|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 10, 2014 22:10:55 GMT -5
at that time you could see the Lindbergh house from where the body was found. its not a stones throw ive driven it many times
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 10, 2014 22:20:32 GMT -5
Yes, supposedly you could although I still find that hard to believe. I drive Princeton Ave. every Weds., does anyone have an Ancestors.com account, we could look at a 1930 census and find out where various witnesses lived.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 11, 2014 9:35:55 GMT -5
hard to believe what stella?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 13:19:32 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.
I hear what you are saying about the right foot toe deformities being noted differently between the Van Ingen letter and the autopsy. This has always bothered me. He did write that May 13th statement. He could have stated then that the way the toes overlapped on the corpse foot were not consistent with Charles Lindbergh Jr. However, that is not what he does. So I have to ask why he didn't do that. Why not make it clear that Charlie's right foot wasn't like that? What he does instead is use that right foot as another match point between Charlie and the corpse just like the length, the teeth, and the size of the head of the corpse conforming to what he knew about Charlie. We need to keep in mind that Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow made no mention of Charlie receiving Viosterol yet we know that he was getting it because Anne gives that information out herself. Apparently not everything about Charlie is in that letter, so I say give it consideration but not to the point of overlooking the fact that Van Ingen didn't challenge the overlapping toes when he examined the corpse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 13:31:15 GMT -5
If Fawcett planned to call on Dr. Van Ingen to testify at the Brox hearing, what happened to that plan? I have not read that he ever testified as a defense witness or a prosecution witness either. Did he ever have to testify at any level to anything about the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2014 13:45:05 GMT -5
If Fawcett planned to call on Dr. Van Ingen to testify at the Brox hearing, what happened to that plan? I have not read that he ever testified as a defense witness or a prosecution witness either. Did he ever have to testify at any level to anything about the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case? Once Fawcett was fired then most of his strategies remained with him. Know what I mean? He even refused to hand over the documents he had to Hauptmann's new Defense because he was claiming that he had not been paid. (I know Reilly had to sue for them but I don't know off the top of my head when he would get those documents, or if it was too late by then - I could check if you are interested). Foster had been on Fawcett's team as a PI, and I believe he attempted to get on board with the new team once Fawcett was terminated. This would allow for the transfer of certain information from one team to the next. It's speculation that his new Defense planned to call him as a Witness on my end. But this speculation is grounded in the research and the way things happened as I learned from it. They were all set to challenge the identity of that corpse, that much I know, but Reilly deviated without warning so we never get to hear Van Ingen's testimony due to both Fawcett being fired and Reilly, well, being Reilly. On the Defense side of things several Witnesses were supposed to be called but never were. I do believe Van Ingen was among them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 14:10:36 GMT -5
Rebekah - Thanks for those links! I think your point about the liver not being consumed by animals is a good one. One of your links touches on how a diseased liver has a role in rickets. The heart was also not eaten by animals. Both of these organs are normally consumed but not in this case. Thanks for sharing your research.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 11, 2014 15:00:45 GMT -5
Yes, that was a good point about the liver not being eaten due to disease, Rebekah. Sorry, Amy, I find it hard to believe that you could see the Lindbergh home from where the body was tossed back in 1932. There are quite a few hills and valleys along that 5 mile stretch although the house is at the top of a ridge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 15:27:27 GMT -5
If Fawcett planned to call on Dr. Van Ingen to testify at the Brox hearing, what happened to that plan? I have not read that he ever testified as a defense witness or a prosecution witness either. Did he ever have to testify at any level to anything about the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case? Once Fawcett was fired then most of his strategies remained with him. Know what I mean? He even refused to hand over the documents he had to Hauptmann's new Defense because he was claiming that he had not been paid. (I know Reilly had to sue for them but I don't know off the top of my head when he would get those documents, or if it was too late by then - I could check if you are interested). Foster had been on Fawcett's team as a PI, and I believe he attempted to get on board with the new team once Fawcett was terminated. This would allow for the transfer of certain information from one team to the next. It's speculation that his new Defense planned to call him as a Witness on my end. But this speculation is grounded in the research and the way things happened as I learned from it. They were all set to challenge the identity of that corpse, that much I know, but Reilly deviated without warning so we never get to hear Van Ingen's testimony due to both Fawcett being fired and Reilly, well, being Reilly. On the Defense side of things several Witnesses were supposed to be called but never were. I do believe Van Ingen was among them. I understand what you are saying about Fawcett's strategies not passing on to the new defense team. I am aware of Reilly suing to get those documents but I don't know when he received them. If you have the time, I would be interested in knowing when Fawcett turned them over. Thank you. I am surprised that there really was a plan (by Reilly's defense team) to challenge the identity of the corpse. I speculated to myself that there might have been because of Lloyd Fisher's courtroom reaction when Reilly conceded the corpse's identity. I would think such a challenge would have been a major part of the defense strategy, which would include calling Dr. Van Ingen to the stand. I find it hard to believe that Reilly was really that incompetent. He didn't believe in his client's innocence so why would he want to do anything that would actually help Hauptmann. Can you say who those other witnesses are that were never called by the defense? Also, who is P.I. Foster? Would you know if his activities turned up anything useful for Hauptmann's defense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 15:46:13 GMT -5
Yes, that was a good point about the liver not being eaten due to disease, Rebekah. Sorry, Amy, I find it hard to believe that you could see the Lindbergh home from where the body was tossed back in 1932. There are quite a few hills and valleys along that 5 mile stretch although the house is at the top of a ridge. I tend to agree with you. There was quite a bit of wooded terrain between the Mount Rose woods and the Hopewell house. The only way I see it maybe being possible would be because the house sat at a much higher elevation level than the gravesite. If the house was that easy to see from a distance then it defeats Lindbergh's purpose of the seclusion he was supposed to be seeking from the public eye. I know that you know that area and I trust your judgement on this issue. I don't have ancestry.com but perhaps I should. I use google maps alot but unless you know an address you can't find where any of the witnesses lived in relation to the Hopewell house. It is something I should look into. Thanks for bringing it up.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 11, 2014 17:44:58 GMT -5
I suspect that Van Ingen, after looking at the corpse on May 13, 2014, was pressured to write a statement by law enforcement. (How else would the statement wind up in the hands of the NJSP? He didn't just write that statement for his own use.) He was legitimately fearful even back then that if he went completely against the standard wisdom that the corpse was that of CAL Jr., at the time when media around of the world had reported it as an incontrovertible fact, he could have been vilified by the same media and accused of some very nasty but false things. And if he did that, go against the prevailing sentiment that the body was that of Charlie, he could have faced retaliation by police and prosecutors. Police were pretty darn nasty in their interrogation and investigation techniques back then in general, and in this most publicized of cases, they amped up the pressure on suspects and witnesses several notches.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2014 19:48:31 GMT -5
If you have the time, I would be interested in knowing when Fawcett turned them over. Thank you. In the Matter of the Petition of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Appellant, for an Order Directing James M. Fawcett, Attorney and Counselor at Law, Respondent, to Turn over All Files and Papers in His Matters to His New Attorney, Edward J. Reilly.--It appears on this appeal that the respondent has certain papers in his possession which he received or accumulated while in the employ of the appellant, and that he has a retaining lien upon these papers for the amount of his fees and charges, which has been fixed by the court. The respondent, however, is an officer of this court and under the circumstances here disclosed, to wit, that the appellant is now on trial upon an indictment for murder in the first degree in the State of New Jersey, the curt is of the opinion that if the respondent has papers which would be of value to the defendant in his defense, the latter should not be deprived of use thereof. Consequently, the court orders the respondent to appear before the presiding justice of this court, at his chamber in Borough Hall, Brooklyn, on Friday, January 18, 1935, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, and produce the papers in his possession, at which time the present attorney for the appellant may be present or represented, with a view of determining whether any of the papers now in the possession of the respondent may be competent or material in the preparation and presentation of the appellant's defense. Thereafter such order as may be proper in the premises will be made. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Vol. 243, 1935). After this occurred, "Books and Papers" were ordered to be turned over to be used in the connection of the trial, to be returned upon the its completion, and at no time removed or waived Fawcett's lien or rights involving the matter. Can you say who those other witnesses are that were never called by the defense? There were quite a few Amy, and in fact, I am still working on a complete list and what they were to testify to. Here are some off the top of my head: Scott, Silken, Hagelstein, Lukatis, Scanlon, and Williams..... Also, who is P.I. Foster? Would you know if his activities turned up anything useful for Hauptmann's defense? George H. Foster. He's mentioned on this Board in numerous places. I believe some of his investigations contain useful information.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2014 20:06:32 GMT -5
Sorry, Amy, I find it hard to believe that you could see the Lindbergh home from where the body was tossed back in 1932. There are quite a few hills and valleys along that 5 mile stretch although the house is at the top of a ridge. I completely understand your position here. I struggled with this myself wondering why so many people were making this claim when it didn't seem possible to me when I was standing there - because I certainly couldn't (and cannot) see it. However, I came across a photo which proved it and laid this matter to rest for me. I may have it somewhere and if I happen to find it I will upload it.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 12, 2014 4:08:19 GMT -5
Oh thanks, Michael, I'd appreciate that! Take your time, though, I've been wondering about it for years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 9:48:26 GMT -5
I wanted to post links here to obituary articles for Dr. Philip Van Ingen. He was certainly held in high regard by the medical communinity. Dr. Van Ingen loved children. Charlie was cared for by one of the best. This link is to the obituary article printed in the official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/12/3/339.full.pdf+htmlThis next link has a picture of Dr. Philip Van Ingen with the obituary article that was printed by the American Medical Association. I posted it for the picture. If you want to read the entire article you would have to create a log-in. When you clink on the link an ad may come up first. Just say no and then the article will be displayed. archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=496316Michael - I will do some exploring on the threads on this board to see what I can find about P.I. George Foster and his findings.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 12, 2014 10:19:27 GMT -5
thats where i got it mike from a picture I have you can see it then because of the lack of trees
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 12, 2014 10:24:13 GMT -5
I have van ingens obit if anybody needs a copy. I remember years ago somebody wanted to sell me some of fawcetts investigating papers but I never did buyit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 10:47:08 GMT -5
I suspect that Van Ingen, after looking at the corpse on May 13, 2014, was pressured to write a statement by law enforcement. (How else would the statement wind up in the hands of the NJSP? He didn't just write that statement for his own use.) He was legitimately fearful even back then that if he went completely against the standard wisdom that the corpse was that of CAL Jr., at the time when media around of the world had reported it as an incontrovertible fact, he could have been vilified by the same media and accused of some very nasty but false things. And if he did that, go against the prevailing sentiment that the body was that of Charlie, he could have faced retaliation by police and prosecutors. Police were pretty darn nasty in their interrogation and investigation techniques back then in general, and in this most publicized of cases, they amped up the pressure on suspects and witnesses several notches.
I understand where you are coming from with this post. The way I see it is that LE would definitely have wanted the child's pediatrician to see and give his opinion of the corpse thought to be Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. You always see the pediatrician called in to render their views whenever it is possible. He probably put his assessment of the corpse down on a piece of stationary so the NJSP could have it for their records. I don't see him being pressured into anything. Keeping in mind the high moral standard you said he had, then bowing to that pressure (if there was any) doesn't fit his character. Since Van Ingen does not positively identify those remains as being Charlie, I don't see him being fearful of being vilified or targeted by police. After all, they would have wanted him to say "Yes. That is Charles Lindbergh Jr.". He is clear in that statement it is impossible for him to do that. The official standing became that it was Charlie's remains, especially after Charles Lindbergh said he was satisfied it was his son. Van Ingen's 1932 statement does not conform to public opinion or Charles Lindbergh. He was never vilified for not making a positive ID of those remains. He was standing by his 1932 statement even in 1934, and would have testified that way. I see no evidence of fear of anyone on his part. Sorry!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 10:56:15 GMT -5
I have van ingens obit if anybody needs a copy. I remember years ago somebody wanted to sell me some of fawcetts investigating papers but I never did buyit Can you post Van Ingen's obit? Was it a newspaper obituary? I would be interested to see what was said publicly about his passing. I wonder who ended up with those Fawcett papers? What an intersting read they would have been!!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 12, 2014 11:34:27 GMT -5
Dr. Van Ingen may have been one of the best pediatricians of his era, but let's not forget that medical science in general back in 1932 was far less advanced than it is today, so even the best and brightest back then were unable to help patients who had problems that are routinely treated successfully in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 13, 2014 11:56:16 GMT -5
I forgot what journal this came from---PHILIP VAN INGEN 1875-1953-itis with deep sense of loss that we record the passing of Philip van ingen on march 28 1953.. the children of America are in his dept for the great contributions he made in his lifetime. after a boyhood in new York he attended hill school in Pottstown pa., and after graduation there went on to yale to receive an AB degree in 1897. he received his MD degree from the college of physicians and surgons, Columbia university in 1901. to be continued.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 14:37:59 GMT -5
I forgot what journal this came from---PHILIP VAN INGEN 1875-1953-itis with deep sense of loss that we record the passing of Philip van ingen on march 28 1953.. the children of America are in his dept for the great contributions he made in his lifetime. after a boyhood in new York he attended hill school in Pottstown pa., and after graduation there went on to yale to receive an AB degree in 1897. he received his MD degree from the college of physicians and surgons, Columbia university in 1901. to be continued. Thanks for finding and posting this. Dr. Van Ingen was highly regarded by all who knew him and he cared very much about children. Reading older newspapers, you find out about his efforts to assist disadvantaged babies and their mothers and how he started programs that would help them.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 13, 2014 17:51:21 GMT -5
To All:
Just curious: Why all the discussion as to whether or not the body was found at a location from where the Lindbergh house was visible in the distance? Do you think that this is a major point in offering an explanation as to when, how, and why the body got there? Do you think that visibility of the Lindbergh's house entered the perps' minds when choosing their dumping site for the body (regardless of whether it was CAL Jr. or another child)?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 13, 2014 18:54:05 GMT -5
To All: Just curious: Why all the discussion as to whether or not the body was found at a location from where the Lindbergh house was visible in the distance? Do you think that this is a major point in offering an explanation as to when, how, and why the body got there? Do you think that visibility of the Lindbergh's house entered the perps' minds when choosing their dumping site for the body (regardless of whether it was CAL Jr. or another child)? That's my fault. I know the location really wasn't a "stone's throw" away, but the lack of vegetation in 1932 would have made it much easier to get across the fields to the dead end on Featherbed Lane. www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-U712147INP.jpg?size=67&uid=2e168136-6325-4f1b-9984-eb02f32cb8a6I don't think the kidnappers took the main road off the Lindbergh property. Mt Rose Road is quite close to Featherbed Lane. It looks like it veers off the the main road into Mount Rose. Yes. I think that the baby died during the abduction, and that the kidnappers disposed of the body as quickly as possible. I don't think they were even thinking about the Lindbergh house any longer, but just where they could dump the body. Probably panicked out of their minds. The link is to a photo showing the house and the relative locations of Featherbed Lane and Mt. Rose road.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2014 19:10:09 GMT -5
Oh thanks, Michael, I'd appreciate that! Take your time, though, I've been wondering about it for years. I've searched everywhere I could think of and cannot locate it. It's possible I never copied it from the NJSP Archives. If I happen to find it again I promise I will post it. thats where i got it mike from a picture I have you can see it then because of the lack of trees Might be the same picture I saw Steve. I have to admit I needed to see it before I was willing to accept this as truth despite the various accounts from 1932 making this claim. To All: Just curious: Why all the discussion as to whether or not the body was found at a location from where the Lindbergh house was visible in the distance? Do you think that this is a major point in offering an explanation as to when, how, and why the body got there? Do you think that visibility of the Lindbergh's house entered the perps' minds when choosing their dumping site for the body (regardless of whether it was CAL Jr. or another child)? It's funny that you mention this. I have a letter to the Governor from a Reporter who said he believed the Kidnappers panicked when they saw the house "lit up" so they killed the baby on the spot and buried him there. I've seen a couple of other sources say that when the lights were on at Highfields in looked like a Jack-o-Lantern from the spot where the baby was discovered.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 13, 2014 21:01:01 GMT -5
yes mike it might be the same picture. I never gave it a thought until I saw how treeless that valley was back then
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 13, 2014 21:09:46 GMT -5
the picture I got at the gravesite that kills me, a guy set up a hot dog stand across from where the baby was found
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 22:38:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2014 10:27:20 GMT -5
From Anne Lindbergh's diary "Locked Rooms and Open Doors" entry dated June 24, 1933, letter written from Englewood to her sister Elisabeth(page 44):
"We have moved out of Hopewell; everything is packed. We are giving the place to a Corporation of Trustees-only five so far-Col. Henry(Breckinridge), Mr. Lovejoy, head of the Children's Aid Society, Abraham Flexner, and C. and I. Mother will join later. We have called the place High Fields, in which there is a secret second meaning. It please me very much."
Would anyone know what this secret second meaning is about the name High Fields? Is it somehow connected to Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2014 16:36:07 GMT -5
Would anyone know what this secret second meaning is about the name High Fields? I know this was a topic of discussion years ago ... so far back I can't remember very much of it at all. I also remember Ronelle had a page dedicated to it on her website, however, when I went to link it up I couldn't find it.
|
|