|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 9, 2006 1:21:14 GMT -5
This site from Court TV has a great explanation of the case for people who visit the first time. It also has the police picture of the childs body with a competely deteriorated skull. The VD'rs claim they have miraculously found a new picture with half a face for the VD'rs identification only that proves it is Charlies Body. www.crimelibrary.com/lindbergh/lindmain.htm
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 11, 2006 2:58:33 GMT -5
The face is mostly blackened skull and VD'rs claim they can recognize Charlie, even though the coroner said it could not be determined if the body was male or female.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 1, 2006 8:53:35 GMT -5
The face is mostly blackened skull and VD'rs claim they can recognize Charlie, even though the coroner said it could not be determined if the body was male or female. I found that weird, too, Rita. Didn't someone say something about there being other views of the body at the NJSP Museum - maybe that's why? Or maybe the actual phots (as opposed to reproductions) are much clearer? I really need to get over there and see. I live maybe 5 miles from there and have never been. Don't want to go alone!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2006 9:26:39 GMT -5
Just make an appointment and go! The museum is a self-guided tour and you can go anytime during visiting hours. Call ahead to make an appointment with Mark Falzini to do some source material research. Believe me, when you do this you aren't alone. Mark is beyond helpful and the first day I met him I felt like I knew him all of my life. Web Site: www.njspmuseum.org/index.htmlContact: Mark W. FalziniArchivist NJ State Police Museum 609-882-2000
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on May 1, 2006 9:50:13 GMT -5
michael, Speaking of photos, I just read a book about the Black Dahlia and there was a photo of her body that had been described as "air-brushed" shwing a blanket over her severed torso. the blanket in that picture looks artifical and very much like the clothing in the one yr. birthday picture of the lindbergh baby. this large photo is in Waller's book I think. Has anyone else noticed it?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 1, 2006 10:49:16 GMT -5
I have been seeing those picks of Charlie for years, Kanthy, and never thought of them as looking like they were altered. Photos from the early years of photography were always strange looking to me. I really don't think they've been doctored. I do know what pic you're talking about - the only thing that ever bothered me about that pic was that Charlie looks like he's trying to kick the dog (Skean, maybe? ?)!! LOL
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 1, 2006 11:48:51 GMT -5
Does anyone know more about the illegal photo taken by the NYC Reporter in the autopsy room. Apparently it was hawked on the street for $5 bucks and Condon had a signed copy. CAn this photo be seen in the Archives too?
I can tell you from experience in March that the Archives are just fabulous and Mark is officially "Mr. Congeniality" and helpful to a fault. There are amazing items in there and Mark will show you.
Charlie Jrs second dog was also named Scion in one book Someone, Walsh, Bern etc reported that CAL failed to bring Charlies dog home from Englewood on March 1st. In the Sherlock Holmes mystery when the dog did not bark it was because "no strangers were present"! Wagoosh did not bark either.
|
|
anne50
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by anne50 on May 1, 2006 14:54:12 GMT -5
It all smacks of an inside job! anne50
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 1, 2006 23:00:21 GMT -5
Charlie Jrs second dog was also named Scion in one book Someone, Walsh, Bern etc reported that CAL failed to bring Charlies dog home from Englewood on March 1st. In the Sherlock Holmes mystery when the dog did not bark it was because "no strangers were present"! Wagoosh did not bark either. Rick, In Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead Anne talks repeatedly about the dogs. Wahgoosh is one and Skean is the other. The reason I remembered Skean, which she says is the Gaelic word for "short sword" (it's actually a small knife that is worn in the top of the hose of a man wearing a kilt) - I'm very much into things Scottish, also! Skean was a Scottish (or Scotch as she says, which everyone knows is something you drink!! LOL) Terrier. This is a great book (a hardback copy from 1973) because it has a few good pics of Charlie! There's one of him with Skean and 3 other dogs. And in all of the pictures, he looks like a perfectly normal little boy! As for Wahgoosh - some watchdog (although I don't know that fox terriers are known for that)! : D That's another reason that I've always suspected an inside job!
|
|
|
Post by rick62 PI on May 2, 2006 7:14:04 GMT -5
Mouse/I think what we are searching for is some incident that can unite the Family against the paparazzi, nosy busybodies and "outside" meddlers. Charlies safety is paramount--it could be his health or imminent threat of kidnap. The Paid Plot could be considered "counterterrorism" or Counterpro. Then something goes wrong. The red blob on the Nursery Note Symbol could mean "son is dead"? the two blue circles represent CAL and Anne?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 2, 2006 9:32:42 GMT -5
Mouse/I think what we are searching for is some incident that can unite the Family against the paparazzi, nosy busybodies and "outside" meddlers. Charlies safety is paramount--it could be his health or imminent threat of kidnap. Well, I think that the dislike of "paparazzi" (and probably nosy busybodies) and just plain old people that were in awe of CAL began with the landing in Paris (when CAL was afraid he was going to run over someone when the mass of people swarmed the runway upon landing - have you ever seen any of that footage? Sheesh!!!). Between then and the kidnapping there were many isolated incidents (I can't begin to name them all - the killing of Daffin, the wedding and honeymoon are two that come to mind). I can easily see where the couple would be growing weary (and leery) of those trying to catch a peek at (or a photo of) Charlie. I don't recall ever reading of any concerns about kidnapping (ie in Anne's letters or diaries) but that doesn't mean they weren't there.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for mouse on May 2, 2006 9:35:12 GMT -5
I don't want to nitpick but the diaries were written in 1937 but published much later. they were edited for publication which i think is important here. what comes through in them is subtle and open for interpretation and thats also important. i'm a therapist and what is not siad is sometimes as important as what is said in figuring out whats going on.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 2, 2006 10:35:33 GMT -5
I don't want to nitpick but the diaries were written in 1937 but published much later. they were edited for publication which i think is important here. what comes through in them is subtle and open for interpretation and thats also important. i'm a therapist and what is not siad is sometimes as important as what is said in figuring out whats going on. Kathy, I'm not sure what you're refering to when you say "I don't want to nitpick". Could you be more specific. And if we're going to nitpick, the diaries were not written in '37 - they were started when Anne was quite young (they are diaries, after all) and continued for many years. Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead was a compilation of letters and diary excerpts from '29 to '32. I realize that what we get to read was edited, but I don't imagine that things were changed, but a lot didn't make it into the published books. As a therapist, I'm sure that you know that you have to be careful of interpreting what is "not said". "Reading between the lines" can be hard if you don't really know the person. I was trying to base things that I said on things that I was pretty sure were factual (like I've seen the footage of the crowd at Le Bourget and read the articles written by the reporters that tracked them on their honeymoon).
|
|
|
Post by rick62 trooper3 on May 2, 2006 15:38:20 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, well if we are led to believe there were thousands upon thousands of letters everyday AFTER Charlies disappearance then how many were coming in BEFORE? If you become the most famous person in the World, then during the heyday of kidnaps your kid becomes kidnap target #1? hands down.
Michael has offered that he cant imagine why under the threat of kidnap, CAL gets rid of the guard, leaves the curtains off, and has no quard dogs? Is CAL just asking for someone to snatch it? Well, maybe? I forgot for a moment that we are not sposed to try and read somebodys mind but CAL must have been out of his to leave Charlie so vulnerable.
After all, Evalyn Walsh Mcclean reported catching a second story kidnapper in her own sons bedroom window just before he in fact was hit by a passing car. Obviously, the very same thing might have happened to Charlie! yikes!
It would be my understanding that Charlie died for CALs sins--but I know you will take huge umbrance to that?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on May 2, 2006 22:32:32 GMT -5
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your post, but I just don't know how to respond. You said, "Hi Mouse, well if we are led to believe there were thousands upon thousands of letters everyday AFTER Charlies disappearance then how many were coming in BEFORE? " and I'm not sure why. I don't know what prompted that remark. You said sometihing about "searching for is some incident that can unite the Family against the paparazzi, nosy busybodies and "outside" meddlers.", to which I responded. Thousands and thousands of letters? Where does that info come from? And why do you think that there were ever any letters prior to the kidnapping?
You also said "CAL gets rid of the guard, leaves the curtains off, and has no quard dogs?". I wasn't aware that there had ever been a guard. And why would you need curtains in a house that has no neighbors and is out in the boondocks (not that the windows are really conducive to curtains and besides there were shutters)? I know that CAL appeared to dislike all of the attention that he'd come to own, but I don't think he ever suspected a kidnapping.
You also said, "It would be my understanding that Charlie died for CALs sins--but I know you will take huge umbrance to that?" No, no umbrage! I know that we're coming from two totally different places in this and that we have very different opinions of CAL. I can deal with that. Can you??? ;- )
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 3, 2006 10:28:20 GMT -5
Hey Minnie--sorry about the cryptic nature of my post. Im sorry if I type while I think?
1. I was only guessing that the LIndberghs likely received kidnap threats before the kidnap. Of one sort or another by mail. This leads into #2 and #3!
2. We all know there was a guard during construction. CAL let him go. So he was only protecting the materials?
3. Here I disagree. CAL should have expected a kidnap. The number of kidnaps nationwide was significant in 1930s and Charlie would be an obvious target for crazies.
I dont know that I have any particular opinion of CAL. Im only saying that he bungled every step of recoveing Charlie. But that of course is 20/20 hindsight. His plan had no chance of success and it didnt even make any sense or rational logic. "A man acting as his own attorney has a fool for a client?"
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on May 3, 2006 20:48:34 GMT -5
"A man acting as his own attorney has a fool for a client?" The man acting as his own attorney will lose his case, Maybe that's what Charles was hoping, that Charlie would never be found, and as long as he drove the car trying to find him he could take as many wrong turns as he needed to stay as far away from Charlie as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 3, 2006 22:20:31 GMT -5
There was a threat letter before the kidnap, and I was surprised to see it mentioned in the Lindbergh Movie shown on cable recently. It occured in the last scene after second child is born when Lindbergh shows the threat letter to Anne, and Anne exclaims it is happening all over again. The 1932 newspaper reporters were operating in sensational mode and something old like an original threat letter went into the waste basket.
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on May 3, 2006 22:46:03 GMT -5
there was a note prior to the kidnapping too, the one threatening Constance. If CAL was under charged for his child what about Dwight ? He made CAL look like a pauper!
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on May 3, 2006 23:12:30 GMT -5
Hey Minnie--sorry about the cryptic nature of my post. Im sorry if I type while I think? 1. I was only guessing that the LIndberghs likely received kidnap threats before the kidnap. Of one sort or another by mail. This leads into #2 and #3! 2. We all know there was a guard during construction. CAL let him go. So he was only protecting the materials? 3. Here I disagree. CAL should have expected a kidnap. The number of kidnaps nationwide was significant in 1930s and Charlie would be an obvious target for crazies. I dont know that I have any particular opinion of CAL. Im only saying that he bungled every step of recoveing Charlie. But that of course is 20/20 hindsight. His plan had no chance of success and it didnt even make any sense or rational logic. "A man acting as his own attorney has a fool for a client?" 1. "Guessing" and "likely", but I haven't seen mention of one anywhere. Has anyone? And if so, could you please relate where it was? 2. Like I said, I wasn't aware that there'd been a guard, but if there had been and CAL let him go once construction was pretty much done, I could "guess" it was because there was nothing left for anyone to steal when there was no one else around at night. I think it was "likely" that CAL felt capable of defending his family himself. Like I said before, I really don't think he was guilty of anything but over-confidence and arrogance (that's the only way I'd say that "Charlie paid for CAL's sins). 3. Here again, we get back to his over-confidence and arrogance. "I dont know that I have any particular opinion of CAL. Im only saying that he bungled every step of recoveing Charlie." Get out!!! You really expect me to buy that? ? <grin> You accuse the man of being a Nazi spy and being responsible for his son's death and then you can say that? You're a very funny man, Rick! LOL I think you have very definite opinions of him. Fess up, man!!
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rita on May 3, 2006 23:16:36 GMT -5
There was a threat letter before the kidnap, and I was surprised to see it mentioned in the Lindbergh Movie shown on cable recently. It occured in the last scene after second child is born when Lindbergh shows the threat letter to Anne, and Anne exclaims it is happening all over again. The 1932 newspaper reporters were operating in sensational mode and something old like an original threat letter went into the waste basket. Was this a documentary, Rita? If it wasn't, then you really shouldn't take what was in this movie as gospel. There are many movies out there about the kidnapping and they are not always good representations of what actually happened. It's a common occurence in Hollywood! Happens all the time. They'll do anything to make the movie more entertaining. If you haven't seen it actually documented somewhere reliable, then I would take it with a grain of salt!
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 4, 2006 0:16:46 GMT -5
Normally I wouldn't take Hollywood information for gospel, but I do know there was a threat before the kidnap, as there were other people that received the same threat letter. If you read the board below on Bill Keyhoe identified the letters as the same, but like other evidence in this case was not released because of outside influence. if you have been following this case for any time you must realize important details have disappeared from public view. Constance threat letters were traced to an army officer, but he was only disciplined after admitting he had also sent threats to others in Washington, this information also deleted from public eyes also.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 4, 2006 4:03:16 GMT -5
Hey Minnie--try not to blow any gasket. Maybe CAL reminds me totally of my Father? The one that just died at CareOne in Ewing NJ which should be pretty close to you. I went to Highfields, Hopewell, and the Archives while he was in Hospice. My dad idolized CAL! He dropped out of UofPenn in 1941 to go to Navy flight school. He was a fighter pilot in the South Pacific. He later went on to be a Rocket Scientist and saw Lindbergh in California. My dad was a huge pain in the arse, controlling everyone and everything. CAL and my dad may have been a pair of Carrels twins? I think CAL lied about hearing BRH at St. Raymonds because it was...expedient. I think he may have been involved in some elaborate coverup. Like all of us he was his own worst enemy. As for "nothing left to steal" at Highfields, well in the interest of peace and love I'll just let that go. CAL and my dad thought they had the only right answer to everyding/
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on May 4, 2006 8:16:56 GMT -5
Hey Minnie--try not to blow any gasket. Maybe CAL reminds me totally of my Father? The one that just died at CareOne in Ewing NJ which should be pretty close to you. I think CAL lied about hearing BRH at St. Raymonds because it was...expedient. I think he may have been involved in some elaborate coverup. Like all of us he was his own worst enemy. As for "nothing left to steal" at Highfields, well in the interest of peace and love I'll just let that go. CAL and my dad thought they had the only right answer to everyding/ Sorry to hear about your dad, Rick. Yes, Ewing is very close. My husband works there and I did also, for many years. I agree with you about CAL and the voice. But I believe that HE believed he was right. I don't totally buy the cover-up. When you quote what I said about Highfields, please quote the whole statement! I said "because there was nothing left for anyone to steal when there was no one else around at night". I think that CAL was the only guard that he truly trusted his family with! LOL No gaskets blown! That's the only thing wrong with communicating this way - we don't really get a sense of when the other person is trying to be funny.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 4, 2006 16:41:01 GMT -5
Hi Minnie/ dont worry...the only two things I can do at the same time are: laugh and drive or laugh and type. Dont ever try to laugh and eat....its hard to call out "Heimlich please!"
hey, if you cant quote someone "out of context" then why quote them at all/ LOL
I think you have the right idea about CAL and DAD....they dont just think they are right....they know it! Good thing my Mom didnt write her memoirs! Maybe its a consequence of flight?
CAL likely didnt really care about IT unless it inconvenienced him? On the Monday nite before the famous kidnap of the Century CAL either stayed at Englewood or Manhattan whichever he wanted. CAL first and foremost. For all we know.............
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 4, 2006 16:49:02 GMT -5
CAL likely didnt really care about IT unless it inconvenienced him? How is it possible that we have two such different views of the same man, Rick? ? I know he called Charlie "It" for a while (or was that once??). Odd sense of humor, perhaps? And I know he wasn't the most affectionate man (think of his upbringing and how can you fault him?). I know he had some pretty bizrarre theories on childrearing (some that I might even call DYFS about if he was my neighbor LOL). But then you read things like him calling Charlie "Buster" and playing "fly" with him and how can you think he was totally bad?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 4, 2006 17:13:04 GMT -5
Minnie, to my way of thinking noone is totally bad. Quakers believe in original blessing?
CAL clearly suffered thongs and arrows because of his aberrant personality. He also suffered the loss of his firstborne. Thats enough for any man. He went to the top and then to the bottom. Its a common theme I suppose....usually reserved for politicians, and entertainers and fictional characters.
Its difficult to unravel the LKC without unraveliing CALs foibles. He is a hard guy to figure. Anne gave him the benefit of doubt.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 5, 2006 9:40:08 GMT -5
Well Minnie, maybe because I see CAL as CALLOUS? Nearly devoid of feelings? :
Completely lacking in compassion: cold-blooded, cold-hearted, compassionless, hard, hard-boiled, hardened, hardhearted, heartless, obdurate, stonyhearted, unfeeling. See attitude/
he is basically a pilot/ a military man/ a soldier of fortune after (Constance or Anne or Elizabeth) Whats the dif? He sees Charlies return as Military Ops? He is pretty wacked. He sees Nazi Germany as Air Power? Not people? Not persons? Not prisoners.
Sure he is human, but not nearly as human as BRH. Kids are genetics to him. Opposites attrached?
When CAL is on the Catchalot with Curtis he plays practical jokes on the otheres for 19 days? Think Anne was doing that? He could role play any part he thought he needed? All because his Mom shook hands goodnight? Yikes....that should be outlawed.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on May 5, 2006 10:35:47 GMT -5
**Well Minnie, maybe because I see CAL as CALLOUS? Nearly devoid of feelings? : Completely lacking in compassion: cold-blooded, cold-hearted, compassionless, hard, hard-boiled, hardened, hardhearted, heartless, obdurate, stonyhearted, unfeeling. ** No, Rick - don't hold back. How do you really feel? LOL I have to agree with you on some of those points. Although I would argue a few of them (gasp - did I say that out loud, sorry!!!!) I would also add to it - he had a very scientific, analytical mind that probably kept him from being a warm person. He was definitely an Anti-Semite and a bigot (which I found apalling!). **he is basically a pilot/ a military man/ a soldier of fortune after (Constance or Anne or Elizabeth) Whats the dif? ** Not sure about that. I really do think he had feelings for Anne (maybe not what you or I would call traditional or normal). And why choose Anne over Elisabeth, who seemed to be a lot more outgoing, of the same bloodline and considered prettier by many. OMG - and I just thought of something else - why wouldn't he have chosen Elisabeth if he was just out for the money? He knew she was sickly!!! This could have been a turn-off for the eugenics side of him, but would have guaranteed easy money - they all knew her days were numbered. Or do you think he just thought Anne would make a better "baby factory" to reproduce perfect little CAL's (which I guess isn't out of the realm of possibilty!)? That's an honest question - I'm NOT being facetious here (God, I hate having to explain everything I post!)!! **He sees Nazi Germany as Air Power? Not people? Not persons? Not prisoners. ** OK, that's probably true, and it doesn't exactly endear him to me, but I don't think it makes him capable of murder (or the plot to "remove" Charlie) either. Again - the analytical side of him. And yet on the other side of him, you have the CAL that risked life and limb to get supplies to the people that were stranded in China that time he and Anne were there and the Yangtzee flooded. He was certainly a complex person, that's for sure! **Sure he is human, but not nearly as human as BRH.** Yay!!! At last - something we agree wholeheartedly on!!!! <grin> I have a friend who grew up living down the street from a man who was one of the Trenton prison guards on BRH detail. This friend didn't get interested in the case until after he'd passed away, but his wife used to tell her that her husband would play cards with Richard, seemed to like him and didn't think he was guilty at all! **When CAL is on the Catchalot with Curtis he plays practical jokes on the otheres for 19 days? Think Anne was doing that?** Not familiar with what this refers to. But from things I've read, I got the feeling that Anne could pretty much hold her own with CAL in the practical joke department! (Except for the baby hiding ones - what the HELL was that all about? ) **All because his Mom shook hands goodnight? Yikes....that should be outlawed.** No - I think that the handshaking thing was just the tip of the iceberg!!! I don't think CAL's parents were warm, fuzzy people at all and it was transferred to CAL. Not to make excuses for him - but as an possible explanation for his aberrations as far as relationships go. I've seen kids raised under much worse conditions than CAL's turn into good, loving people.
|
|