Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 15:36:56 GMT -5
yes I think his name is Vincent godfrey burns he wrote some books. hes the one who barged into the courtroom. he wrote a book called new light in the Lindbergh kidnapping. I hear its hard to get. mine is autographed. I also have a little book they handed to the banks with all the serial numbers when they get gold notes. Thanks, Steve. So his name is Vincent Godfrey Burns. You are right! That book is very hard to get. I have been looking at all my sources and cannot come up with a copy. You are very blessed to have one!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 28, 2019 19:21:24 GMT -5
Thanks, Steve. So his name is Vincent Godfrey Burns. You are right! That book is very hard to get. I have been looking at all my sources and cannot come up with a copy. You are very blessed to have one! Amy, I just checked my files and I actually have Burns' New Light in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Mystery in PDF. It's 109 pages. If anyone wants it, just PM me and I will wetransfer it to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 20:01:48 GMT -5
Amy, I just checked my files and I actually have Burns' New Light in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Mystery in PDF. It's 109 pages. If anyone wants it, just PM me and I will wetransfer it to you. This is great, Wayne! Thanks for making this post.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 18, 2019 9:14:04 GMT -5
While she was seven months pregnant no less! Wasn't Jon born in August? So maybe four months pregnant in March?
The whole "bonding" story for the weekend at Hopewell without Betty might make sense - IF it was a quiet weekend with just the immediate family and the Whateleys.
However, wasn't the Breckenridge clan at Hopewell the entire prior weekend? Is it logical to ostensibly pursue good, quality one-on-one time with your (sick) baby while also entertaining another family in your incompletely furnished home?
I wonder when the invitation went out to the Breckenridges to visit that weekend; well in advance (and why not wait until the weather was better or at least you have some curtains on your windows!) or was it last minute, in response to some unforeseen crisis where their presence/assistance was required?
This is yet another lame story (along with pebble throwing, orange crate, sick baby, forgot the banquet, thumb guard in the drive, etc.) that is offered up to explain illogical or suspicious circumstances to support the "kidnapping" narrative...
Scathma, I too wonder when the invitation to the Brecjenridges to go to Highfield was extended. In fact the Breckinridges being invited at all has never felt right to me. Pregnant, sick baby, miserable and cold weather. Unfinished construction on new house and mud everywhere. Perfect time to invite the attorney and his wife for a house party. A real weekend in the country. 🙄 Although ostensibly Mrs Breckinridge was supposed to be helping with Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Aug 31, 2023 14:34:07 GMT -5
I have always questioned this "staying over because of a cold" situation myself. It just doesn't sound like Anne to me. She much preferred Englewood and all the help of the servants. I would think this would have been especially true if Charlie were sick. She could have taken Charlie back to Englewood or, if needed, into New York to see Dr. VanIngen. I bet Dr. VanIngen would even have come out to the Hopewell House if the Lindberghs asked him too. Here is what Detective Walsh said in his Jersey Journal article of November 15, 1932 concerning the day of March 1, 1932: Never before March 1 had the Lindberghs stayed in their Hopewell home on a Tuesday night. They had always returned to the home of Mrs. Lindbergh's mother in Englewood after spending the week-end at the estate.
Not until 2 p.m. on the day of the kidnapping did Lindbergh know they were to stay there that (Tuesday) night. He explained this circumstance as follows:
Mrs. Lindbergh felt she was losing the motherly affection she craved from her child by the fact that he was continuously in the care and company of his nurse, Betty Gow. On this particular week-end she left Betty Gow in Englewood, and went to Hopewell with the intention of taking the exclusive care of the child. When Tuesday morning arrived she felt quite tired and decided to stay there all Tuesday and Tuesday night, during which time she planned to take a complete rest. It must be kept in mind that Mrs. Lindbergh was pregnant at this time with her second child which was born some months after the kidnapping of the first baby and which was also a boy.(bolding is mine)
A Twist of Fate
Had Mrs. Lindbergh not lengthened the week-end stay, the crime would not have happened at the time and place it did and might never have occurred. But that is one of fate's cruel and ironical twists which no human could foresee or forestall.
In accordance with her plan to remain in Hopewell and obtain a complete rest, Mrs. Lindbergh telephoned to Englewood and told Miss Gow, the baby's nurse, to proceed to Hopewell in one of the Morrow cars which she did, arriving shortly after noon. After she arrived she took charge of the baby.If Walsh's account is accurate, then Anne made the call to stay over on Tuesday all on her own. And according to Lindbergh he knew nothing about this stay over until 2 p.m. Is that believable?? Plus there is no mention of a cold being the reason for the stay over; just Anne needing a complete rest. Yet we all know that Charlie was sick and Anne claimed this was the reason they stayed over. Why did Lindbergh tell Walsh Anne stayed over because she needed a complete rest?? Why does Lindbergh not mention Charlie's cold?? Why does he make Anne the reason for the stay over on Tuesday night?? CAL flat out lied. He said "this weekend Anne decided". Betty had been having weekends off for months because Anne wanted to bond with Charlie. Also, this was the first time Betty ever went to Highfields to take care of Charlie. She had only visited Highfields prior.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Aug 31, 2023 14:51:34 GMT -5
She was seven months pregnant with CAL Jr. when she went flying. I'm not talking about Jon, who was born more than two years later. Thanks for the clarification. Like others in the forum, I thought that the frame of reference for the discussion was the day of the "kidnapping."
Two important points regarding the flying that Mrs. Lindbergh did during her first pregnancy:
(1) You can't really criticize her for being reckless because aviation was still in its early stages at the time and there was no science available to show that pregnant mothers who fly might do harm to their fetuses.
(2) Even at that, you can't be anywhere confident of a direct cause-and effect relationship between Anne's flying and Charlie's rickety condition. We have discussed before on these threads that Charlie might have been suffering from Vitamin D resistant rickets, which is a rare genetic disorder which causes an impairment in the body's capability of metabolizing ingested Vitamin D and enzymatically converting it to its active form. That problem would be extremely unlikely to be the result of an environmental insult to the fetus at seven months gestation.
Hurtelable is correct. I read last month that Dwight Jr. was extremely frail when he was a baby due to a severe lack of vitamin D. It did not imply he had rickets, just had a severe deficiency. Sounds like Charlie may have inherited his condition.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2023 6:14:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification. Like others in the forum, I thought that the frame of reference for the discussion was the day of the "kidnapping."
Two important points regarding the flying that Mrs. Lindbergh did during her first pregnancy:
(1) You can't really criticize her for being reckless because aviation was still in its early stages at the time and there was no science available to show that pregnant mothers who fly might do harm to their fetuses.
(2) Even at that, you can't be anywhere confident of a direct cause-and effect relationship between Anne's flying and Charlie's rickety condition. We have discussed before on these threads that Charlie might have been suffering from Vitamin D resistant rickets, which is a rare genetic disorder which causes an impairment in the body's capability of metabolizing ingested Vitamin D and enzymatically converting it to its active form. That problem would be extremely unlikely to be the result of an environmental insult to the fetus at seven months gestation.
Hurtelable is correct. I read last month that Dwight Jr. was extremely frail when he was a baby due to a severe lack of vitamin D. It did not imply he had rickets, just had a severe deficiency. Sounds like Charlie may have inherited his condition. Charlie had a moderate rickety condition, but he certainly wasn't frail.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 1, 2023 15:22:18 GMT -5
Hurtelable is correct. I read last month that Dwight Jr. was extremely frail when he was a baby due to a severe lack of vitamin D. It did not imply he had rickets, just had a severe deficiency. Sounds like Charlie may have inherited his condition. Charlie had a moderate rickety condition, but he certainly wasn't frail. But he was very sick after he was born...just like Dwight Jr. Remember they got rid of the NURSE Marie due to his "failure to thrive"? Same thing as Anne's brother.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 1, 2023 17:27:50 GMT -5
Hurtelable is correct. I read last month that Dwight Jr. was extremely frail when he was a baby due to a severe lack of vitamin D. It did not imply he had rickets, just had a severe deficiency. Sounds like Charlie may have inherited his condition. Charlie had a moderate rickety condition, but he certainly wasn't frail. His skull literally crumbled at a slight touch. Lots of infants die, their skulls don't crumble like that.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 1, 2023 18:22:02 GMT -5
Charlie had a moderate rickety condition, but he certainly wasn't frail. But he was very sick after he was born...just like Dwight Jr. Remember they got rid of the NURSE Marie due to his "failure to thrive"? Same thing as Anne's brother. May I ask what your source is for Dwight, Jr. being a very sickly child after his birth? I have never heard this before. I know that Dwight Morrow Sr. had been very sick as a child.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 7:35:21 GMT -5
Charlie had a moderate rickety condition, but he certainly wasn't frail. His skull literally crumbled at a slight touch. Lots of infants die, their skulls don't crumble like that. Your statements are incorrect and misleading. Charlie's skull didn't "literally crumble at a slight touch." At the age of 20 months when he died, Charlie's skull plate sutures had not yet fused into bone. This is why they came apart during the very physical autopsy procedure to examine the skull's contents. Had Charlie lived actually beyond 20 months, the skull fusing process might well have been delayed beyond the average 24 month period by the presence of rickets, which it appears he was being treated for at the time. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Around two years of age, a child's skull bones begin to join together because the sutures become bone. When this occurs, the suture is said to “close."" Again, Charlie was only 20 months old when he died. If you have any further questions on this subject, I suggest you do some further personal research, so that you don't continue to provide the same misleading information here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 7:43:24 GMT -5
Charlie had a moderate rickety condition, but he certainly wasn't frail. But he was very sick after he was born...just like Dwight Jr. Remember they got rid of the NURSE Marie due to his "failure to thrive"? Same thing as Anne's brother. When you say Charlie was "very sick after he was born," can you please expand on your statement? Are you referring to the period of time in which Anne attempted to nurse him, and before the time he was introduced to milk formula?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2023 8:20:12 GMT -5
Your statements are incorrect and misleading. Charlie's skull didn't "literally crumble at a slight touch." At the age of 20 months when he died, Charlie's skull plate sutures had not yet fused into bone. This is why they came apart during the very physical autopsy procedure to examine the skull's contents. Had Charlie lived actually beyond 20 months, the skull fusing process might well have been delayed beyond the average 24 month period by the presence of rickets, which it appears he was being treated for at the time. I submit yours is misleading by omission. Why would you do what you are accusing USC of doing? Inspector Walsh used a stick to pierce the skull in order to flip the corpse over. Most experts are on record as saying this shouldn't have happened. I've seen some say because the skull should have been too thick in that spot. Others say hard. Still others say pliable making it impossible to pierce with a stick off a tree. However, it was clearly NONE of these things because it happened. In order to get around this fact, their only explanation is to say Walsh lied, which clearly he did not, by saying it did not happen. Most cops who "lie" cover up something they did that was stupid, not the other way around. Here especially, since he had no motive to make something like this up.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 9:16:24 GMT -5
Your statements are incorrect and misleading. Charlie's skull didn't "literally crumble at a slight touch." At the age of 20 months when he died, Charlie's skull plate sutures had not yet fused into bone. This is why they came apart during the very physical autopsy procedure to examine the skull's contents. Had Charlie lived actually beyond 20 months, the skull fusing process might well have been delayed beyond the average 24 month period by the presence of rickets, which it appears he was being treated for at the time. I submit yours is misleading by omission. Why would you do what you are accusing USC of doing? Inspector Walsh used a stick to pierce the skull in order to flip the corpse over. Most experts are on record as saying this shouldn't have happened. I've seen some say because the skull should have been too thick in that spot. Others say hard. Still others say pliable making it impossible to pierce with a stick off a tree. However, it was clearly NONE of these things because it happened. In order to get around this fact, their only explanation is to say Walsh lied, which clearly he did not, by saying it did not happen. Most cops who "lie" cover up something they did that was stupid, not the other way around. Here especially, since he had no motive to make something like this up. I wasn't omitting anything within my response to trojanusc and was fully expecting your response. What I did, was address his incorrect and misleading statement through scientific fact and the very conditions which Mitchell and Swayze were dealing with during their autopsy of the corpse. Trojanusc said that Charlie's skull "literally crumbled at a slight touch" and I disagreed by pointing out that it did not. From the evidence I see, no stick made that hole. I believe we have to ask ourselves how a skull plate made up of calcified bony material could effectively give way to a basically round hole at the age of 20 months, when it was solid enough to support the daily physical and mental activities of a well-developed 20 month old child. Whether it was in fact, made by a small calibre bullet, I wouldn't want to say for certain. At the same time, there certainly would have been incentive for the prosecution to eventually discount the gunshot possibility and promote the stick theory, lest it open up grounds for Charlie, almost by necessity, having been killed outside of Hunterdon County.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2023 9:47:19 GMT -5
From the evidence I see, no stick made that hole. I believe we have to ask ourselves how a skull plate made up of calcified bony material could effectively give way to a basically round hole at the age of 20 months, when it was solid enough to support the daily physical and mental activities of a well-developed 20 month old child. Whether it was in fact, made by a small calibre bullet, I wouldn't want to say for certain. At the same time, there certainly would have been incentive for the prosecution to eventually discount the gunshot possibility and promote the stick theory, lest it open up grounds for Charlie, almost by necessity, having been killed outside of Hunterdon County. You just castigated USC for supposedly doing exactly what you are doing here. It's a very valuable lesson in hypocrisy. There was a hole there, and it was Walsh who not only admitted to making it, he testified to it. This is important for several reasons... First and foremost it assisted the State's BS theory by eliminating a counterargument when at a time Walsh was at odds with the NJSP. He simply had no motive to lie in order to assist those who not only hung him out to dry during the Sharp matter, but had bad mouthed him publicly after his loan to the investigation ended. Creating that hole was an error in judgement and actually made him look bad for doing so. Later, Walsh was friendly to Hoffman, and the Defense. He even worked with Pope & Fisher with such things as a reenactment at Highfields. If he didn't actually create the hole this fact obviously would have been shared with them - and ultimately Hoffman. And so here you are, shrugging off what you do not like because it obliterates your position. Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 2, 2023 12:29:19 GMT -5
But he was very sick after he was born...just like Dwight Jr. Remember they got rid of the NURSE Marie due to his "failure to thrive"? Same thing as Anne's brother. May I ask what your source is for Dwight, Jr. being a very sickly child after his birth? I have never heard this before. I know that Dwight Morrow Sr. had been very sick as a child. Susan Hertog's biography of Anne.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 2, 2023 16:00:35 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing. I have the book!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2023 9:21:08 GMT -5
From the evidence I see, no stick made that hole. I believe we have to ask ourselves how a skull plate made up of calcified bony material could effectively give way to a basically round hole at the age of 20 months, when it was solid enough to support the daily physical and mental activities of a well-developed 20 month old child. Whether it was in fact, made by a small calibre bullet, I wouldn't want to say for certain. At the same time, there certainly would have been incentive for the prosecution to eventually discount the gunshot possibility and promote the stick theory, lest it open up grounds for Charlie, almost by necessity, having been killed outside of Hunterdon County. You just castigated USC for supposedly doing exactly what you are doing here. It's a very valuable lesson in hypocrisy. There was a hole there, and it was Walsh who not only admitted to making it, he testified to it. This is important for several reasons... First and foremost it assisted the State's BS theory by eliminating a counterargument when at a time Walsh was at odds with the NJSP. He simply had no motive to lie in order to assist those who not only hung him out to dry during the Sharp matter, but had bad mouthed him publicly after his loan to the investigation ended. Creating that hole was an error in judgement and actually made him look bad for doing so. Later, Walsh was friendly to Hoffman, and the Defense. He even worked with Pope & Fisher with such things as a reenactment at Highfields. If he didn't actually create the hole this fact obviously would have been shared with them - and ultimately Hoffman. Really, would Walsh have done this? Would he ever have admitted that he lied on the stand in Flemington where he swore that he did make the hole, while actually believing at the least, he might not have? How would Governor Hoffman have felt about an admitted liar helping him out in his Help Hauptmann campaign?
And so here you are, shrugging off what you do not like because it obliterates your position. Why am I not surprised? I'll ignore these observations of yours as I'm aware of where their motivation lies.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2023 11:57:25 GMT -5
Really, would Walsh have done this? Would he ever have admitted that he lied on the stand in Flemington where he swore that he did make the hole, while actually believing at the least, he might not have? How would Governor Hoffman have felt about an admitted liar helping him out in his Help Hauptmann campaign? Of course he would have. In the end, like some Troopers and Ex-Troopers, he chose sides. Didn't you read the countless examples in my books? If, for example, Kelly had decided to squeal, is it really your position Hoffman wouldn't have believed him because he was an "admitted liar?" Besides, if Walsh wasn't telling the truth, many other people would have known about it and it would have gotten back to either Fisher or Hoffman regardless. It's how they found out about the existence of the burlap bag and many other things they hadn't known about. Again, read my books because the examples are there. And, on top of everything, there's nothing in the Hoffman collection/correspondence that mentions this as even possibly being false as well as nothing to counter it within the state police collections. It's a fact because it happened so start coming up with some other silly reason to get around it cuz this ain't it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2023 13:46:12 GMT -5
Really, would Walsh have done this? Would he ever have admitted that he lied on the stand in Flemington where he swore that he did make the hole, while actually believing at the least, he might not have? How would Governor Hoffman have felt about an admitted liar helping him out in his Help Hauptmann campaign? Of course he would have. In the end, like some Troopers and Ex-Troopers, he chose sides. Didn't you read the countless examples in my books? If, for example, Kelly had decided to squeal, is it really your position Hoffman wouldn't have believed him because he was an "admitted liar?" Besides, if Walsh wasn't telling the truth, many other people would have known about it and it would have gotten back to either Fisher or Hoffman regardless. It's how they found out about the existence of the burlap bag and many other things they hadn't known about. Again, read my books because the examples are there. And, on top of everything, there's nothing in the Hoffman collection/correspondence that mentions this as even possibly being false as well as nothing to counter it within the state police collections. It's a fact because it happened so start coming up with some other silly reason to get around it cuz this ain't it. I find it very difficult to believe you're referring here to the very series of books that you yourself have written. The evidence you've portrayed of course, makes a much stronger case for someone other other than Inspector Walsh having made that hole, and it wasn't with a stick. This opinion and even conclusion, were expressed by Dr. Charles Mitchell, Coroner Walter Swayze, Lt. Robert Hicks and Prosecutor Anthony Hauck, well before Richard Hauptmann's arrest and in the absence of any potential agendas to present the crime in a certain way. Mitchell knew full well a wooden stick could not possibly penetrate approximately 1/2" of bony skull material. In the words of Lt. Hicks which you quote from his ballistic report, "The hole in the skull was fairly clean cut and somewhat perfect in shape, indicating that it was made, without doubt, by a bullet, that snuffed out the baby’s life. If, as it was attempted to be explained, the child’s body had fallen when being taken from the shallow grave and had struck a sharp stick there would have been a jagged hole and a depression in the skull, and too one might be justified in saying the skull would not have weakened by decomposition during the short period it was in its grave." Further, and as you state, it was only during preparation for the trial that the 'stick theory' became an essential part of the state's case against Hauptmann. I have to ask why are you apparently overlooking all of this or choosing to disregard it, within your own work?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2023 18:04:29 GMT -5
I find it very difficult to believe you're referring here to the very series of books that you yourself have written. The evidence you've portrayed of course, makes a much stronger case for someone other other than Inspector Walsh having made that hole, and it wasn't with a stick. This opinion and even conclusion, were expressed by Dr. Charles Mitchell, Coroner Walter Swayze, Lt. Robert Hicks and Prosecutor Anthony Hauck, well before Richard Hauptmann's arrest and in the absence of any potential agendas to present the crime in a certain way. Mitchell knew full well a wooden stick could not possibly penetrate approximately 1/2" of bony skull material. In the words of Lt. Hicks which you quote from his ballistic report, "The hole in the skull was fairly clean cut and somewhat perfect in shape, indicating that it was made, without doubt, by a bullet, that snuffed out the baby’s life. If, as it was attempted to be explained, the child’s body had fallen when being taken from the shallow grave and had struck a sharp stick there would have been a jagged hole and a depression in the skull, and too one might be justified in saying the skull would not have weakened by decomposition during the short period it was in its grave." Further, and as you state, it was only during preparation for the trial that the 'stick theory' became an essential part of the state's case against Hauptmann. I have to ask why are you apparently overlooking all of this or choosing to disregard it, within your own work? So does this mean you now believe Hoffman would have accepted the truth or not - you seem to be ducking everything I wrote above. Next, is this really your rebuttal? How have I "disregarded" anything? You act as though, if I don't believe something, I should withhold any information that may harm it from my books. I think you know by now that I have always tried to put as much of the source information in my books no matter what it says. Not just what I like. If I think its important it goes in regardless of my own personal beliefs. Here, what you cite above, was everything I had on the subject and wrote about it in the book. But it doesn't end there does it? There is other important information to be applied elsewhere in the other chapters and volumes. Also, what I think is much more strongly voiced here on this board. So yes, think about what's there and consider what my position clearly is. How am I where I'm at? Considering this, and what I've written in response earlier, the answer is staring you in the face. If one believes the skull was of a healthy child, they reject the notion that a stick caused the hole. There it is right there.... Then what happened? Dr. Mitchell testified to a much different tune did he not? Well, he either believed it, or was testifying untruthfully. We know that Dr. Mitchell was leaned on by the Prosecution about what to say and what not to as evidenced by other information in my book. So apply YOUR "admitted liar" test here - PLEASE. Next we have Inspector Walsh's testimony. Again, if Walsh perjured himself, many others knew about it. Once Hoffman started his re-investigation, word would have gotten back to Hoffman and once Walsh became friendly toward their cause, he himself would have revealed what he knew. But there is absolutely nothing about this essential topic anywhere throughout the Hoffman files/correspondence. Why? Because he poked that hole with a stick to turn over the corpse. There is no other option. Let's consider the scenario operating from your perspective: Wilentz: "Lamb, we need to explain the bullet hole away because it will harm the burglary felony theory we plan to present. Would any of the boys be willing to say they did it, perhaps through accidental handling of the corpse somehow? Who was there that we can rely on?"
Lamb: "Leon, Zapolosky, Kubler, and ...."
Wilentz: "Wait, weren't there some of the men from Newark there too?"
Lamb: "Yes, and Jersey City."
Wilentz: "Terrific! Inspector Walsh, was he near the corpse at any time?"
Lamb: "He sure was, that's how we got the underclothing."
Wilentz: "Okay, I understand he's at odds with the State Police, hates Schwarzkopf, and personally believes Lindbergh was behind this whole thing - right?"
Lamb: "Yes, that's all true."
Wilentz: "Great, get him on the phone and see if he'll play ball by putting his career on the line to perjure himself on the stand for us."
Lamb: "Sure thing, I can't see any reason why he wouldn't do that."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2023 9:04:15 GMT -5
I find it very difficult to believe you're referring here to the very series of books that you yourself have written. The evidence you've portrayed of course, makes a much stronger case for someone other other than Inspector Walsh having made that hole, and it wasn't with a stick. This opinion and even conclusion, were expressed by Dr. Charles Mitchell, Coroner Walter Swayze, Lt. Robert Hicks and Prosecutor Anthony Hauck, well before Richard Hauptmann's arrest and in the absence of any potential agendas to present the crime in a certain way. Mitchell knew full well a wooden stick could not possibly penetrate approximately 1/2" of bony skull material. In the words of Lt. Hicks which you quote from his ballistic report, "The hole in the skull was fairly clean cut and somewhat perfect in shape, indicating that it was made, without doubt, by a bullet, that snuffed out the baby’s life. If, as it was attempted to be explained, the child’s body had fallen when being taken from the shallow grave and had struck a sharp stick there would have been a jagged hole and a depression in the skull, and too one might be justified in saying the skull would not have weakened by decomposition during the short period it was in its grave." Further, and as you state, it was only during preparation for the trial that the 'stick theory' became an essential part of the state's case against Hauptmann. I have to ask why are you apparently overlooking all of this or choosing to disregard it, within your own work? So does this mean you now believe Hoffman would have accepted the truth or not - you seem to be ducking everything I wrote above. Next, is this really your rebuttal? How have I "disregarded" anything? You act as though, if I don't believe something, I should withhold any information that may harm it from my books. I think you know by now that I have always tried to put as much of the source information in my books no matter what it says. Not just what I like. If I think its important it goes in regardless of my own personal beliefs. Here, what you cite above, was everything I had on the subject and wrote about it in the book. But it doesn't end there does it? There is other important information to be applied elsewhere in the other chapters and volumes. Also, what I think is much more strongly voiced here on this board. So yes, think about what's there and consider what my position clearly is. How am I where I'm at? Considering this, and what I've written in response earlier, the answer is staring you in the face. If one believes the skull was of a healthy child, they reject the notion that a stick caused the hole. There it is right there.... Then what happened? Dr. Mitchell testified to a much different tune did he not? Well, he either believed it, or was testifying untruthfully. We know that Dr. Mitchell was leaned on by the Prosecution about what to say and what not to as evidenced by other information in my book. So apply YOUR "admitted liar" test here - PLEASE. Next we have Inspector Walsh's testimony. Again, if Walsh perjured himself, many others knew about it. Once Hoffman started his re-investigation, word would have gotten back to Hoffman and once Walsh became friendly toward their cause, he himself would have revealed what he knew. But there is absolutely nothing about this essential topic anywhere throughout the Hoffman files/correspondence. Why? Because he poked that hole with a stick to turn over the corpse. There is no other option. Let's consider the scenario operating from your perspective: Wilentz: "Lamb, we need to explain the bullet hole away because it will harm the burglary felony theory we plan to present. Would any of the boys be willing to say they did it, perhaps through accidental handling of the corpse somehow? Who was there that we can rely on?"
Lamb: "Leon, Zapolosky, Kubler, and ...."
Wilentz: "Wait, weren't there some of the men from Newark there too?"
Lamb: "Yes, and Jersey City."
Wilentz: "Terrific! Inspector Walsh, was he near the corpse at any time?"
Lamb: "He sure was, that's how we got the underclothing."
Wilentz: "Okay, I understand he's at odds with the State Police, hates Schwarzkopf, and personally believes Lindbergh was behind this whole thing - right?"
Lamb: "Yes, that's all true."
Wilentz: "Great, get him on the phone and see if he'll play ball by putting his career on the line to perjure himself on the stand for us."
Lamb: "Sure thing, I can't see any reason why he wouldn't do that." I'm not ducking anything Michael because you've provided little of substance above, for me to duck.
That the hole in the skull was so relatively round and clean with no jagged edges, from an irregularly shaped object pressing against it at very low velocity and force, is a huge deal. Even if you pressed a bullet against a relatively 'softened' skull with the same velocity and force as a stick held in the hand, it would do very little other than move the skull. If you positioned the skull against a brick wall and were somehow able to push with enough force to penetrate the skull, at the very least, a hole with very jagged edges would be produced. It takes supersonic velocity and spiraling for a bullet to effect the roundness and cleanness of the type of hole that was created in Charlie's skull. And if Charlie's skull had given way in the manner it did under the extremely low force of 'Walsh's stick,' unlikely as that is, it would have had to have had the consistency of something like soft wax to effect such a clean hole. Regarding the size of the hole, that would also depend on how far back the muzzle of the gun would have been held in relation to the skull.
jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html
Regarding your assertion that any other investigator at the scene would have chimed in if Walsh had decided to perjure himself in Flemington or not believed he had made the hole, the stick theory might well have been the overall impression of fact gained at the scene. And Walsh could have believed he had produced a hole in Charlie's skull if his probing stick had 'found' a pre-existing bullet hole. It seems possible that Walsh could have been telling the truth as to what he truly believed happened, or he was convinced to support the stick theory in light of the prosecution's desire for the crime to have taken place within Hunterdon County. That's where I'm yet undecided.
While rickets can cause some degree of thinning and softening of bones of the skull in infants with vitamin D deficiency, this condition is generally accompanied by hypotonia, or decreased muscle tone, cued by visual indicators like bowed legs where overt softening of the bone and the child's own weight do not allow the legs to remain straight. There is no evidence to suggest Charlie was afflicted by hypotonia or severe rickets signs or symptoms. He was being treated with Viosterol for a moderate rickety condition, which would have been providing him with the necessary Vitamin D to support normal bone and muscle function, which by all accounts, he certainly seems to have enjoyed. I'm not aware of any unusual characteristics of the skull as noted by Dr. Mitchell during the autopsy, (including any observed thinness or softening) other than size and prominent features. That Charlie's skull plates separated due to incomplete fusion of the sutures joining the individual skull plates, is a condition which would be fully expected in a child of only 20 months, and especially one with rickets.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2023 14:16:20 GMT -5
So does this mean you now believe Hoffman would have accepted the truth or not - you seem to be ducking everything I wrote above. Next, is this really your rebuttal? How have I "disregarded" anything? You act as though, if I don't believe something, I should withhold any information that may harm it from my books. I think you know by now that I have always tried to put as much of the source information in my books no matter what it says. Not just what I like. If I think its important it goes in regardless of my own personal beliefs. Here, what you cite above, was everything I had on the subject and wrote about it in the book. But it doesn't end there does it? There is other important information to be applied elsewhere in the other chapters and volumes. Also, what I think is much more strongly voiced here on this board. So yes, think about what's there and consider what my position clearly is. How am I where I'm at? Considering this, and what I've written in response earlier, the answer is staring you in the face. If one believes the skull was of a healthy child, they reject the notion that a stick caused the hole. There it is right there.... Then what happened? Dr. Mitchell testified to a much different tune did he not? Well, he either believed it, or was testifying untruthfully. We know that Dr. Mitchell was leaned on by the Prosecution about what to say and what not to as evidenced by other information in my book. So apply YOUR "admitted liar" test here - PLEASE. Next we have Inspector Walsh's testimony. Again, if Walsh perjured himself, many others knew about it. Once Hoffman started his re-investigation, word would have gotten back to Hoffman and once Walsh became friendly toward their cause, he himself would have revealed what he knew. But there is absolutely nothing about this essential topic anywhere throughout the Hoffman files/correspondence. Why? Because he poked that hole with a stick to turn over the corpse. There is no other option. Let's consider the scenario operating from your perspective: Wilentz: "Lamb, we need to explain the bullet hole away because it will harm the burglary felony theory we plan to present. Would any of the boys be willing to say they did it, perhaps through accidental handling of the corpse somehow? Who was there that we can rely on?"
Lamb: "Leon, Zapolosky, Kubler, and ...."
Wilentz: "Wait, weren't there some of the men from Newark there too?"
Lamb: "Yes, and Jersey City."
Wilentz: "Terrific! Inspector Walsh, was he near the corpse at any time?"
Lamb: "He sure was, that's how we got the underclothing."
Wilentz: "Okay, I understand he's at odds with the State Police, hates Schwarzkopf, and personally believes Lindbergh was behind this whole thing - right?"
Lamb: "Yes, that's all true."
Wilentz: "Great, get him on the phone and see if he'll play ball by putting his career on the line to perjure himself on the stand for us."
Lamb: "Sure thing, I can't see any reason why he wouldn't do that." I'm not ducking anything Michael because you've provided little of substance above, for me to duck.
That the hole in the skull was so relatively round and clean with no jagged edges, from an irregularly shaped object pressing against it at very low velocity and force, is a huge deal. Even if you pressed a bullet against a relatively 'softened' skull with the same velocity and force as a stick held in the hand, it would do very little other than move the skull. If you positioned the skull against a brick wall and were somehow able to push with enough force to penetrate the skull, at the very least, a hole with very jagged edges would be produced. It takes supersonic velocity and spiraling for a bullet to effect the roundness and cleanness of the type of hole that was created in Charlie's skull. And if Charlie's skull had given way in the manner it did under the extremely low force of 'Walsh's stick,' unlikely as that is, it would have had to have had the consistency of something like soft wax to effect such a clean hole. Regarding the size of the hole, that would also depend on how far back the muzzle of the gun would have been held in relation to the skull.
jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html
Regarding your assertion that any other investigator at the scene would have chimed in if Walsh had decided to perjure himself in Flemington or not believed he had made the hole, the stick theory might well have been the overall impression of fact gained at the scene. And Walsh could have believed he had produced a hole in Charlie's skull if his probing stick had 'found' a pre-existing bullet hole. It seems possible that Walsh could have been telling the truth as to what he truly believed happened, or he was convinced to support the stick theory in light of the prosecution's desire for the crime to have taken place within Hunterdon County. That's where I'm yet undecided.
While rickets can cause some degree of thinning and softening of bones of the skull in infants with vitamin D deficiency, this condition is generally accompanied by hypotonia, or decreased muscle tone, cued by visual indicators like bowed legs where overt softening of the bone and the child's own weight do not allow the legs to remain straight. There is no evidence to suggest Charlie was afflicted by hypotonia or severe rickets signs or symptoms. He was being treated with Viosterol for a moderate rickety condition, which would have been providing him with the necessary Vitamin D to support normal bone and muscle function, which by all accounts, he certainly seems to have enjoyed. I'm not aware of any unusual characteristics of the skull as noted by Dr. Mitchell during the autopsy, (including any observed thinness or softening) other than size and prominent features. That Charlie's skull plates separated due to incomplete fusion of the sutures joining the individual skull plates, is a condition which would be fully expected in a child of only 20 months, and especially one with rickets.
Little substance? You've already provided your motive to resist what happened, so there's no escape from that now. The stick pierced a hole in the skull. That's problematic for YOU because it proves there was something medically wrong with the child's skull that would allow for this to have occurred. This, you believe, points to a CAL motive which is something you will not stand for under ANY circumstance. Therefore, you will go into your "black" is "white" speech or " who's on third" Abbott and Costello routine. There is no point in debating a beer and pretzel comedian. There were plenty of people that were on scene who could have been selected by the State to lie on the stand in this regard. They did not. It was the guy who would never have done that who did indeed testify to poking a hole in the skull. And again, if he had chosen to lie, it absolutely would have leaked or revealed to the Governor. And so, these things are all givens. Next, did you see the stick? Got a picture of it? Picture of the exact size and shape of the hole? Finally, offering the fact Walsh may have been mistaken, that he unknowingly thrust a stick into a preexisting hole is the only "legitimate" option you have offered. Not in good faith of course, but I'm not going to do what you are doing and deny there wasn't a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that may have occurred. People do hit the lottery and/or do get struck by lightning so I suppose its worthy of mention perhaps? Otherwise, there's the 99.99% option that the stick caused the hole because Walsh wasn't lying. He had no motive to do so. Absolutely none. In fact, he had every reason not to testify to this because it made him look sloppy.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2023 15:11:30 GMT -5
I'm not ducking anything Michael because you've provided little of substance above, for me to duck.
That the hole in the skull was so relatively round and clean with no jagged edges, from an irregularly shaped object pressing against it at very low velocity and force, is a huge deal. Even if you pressed a bullet against a relatively 'softened' skull with the same velocity and force as a stick held in the hand, it would do very little other than move the skull. If you positioned the skull against a brick wall and were somehow able to push with enough force to penetrate the skull, at the very least, a hole with very jagged edges would be produced. It takes supersonic velocity and spiraling for a bullet to effect the roundness and cleanness of the type of hole that was created in Charlie's skull. And if Charlie's skull had given way in the manner it did under the extremely low force of 'Walsh's stick,' unlikely as that is, it would have had to have had the consistency of something like soft wax to effect such a clean hole. Regarding the size of the hole, that would also depend on how far back the muzzle of the gun would have been held in relation to the skull.
jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html
Regarding your assertion that any other investigator at the scene would have chimed in if Walsh had decided to perjure himself in Flemington or not believed he had made the hole, the stick theory might well have been the overall impression of fact gained at the scene. And Walsh could have believed he had produced a hole in Charlie's skull if his probing stick had 'found' a pre-existing bullet hole. It seems possible that Walsh could have been telling the truth as to what he truly believed happened, or he was convinced to support the stick theory in light of the prosecution's desire for the crime to have taken place within Hunterdon County. That's where I'm yet undecided.
While rickets can cause some degree of thinning and softening of bones of the skull in infants with vitamin D deficiency, this condition is generally accompanied by hypotonia, or decreased muscle tone, cued by visual indicators like bowed legs where overt softening of the bone and the child's own weight do not allow the legs to remain straight. There is no evidence to suggest Charlie was afflicted by hypotonia or severe rickets signs or symptoms. He was being treated with Viosterol for a moderate rickety condition, which would have been providing him with the necessary Vitamin D to support normal bone and muscle function, which by all accounts, he certainly seems to have enjoyed. I'm not aware of any unusual characteristics of the skull as noted by Dr. Mitchell during the autopsy, (including any observed thinness or softening) other than size and prominent features. That Charlie's skull plates separated due to incomplete fusion of the sutures joining the individual skull plates, is a condition which would be fully expected in a child of only 20 months, and especially one with rickets.
Little substance? You've already provided your motive to resist what happened, so there's no escape from that now. The stick pierced a hole in the skull. That's problematic for YOU because it proves there was something medically wrong with the child's skull that would allow for this to have occurred. This, you believe, points to a CAL motive which is something you will not stand for under ANY circumstance. Therefore, you will go into your "black" is "white" speech or " who's on third" Abbott and Costello routine. There is no point in debating a beer and pretzel comedian. There were plenty of people that were on scene who could have been selected by the State to lie on the stand in this regard. They did not. It was the guy who would never have done that who did indeed testify to poking a hole in the skull. And again, if he had chosen to lie, it absolutely would have leaked or revealed to the Governor. And so, these things are all givens. Next, did you see the stick? Got a picture of it? Picture of the exact size and shape of the hole? Finally, offering the fact Walsh may have been mistaken, that he unknowingly thrust a stick into a preexisting hole is the only "legitimate" option you have offered. Not in good faith of course, but I'm not going to do what you are doing and deny there wasn't a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that may have occurred. People do hit the lottery and/or do get struck by lightning so I suppose its worthy of mention perhaps? Otherwise, there's the 99.99% option that the stick caused the hole because Walsh wasn't lying. He had no motive to do so. Absolutely none. In fact, he had every reason not to testify to this because it made him look sloppy. I suggest you stop trying to project your own reasonable self-doubt within the absurdity of Walsh's testimony and pretending I have some ulterior motive or agenda here. All I'm telling you is what the science is saying in this scenario. Feel free to continue with the fanciful explanations offered by your case action figure hero. I used to actually believe you were more concerned about bringing out the truth, no matter how it might ruffle feathers or turn over old wives tales. Some of your replies remind me of how the medical industry routinely tries to keep people from discovering true health, as that would be bad for business. I have a feeling that someday soon you'll realize you're so far out on that skinny limb of yours, all you have to do is step down and you'll be back on solid ground.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2023 21:58:54 GMT -5
I suggest you stop trying to project your own reasonable self-doubt within the absurdity of Walsh's testimony and pretending I have some ulterior motive or agenda here. All I'm telling you is what the science is saying in this scenario. Feel free to continue with the fanciful explanations offered by your case action figure hero. I used to actually believe you were more concerned about bringing out the truth, no matter how it might ruffle feathers or turn over old wives tales. Some of your replies remind me of how the medical industry routinely tries to keep people from discovering true health, as that would be bad for business. I have a feeling that someday soon you'll realize you're so far out on that skinny limb of yours, all you have to do is step down and you'll be back on solid ground. Again, Walsh had absolutely no reason to lie. Your original hypothesis was completely demolished by this fact coupled with the one that other Troopers who were there would have been the ones selected to do so if necessary. Alas, none of that was needed because Walsh had poked the hole so there was no reason to approach a hostile person about perjuring themselves or solicit others to lie because it did happen. You are right about one thing ... it is science. So what does science say about poking a hole in that skull with a stick? That it was not a healthy skull. Instead of wasting your time pretending it was healthy, which we know it wasn't, try looking up the conditions that allow for what actually occurred.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2023 7:37:31 GMT -5
I suggest you stop trying to project your own reasonable self-doubt within the absurdity of Walsh's testimony and pretending I have some ulterior motive or agenda here. All I'm telling you is what the science is saying in this scenario. Feel free to continue with the fanciful explanations offered by your case action figure hero. I used to actually believe you were more concerned about bringing out the truth, no matter how it might ruffle feathers or turn over old wives tales. Some of your replies remind me of how the medical industry routinely tries to keep people from discovering true health, as that would be bad for business. I have a feeling that someday soon you'll realize you're so far out on that skinny limb of yours, all you have to do is step down and you'll be back on solid ground. Again, Walsh had absolutely no reason to lie. Your original hypothesis was completely demolished by this fact coupled with the one that other Troopers who were there would have been the ones selected to do so if necessary. Alas, none of that was needed because Walsh had poked the hole so there was no reason to approach a hostile person about perjuring themselves or solicit others to lie because it did happen. You are right about one thing ... it is science. So what does science say about poking a hole in that skull with a stick? That it was not a healthy skull. Instead of wasting your time pretending it was healthy, which we know it wasn't, try looking up the conditions that allow for what actually occurred. As I gladly recognize your sudden interest in science, this is also what it says. That if a skull of hardness of approximately 5 on the Mohs Scale could be penetrated by a stick with a Mohs Scale hardness of 2-3, to effect a relatively clean 1/2" hole, it would only have occurred within your dreams. And if you feel Charlie's skull was so unhealthy as to allow a stick to penetrate it cleanly, then you also have to think about his very active physical existence just before he was killed. I don't remember hearing that he had to wear any kind of device to protect a skull that would have had to have been almost butter soft for that hole to have occurred. I also don't recall that he required constant medical attention for what obviously would have been a very serious, life altering health issue, if what you say is true. Was Betty Gow qualified to deal with this kind of medical ailment? I believe you need to untack yourself from this rigid position of yours long enough to let a little light in here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2023 8:53:11 GMT -5
As I gladly recognize your sudden interest in science, this is also what it says. That if a skull of hardness of approximately 5 on the Mohs Scale could be penetrated by a stick with a Mohs Scale hardness of 2-3, to effect a relatively clean 1/2" hole, it would only have occurred within your dreams. And if you feel Charlie's skull was so unhealthy as to allow a stick to penetrate it cleanly, then you also have to think about his very active physical existence just before he was killed. I don't remember hearing that he had to wear any kind of device to protect a skull that would have had to have been almost butter soft for that hole to have occurred. I also don't recall that he required constant medical attention for what obviously would have been a very serious, life altering health issue, if what you say is true. Was Betty Gow qualified to deal with this kind of medical ailment? I believe you need to untack yourself from this rigid position of yours long enough to let a little light in here. What you are doing is mixing science with fiction. There are certain things we know, and certain things we do not. We know, for example, that Inspector Walsh absolutely turned over the corpse. Fact. He claimed he used a stick. Fact. He claimed the stick pierced the skull creating a hole. Fact. We know a hole existed in the skull. Fact. We know the State would have never used him as the vehicle to commit perjury. Fact. We know other Troopers were there and could have disputed Walsh's assertion. Fact. We know if Walsh was lying, Gov. Hoffman would have ultimately heard about it. Fact. And so, having established that Walsh was not lying, how can science be used to assist? Certainly not by pretending to already know what the stick looked like, exactly how "relatively cleanly" the hole was (whatever the hell that means), or the condition of the child's skull. Doing what you've done above, I could just as easily enter a penknife into the equation and claim he sharpened the stick into a point. Of course we don't know that but what the hell, you are doing it wherever you want so why can't everyone else? Next thing you know, a hammer appears and Walsh is banging on the back end of the stick.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2023 9:05:09 GMT -5
As I gladly recognize your sudden interest in science, this is also what it says. That if a skull of hardness of approximately 5 on the Mohs Scale could be penetrated by a stick with a Mohs Scale hardness of 2-3, to effect a relatively clean 1/2" hole, it would only have occurred within your dreams. And if you feel Charlie's skull was so unhealthy as to allow a stick to penetrate it cleanly, then you also have to think about his very active physical existence just before he was killed. I don't remember hearing that he had to wear any kind of device to protect a skull that would have had to have been almost butter soft for that hole to have occurred. I also don't recall that he required constant medical attention for what obviously would have been a very serious, life altering health issue, if what you say is true. Was Betty Gow qualified to deal with this kind of medical ailment? I believe you need to untack yourself from this rigid position of yours long enough to let a little light in here. What you are doing is mixing science with fiction. There are certain things we know, and certain things we do not. We know, for example, that Inspector Walsh absolutely turned over the corpse. Fact. He claimed he used a stick. Fact. He claimed the stick pierced the skull creating a hole. Fact. We know a hole existed in the skull. Fact. We know the State would have never used him as the vehicle to commit perjury. Fact. We know other Troopers were there and could have disputed Walsh's assertion. Fact. We know if Walsh was lying, Gov. Hoffman would have ultimately heard about it. Fact. And so, having established that Walsh was not lying, how can science be used to assist? Certainly not by pretending to already know what the stick looked like, exactly how "relatively cleanly" the hole was (whatever the hell that means), or the condition of the child's skull. Doing what you've done above, I could just as easily enter a penknife into the equation and claim he sharpened the stick into a point. Of course we don't know that but what the hell, you are doing it wherever you want so why can't everyone else? Next thing you know, a hammer appears and Walsh is banging on the back end of the stick. I'm not even going to pretend to believe yours is a rational and well thought out response.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2023 9:07:43 GMT -5
I'm not even going to pretend to believe yours is a rational and well thought out response. Its your only recourse.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 17, 2023 18:41:07 GMT -5
I would like to ask a question in regards to the interesting discussion on Walsh and the "stick incident". Did Walsh immediately document this incident in his written report on May 12,1932? It appears that neither Swayze nor Mitchell were aware of this stick incident while performing the autopsy as they were considering that a bullet may have created this hole. I believe that during the autopsy, they were searching the brain matter for a small caliber slug (I assume they were considering that a small caliber slug could have traveled through the skull to the opposite side and created the multiple fractures from the inside).
Upon seeing the autopsy report, did Walsh immediately put an end to this firearm theory by saying "no, that small hole was inadvertently made by me as I tried to raise the corpse"? It would certainly give much more credibility to Walsh's trial testimony in 1935 if he had been saying this right from day one on May12, 1932.
In his book "Hauptmann's Ladder" Cahill stated that Zapolsky first "turned the corpse over" to examine the remainder of the face. Cahill stated that when Walsh returned to the Mt Rose site with Schwartzkopf in tow, Schwartzkopf told Walsh to "remove the clothing from the body". Cahill stated that Walsh used a stick to carefully lift the body but unfortunately the stick "slipped" and penetrated the soft and decaying skull leaving a small pencil-sized hole. Cahill's footnotes for all of this is "written reports of Walsh and Schwartzkopf, dated May 12, 1932.
|
|