's defense attorney, probably demented at that. He blew a great opportunity in admitting that the body was that of CAL Jr. If he had made a case that the body could have been that of another child, he could have destroyed the prosecution's theory of the murder. Reilly, BTW, died of syphilis a few years later, and syphilis is a disease which can cause or contribute to dementia.
But none of that could have been foreseen by Schwarzkopf or Christian back in 1932. Common sense could have told them back then that the hair study Christian did could have major legal import in the future. That's why it's shocking that the Christian memo was so skimpy and superficial and lacked a letterhead. (Contrast this with the very detailed Squibb Lab report and other evidence reports in the case.)
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 7, 2014 18:44:44 GMT -5
on reillys stategy, a big time lawyer who studied the case told me it was smart of reilly to do that. it would have been bad putting pictures of the baby dead in the courtroom. maybe he loses either way
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2014 19:31:14 GMT -5
Reilly, BTW, died of syphilis a few years later, and syphilis is a disease which can cause or contribute to dementia. I think you're mistaken about this. While he did have some form or another of VD during the trial, and there are indications that he became afflicted more then once after that - he died of cerebral thrombosis in late December of 1946. In very rare cases, syphilitic endarteritis may cause cerebral thrombosis, but I'd need a source to show this was the cause. Most especially since Reilly had to have been cured several times over before hand making it unlikely he "let it go" in the end. But none of that could have been foreseen by Schwarzkopf or Christian back in 1932. Common sense could have told them back then that the hair study Christian did could have major legal import in the future. That's why it's shocking that the Christian memo was so skimpy and superficial lacked a letterhead. (Contrast this with the very detailed Squibb Lab report and other evidence reports in the case.) I think you're jumping to conclusions. For example, how do you know that what I've posted is all that existed? I might even have more myself that I hadn't chosen to upload. Furthermore, there are documents missing from the NJSP Archives. I am not trying to be an a-hole here, rather, I am merely trying to impress upon you that situations aren't always as one may envision. Consider all the possibilities because what may appear to be the true one isn't always the case. Anyway, I will cut to the chase here by telling you he did write up a full report. I know this because I have a record of Captain Snook bringing it to Schwarzkopf on November 6, 1934. Unfortunately, this report is not at the Archives. Why is anyone's guess because there could be a million reasons ... any one of which might appeal to different people for different reasons. on reillys stategy, a big time lawyer who studied the case told me it was smart of reilly to do that. it would have been bad putting pictures of the baby dead in the courtroom. maybe he loses either way Without a body they had no Murder. Fawcett was going to call Dr. VanIngen as a Defense Witness, and that alone would have been worth its weight in gold (to me at least). Now I am speculating here, but it seems to me Hauptmann's new Defense planned on doing the same thing. It's obvious they planned on attacking along these same lines. Why else would Fisher have stormed out of the Courtroom if it wasn't something he thought was absolutely necessary?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 7, 2014 20:31:38 GMT -5
I feel reilly loses either way. say it was the baby or say it was not and pictures of the crime scene and wilentz having force betty gow and Lindbergh testify about there exam of the baby. I think it was a tough call
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 7, 2014 20:45:04 GMT -5
I don't think reilly died of syphliss, after the trial he had a nervous breakdown and was put at kings park mental hospital, a few towns over from me here on long island. his lawyer fought to get him out. I have the article somewhere from a local paper printed at the time.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 7, 2014 21:04:10 GMT -5
To Michael:
Re Reilly's death and cause thereof, here in what Noel Behn says in his book, Lindbergh: The Crime, paperback edition pp.429-430 (no citations):
A year after the Hauptmann trial, Edward J. ("Death House") Reilly, the chief defense attorney, entered a mental institution. He suffered from paresis brought on by syphilis. Fourteen months later, he was released on application from his attorney, Samuel Leibowitz. Plagued by the incurable disease, Death House returned to the practice of law the best he could. In 1940, at the age of 56, he died of a stroke.
OK, I agree that I may have been wrong on the cause of death, but it is common knowledge, even today, that causes of death are sometimes educated guesses at best, and sometimes even deliberately erroneous to spare the decedent's family and friends a social stigma, as could well be the case with Reilly.
One more point: Reilly had neurosyphilis, which is a late stage and pretty much incurable even today in terms of symptoms (though extremely rare nowadays in the US and other developed countries because of the treatability in earlier stages with the advent of penicillin).
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 7, 2014 21:10:51 GMT -5
Please see my post to Michael on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 10:22:12 GMT -5
That memo was not a friendship note. You are distorting what it is. It is a communication between two professional men.
You mention accountability as being a top priority. It is one, of course. Forensic evidence was collected, it was given to qualified labs, they examined what they were given and put their findings in official reports. Thats how it worked in 1932 and still does today.
You have been saying that the available documentation has been prepared by incompetent people, has erroneous findings or contains fabricated conclusions. I would like an accounting by you how you came to your conclusions. What documents, reports or professionals have you consulted who have examined the forsenic evidence, have done official written reports that prove the incompetency of the personnel and labs used, the tests that prove the erroneous findings, and evidence that exposes the lies you claim exist in the reports.
Please upload any documents or reports you have consulted to draw your conclusions or at least provide links to these documents. We have been sharing with you what we have available. It is your turn to be accountable and share with us so we can give your findings their due consideration.
Oh, and don't bother falling back on Noel Behn's book. With all due respect for the late author, he had absolutely no documentation to prove the forsensic findings were fabricated. He makes it clear in his Introductory Chapter when he says the following: "No smoking gun will be offered regarding the Lindbergh case. The account to be presented constitutes a personal, ergo biased, portrait of a criminal happening and its time."
You must have found things that he didn't. Please share with us what you have found. I am most eager to read those documents and reports.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 8, 2014 16:19:45 GMT -5
To amy35:
Wow, you're really getting testy here! This forum, as I understand it, is about a civil exchange of views on historical subjects, matters about people almost all deceased, as opposed to persons and issues which have a more immediate bearing on our present lives. Yes, I'm an American history buff, but there's no need to get so bent out of shape if we don't agree.
The chief question we've been discussing on this thread, as I understand it, is whether or not the corpse of the small child found in the woods in New Jersey back in 1932 was that of CAL Jr. Ever since then, there has existed a legitimate debate on the question, with cogent arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. It is pretty much guaranteed that the question will never be answered for certain, since DNA testing, about the only technique which can possibly resolve it, is out of the question as the child's body was long ago cremated and the ashes dumped into the sea. What we know as well is that anyone supporting the side of the argument that the body was CAL, Jr., no more questions necessary, has to deal with these uncomfortable facts: (1) Dr. Van Ingen twice - once after viewing the body and again more than three years later when being interviewed by an assistant DA - refused to identify the body as that of his former patient CAL, Jr., even though it would have been a lot more "cooperative" for him to have made a positive ID and (2) the right toe deformities of the body found in the woods were DIFFERENT from the right toe deformities of Charlie noted in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow.
As to the uploads of documents you are requesting, I am relying on documents already posted here and elsewhere by others, and on some secondary sources I have read, sometimes with citations of other sources. For example, my argument regarding the different toe deformities reported on autopsy as compared to the Van Ingen letter is based on the autopsy report and the van Ingen letter, both posted by others here. I will confess that I have no hard copies of any Lindbergh case documents in my possession, nor do I have the equipment of knowhow necessary to upload documents here if I wished to do so. But again I appreciate the efforts of yourself and others in uploading documents here, and I can guarantee you that I will not use them in any inappropriate or illegal manner.
I know from experience that government or government-sponsored investigations and studies do not necessarily arrive at accurate results. When this happens, it can be either a matter of incompetence or deviousness, whether in criminal or other matters. This was true in the 1930s and is true today. That may be why polling data recently shows public confidence in government in the U.S. at a low ebb. So there is nothing sinister about questioning the truth and accuracy of government or government-sponsored investigations or studies from any era.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 19:22:34 GMT -5
This forum is about exchanging views, ideas and information about this case. The fact that we don't all agree on things helps to make this board interesting, informative and offers the opportunity for growth in knowledge and understanding of this case. Us "not agreeing" isn't what my post was about.
It is about you declaring unequlvocally that the professionals who worked on this case were not competent to evaluate and draw conclusions therefore their findings are erroneous and/or fabrications, period. I wanted to know what knowledge and facts you had that justified your assessments of these people and the work they did. I thought surely you must be in possession of documents that prove what you are declaring about these individuals and their skills and their character. But that is not the case at all. Thanks to your post I now understand that through experience you have a deep mistrust of government and governmental investigations. This is why none of the people and reports in this case can to be trusted by you.
Yes, there are cases where investigations have been compromised and falsified......but not all of them. To start out with your mind already positioned to find fault, you can very well miss out on seeing what is true.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 8, 2014 19:45:14 GMT -5
I claimed no such thing unequivocally. I merely raised questions about their level of competence in some instances; I wasn't sure enough to take their conclusions as the Gospel, having no information about their personalities nor their biographies. You might say I am undecided about their work with respect to the parts of the investigation I questioned.
BTW, I'm surely not the only person who has or had some questions or doubts about the job the NJSP did in investigating the Lindbergh case. Those people who had their misgivings about the NJSP back then included some higher-ups in the FBI (or the BI, as it was known c. 1932) and the NYPD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 21:03:49 GMT -5
Alan Lane did not have the ideal background to do the study on the hair. He was a chemist, not a forensic pathologist or dermatologist, not even a physician or a medical scientist.
The above is your statement made in a post on this thread. You are clear in saying he is not qualified to do the hair testing. You also seem to have background knowledge on this man since you can name all the things he is not.
Of course you are not the only person who has or had questions or doubts about how the NJSP handled this investigation. If you were more familiar with posts I have made on this board you would see that I am one of them who has questions. Just because some things can and should be questioned does not mean that everything done by them is flawed. I am on this board because I have questions about the way this case has been historically presented. I personally think there is a lot more that needs to be revealed that hasn't been. I am greatful to Michael and others on this board who have fielded my unending list of questions and shared so much of their research with me. There is much to learn here if you really are looking for answers.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 9, 2014 6:31:20 GMT -5
To amy35:
Re Alan Lane:
Please, I did not say he was not qualified to do the hair testing, but merely expressed doubts that he was qualified, because his background was not one that a person assigned to such a task might be expected to have in 1977.
With respect to his finding of NODED hair in both samples (one from the Lindbergh household and one from the body in the woods and vicinity), I noted that there is an inconsistency between that and the FINE hair reported in the Squibb Lab report in 1932.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 9:09:57 GMT -5
To amy35:
Re Alan Lane:
Please, I did not say he was not qualified to do the hair testing, but merely expressed doubts that he was qualified, because his background was not one that a person assigned to such a task might be expected to have in 1977.
With respect to his finding of NODED hair in both samples (one from the Lindbergh household and one from the body in the woods and vicinity), I noted that there is an inconsistency between that and the FINE hair reported in the Squibb Lab report in 1932. I appreciate you clarifying your statement on Alan Lane's qualifications as just being doubts. When I read it, that was not the way it impressed me. I am sorry for misunderstanding your statement. Sometimes readers get a different impression when reading a post than the one the writer is actually conveying when writing the post. This has certainly happened with posts I have made on this board. When you read over the Squibb Lab report and they talk about the fine hair they see when going through the dirt and leaves, etc. brought to their lab for examination, it appears to me that this hair was noted by them but it was not put under a microscope to be studied. I do not find any such report on this fine hair in their report. They only note its existence in the materials they examine. I think that Squibb's primary assignment was to look for blood evidence and other things that might shed light on what happened to the child whose remains were found in and surrounded by the dirt, leaves, etc that was collected at the gravesite. A more detailed look at the hair evidence was given to Dr. Christian to do. I think this may be why a copy of the memo from him to Schwarzkopf was found at the end of the Squibb report. Just my thoughts on this. I think the nodes on the hair that are noted by Alan White years later could be the result of more advanced technology (higher powers of magnification) which allows a much closer inspection of those fine hairs, making the tiny breaks viewable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 13:55:08 GMT -5
Michael,
I believe the newspapers were reporting that Dr. Van Ingen said that he wouldn't be able to identify the skeletal remains found in the Mt Rose woods if you gave him $10 millions dollars. If this is how Dr. Van Ingen really felt, I wanted to know if he was on the prosecution's witness list and if he had been prepped to testify should there be a defense challenge to the corpse actually being that of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. Was Wilentz concerned about this?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 9, 2014 15:27:38 GMT -5
Thank you, Amy, for posting the Squibb report. There seems to be a lot of foreign debris presented for analysis. Was the recovery area also a local "off-road" dump?
And, to Aimee: You said,"The baby they found in the woods had rotted teeth, whereas Charlie had strong healthy teeth." Where did this information come from? The reason I ask is because CAL spent all of a minute and a half viewing the body, and it's reported that he inspected the teeth. Maybe he wasn't counting them but looking at their condition.
I've been spending some time researching the effects of rickets. If the baby had a more aggressive form, the results would be far more serious than what has been reported.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2014 20:38:21 GMT -5
Michael, I believe the newspapers were reporting that Dr. Van Ingen said that he wouldn't be able to identify the skeletal remains found in the Mt Rose woods if you gave him $10 millions dollars. If this is how Dr. Van Ingen really felt, I wanted to know if he was on the prosecution's witness list and if he had been prepped to testify should there be a defense challenge to the corpse actually being that of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. Was Wilentz concerned about this? Capt. Lamb and Assistant AG Peacock traveled to NY in November to take Van Ingen's Pretrial Statement. They would use this Statement to prepare for the upcoming trial, however, I cannot say whether or not he was on their list as a Prosecution Witness. I have no doubt they knew Fawcett planned to call him, so they were probably using this opportunity to get him to change his mind and flip sides (from possibly being called by the new Defense Team). That's my impression anyway, and I think it's telling by what Peacock says in his question here: A: I knew what the child looked like. There were little locks of hair still to be seen which when they were washed, whcih they had done and which they showed me as the hair, was similar to the hair the boy, very light flaxen hair.
Q: Dr. Christian of Morris Plains has compared them and says it is the same hair that Mrs. Morrow has. Could you say that the body that you saw in the morgue was the Lindbergh child? What they discovered was that Van Ingen was and would be standing by his Statement made on May 13th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 23:30:58 GMT -5
Thank you, Amy, for posting the Squibb report. There seems to be a lot of foreign debris presented for analysis. Was the recovery area also a local "off-road" dump? And, to Aimee: You said,"The baby they found in the woods had rotted teeth, whereas Charlie had strong healthy teeth." Where did this information come from? The reason I ask is because CAL spent all of a minute and a half viewing the body, and it's reported that he inspected the teeth. Maybe he wasn't counting them but looking at their condition. I've been spending some time researching the effects of rickets. If the baby had a more aggressive form, the results would be far more serious than what has been reported. The first time I read the Squibb Report, I thought the same thing about that area - a dumping spot used by locals for trash. I wondered if this is why this area was selected as the discard area for the corpse. Being seen tossing a bag from a car or carting something into the woods would not have been an attention getting act if the area were known to be a place for dumping unwanted items. Locals would know about this area and this could possibly indicate that a local person was involved with this crime. I do think, however, that some of the items found could be discarded items by the kidnappers not just plain trash. I find your comment about CAL looking at the condition of the teeth and not necessarily just counting them especially intriguing. Could this have anything to do with rickets? Can you share what you have found out about the various forms?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2014 0:42:59 GMT -5
Michael, I believe the newspapers were reporting that Dr. Van Ingen said that he wouldn't be able to identify the skeletal remains found in the Mt Rose woods if you gave him $10 millions dollars. If this is how Dr. Van Ingen really felt, I wanted to know if he was on the prosecution's witness list and if he had been prepped to testify should there be a defense challenge to the corpse actually being that of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. Was Wilentz concerned about this? Capt. Lamb and Assistant AG Peacock traveled to NY in November to take Van Ingen's Pretrial Statement. They would use this Statement to prepare for the upcoming trial, however, I cannot say whether or not he was on their list as a Prosecution Witness. I have no doubt they knew Fawcett planned to call him, so they were probably using this opportunity to get him to change his mind and flip sides (from possibly being called by the new Defense Team). That's my impression anyway, and I think it's telling by what Peacock says in his question here: A: I knew what the child looked like. There were little locks of hair still to be seen which when they were washed, whcih they had done and which they showed me as the hair, was similar to the hair the boy, very light flaxen hair.
Q: Dr. Christian of Morris Plains has compared them and says it is the same hair that Mrs. Morrow has. Could you say that the body that you saw in the morgue was the Lindbergh child? What they discovered was that Van Ingen was and would be standing by his Statement made on May 13th. Thanks Michael for sharing that excerpt from Van Ingen's pretrial statement. It appears to me that Peacock is using Dr. Christian's hair examination findings as a means to entice Van Ingen to change his position and say the body was Charlie. Van Ingen does agree that the hair was similar to Charlie's hair but that is not enough for him to say positively it is the Lindbergh baby. Do you think it possible that Van Ingen's reluctance to make a positive ID was only because of the very advanced state of decompostion that the body was in? It was more or less a skeleton he was asked to identify. His May 13th statement does have him noting that the remains had numerous things in common with Charlie right down to the overlapping toes on the right foot. Yet Van Ingen still hesitates to say positively it is Charles Lindbergh Jr. I find this troubling.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 10, 2014 9:30:23 GMT -5
That's what the prosecution was trying to do, and the courageous Dr. Van Ingen has to be lauded for his honesty and integrity in the face of this pressure from the prosecutor and the police. It would have been a coup for the prosecution if they could have "enticed" Dr. Van Ingen to positively identify the body and have him available as a witness at trial. It would have practically eliminated any possibility of a defense argument to cast doubt on the baby's identity. But as things turned out, it did not matter at trial because the defense team didn't pursue the identity of the corpse issue there. (If they did, they might have been helped by using Dr. Van Ingen as a defense witness.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2014 12:36:17 GMT -5
I agree. I think that is what Peacock was trying to do and I admire Van Ingen standing his ground and not being manipulated on the positive ID issue. Once this case enters the Hauptmann trial stage, you see much less of this.
Thinking about him not committing to a positive ID of the remains, can cut like a two-edged sword of sorts; the other side being Van Ingen also doesn't commit to saying it is not the Lindbergh baby. If he really believed it wwas not Charlie why would he hesitate in saying that? It seems like his May 13th statement offers the possibility of both options - not the child but possibly might be the child because of the parallels he notes between the skeletal remains he examined and what he knew about Charlie physically. I find this confusing.
Michael, would you know who saw the corpse first on May 13th - Lindbergh or Van Ingen?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 10, 2014 13:45:12 GMT -5
It's not difficult to see why Dr. Van Ingen would hesitate, even if he truly believed that the body was not that of Charlie. (BTW, remember that the right foot toe deformities recorded on the autopsy were DIFFERENT than the ones described in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow.)
If Dr. Van Ingen had unequivocally stated that the body was not that of Charlie, he would have thrown a big monkey wrench into the prosecution's murder case against Hauptmann. Given the atmosphere of mass public irrational hatred against Hauptmann pre-trial (stirred up to a significant extent by the media), Van Ingen could have instantly transformed himself into a villain as well, depicted as Hauptmann's friend, even an accessory to the crime. For wrecking the prosecution's case, he would have incurred the wrath of police and prosecutors and could have been subject to investigation and frivolous criminal charges. Plus, he could have put his livelihood as a doctor and even his own personal safety in jeopardy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2014 15:52:10 GMT -5
Do you think it possible that Van Ingen's reluctance to make a positive ID was only because of the very advanced state of decompostion that the body was in? I believe the condition of that corpse had everything to do with it. It appears to me that he believed it most likely to be him but that's much different then saying it was him. Michael, would you know who saw the corpse first on May 13th - Lindbergh or Van Ingen? Van Ingen saw him before Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 10, 2014 21:10:23 GMT -5
Thank you, Amy, for posting the Squibb report. There seems to be a lot of foreign debris presented for analysis. Was the recovery area also a local "off-road" dump? And, to Aimee: You said,"The baby they found in the woods had rotted teeth, whereas Charlie had strong healthy teeth." Where did this information come from? The reason I ask is because CAL spent all of a minute and a half viewing the body, and it's reported that he inspected the teeth. Maybe he wasn't counting them but looking at their condition. I've been spending some time researching the effects of rickets. If the baby had a more aggressive form, the results would be far more serious than what has been reported. The first time I read the Squibb Report, I thought the same thing about that area - a dumping spot used by locals for trash. I wondered if this is why this area was selected as the discard area for the corpse. Being seen tossing a bag from a car or carting something into the woods would not have been an attention getting act if the area were known to be a place for dumping unwanted items. Locals would know about this area and this could possibly indicate that a local person was involved with this crime. I do think, however, that some of the items found could be discarded items by the kidnappers not just plain trash. I find your comment about CAL looking at the condition of the teeth and not necessarily just counting them especially intriguing. Could this have anything to do with rickets? Can you share what you have found out about the various forms? I've found some very interesting information, much of which would not have been known in 1932. I'm beginning to think that Charlie's case was more involved than just the Vitamin D treatable form. There are two types of Vitamin D Dependent rickets. Both are inherited syndromes of intrahepatic cholestasis and biliary atresia which, because of decreased intestinal absorption of minerals and impaired hepatic hydroxylation of Vitamin D, cause cholestatic liver disease. (I don't pretend to understand what I just typed, but I have some idea.) The liver and bile ducts are unable to process the Vitamin D because of a genetic disorder, which has to be present in both parents. This is what causes the rickets. The liver is also unable to allow the flow of bile normally. When I found this, I thought of the autopsy report, and the fact that the liver was still present. (This makes no sense.) But, if the liver was diseased, maybe that's why it wasn't taken. The fact that there are no published pictures of Charlie after the Spring/Summer of 1931, is strange, too, considering the most recent pictures would have been released unless there was a reason the Lindberghs didn't want this done. I think the baby was not responding to the Viosterol treatments and may have started to develop more severe symptoms of the disease. Tooth decay, a prominent forehead and protruding chest are some of them. I think Gardner wrote that the Doctor had a hard time getting him to stand so he could be measured. (The bones become weak and painful. ) Here are two links to some of the information: www.nature.com/pr/journal/v15/n4s/abs/pr1981950a.htmlwww.ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/vitamin-d-dependent-ricketsAs an aside. I use Google Maps to search out locations. I found that Featherbed Lane is about a stone's throw away from Old Mt. Rose Road, where the body was found. Back in 1932, the ground area was not nearly as grown with trees as it is now. The Lindbergh house could have been accessed far more easily from Featherbed Lane than it could be today. The distances between these three points and their proximity to each other is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 10, 2014 21:41:19 GMT -5
|
|