|
Post by A Guest on Sept 17, 2023 20:24:16 GMT -5
I have two police reports dated May 12, 1932 and signed by Walsh and Keaton. I can share them here. I am not aware if there is any report done by Col. Schwarzkopf on the finding of the body of Charles, Jr. If there is, perhaps Michael may have it. To my knowledge, I have not seen a May 1932 report that mentions Walsh revealing he poked a hole into the skull of Charles, Jr., unfortunately. I am only aware of this incident coming to light for the trial of Hauptmann. imgur.com/1Fcfcglimgur.com/mYZVnCA
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2023 21:46:02 GMT -5
I have two police reports dated May 12, 1932 and signed by Walsh and Keaton. I can share them here. I am not aware if there is any report done by Col. Schwarzkopf on the finding of the body of Charles, Jr. If there is, perhaps Michael may have it. To my knowledge, I have not seen a May 1932 report that mentions Walsh revealing he poked a hole into the skull of Charles, Jr., unfortunately. I am only aware of this incident coming to light for the trial of Hauptmann. imgur.com/1Fcfcglimgur.com/mYZVnCAThere's another one but its even more general than these others. The mention of a stick being used came out in the newspapers prior to the trial. Dr. Mitchell clearly was unaware leading up to his testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2023 22:09:21 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. 2 of the 3 reports authored by Walsh on May 12 were posted by Guest. Obviously they are lacking in the details we'd hope to see. Unfortunately, this was common. As an example, Fitzgerald's report is incredibly weak in the specifics department as well and these reports almost seem intended to be this way. He doesn't even mention moving the corpse and if it wasn't for his pre-trial statement, we wouldn't have known that both he and Zapolsky did move it using one or more sticks as well. There is no such pre-trial statement from Walsh, at least none that I've ever found. Also, once Kubler arrived, he took photos of the child in various positions that would have required him (or somebody else at the scene) to have been moved or "flipped" the corpse over as well. We only know this because we have the photos that show the body face up and face down among other poses. There isn't a report that explains how this was done either. So these facts, in my opinion, eliminate the idea that if it's not in the report then it did not happen. As far as Cahill's sources, I do not know what he is referring to. None of those things are at the NJSP archives, unless I missed them, but there's probably a 1 in a million chance of that having occurred. He did research up in NY too. I've always believed I had everything from up there but maybe there's a report or two that he found that I don't know about.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 18, 2023 8:36:46 GMT -5
Thank you Michael and Guest for the information and the reports. I know that many of the police reports generated during the course of the LKC are lacking in details and specificity, but it does appear very strange that Walsh would not immediately negate any theory that a firearm had made the hole in the child's skull. By 1932 I believe that Walsh had been an Officer/Detective/Inspector with the Jersey City Police Department for 20 years. He certainly knew that the manner in which a homicide occurred was extremely important in any homicide investigation. Hopefully there is some documented evidence in one of the numerous LKC files that Walsh did reveal his "stick incident" during the course of the investigation in 1932, long before the trial of Hauptmann. If not, I would be very suspicious of his trial testimony pertaining to the hole in the corpse's skull.
As we all know, law enforcement was a different game prior to the 1970's---very rough and tumble if you will. When I first entered law enforcement in 1973 I worked with some old timers who still tried to operate like this. When it came to convicting a defendant in court that they knew was guilty of the crime, they would never let a little "trial testimony" get in the way of that conviction. It had been an excepted practice.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2023 9:35:36 GMT -5
Thank you Michael and Guest for the information and the reports. I know that many of the police reports generated during the course of the LKC are lacking in details and specificity, but it does appear very strange that Walsh would not immediately negate any theory that a firearm had made the hole in the child's skull. By 1932 I believe that Walsh had been an Officer/Detective/Inspector with the Jersey City Police Department for 20 years. He certainly knew that the manner in which a homicide occurred was extremely important in any homicide investigation. Hopefully there is some documented evidence in one of the numerous LKC files that Walsh did reveal his "stick incident" during the course of the investigation in 1932, long before the trial of Hauptmann. If not, I would be very suspicious of his trial testimony pertaining to the hole in the corpse's skull. As we all know, law enforcement was a different game prior to the 1970's---very rough and tumble if you will. When I first entered law enforcement in 1973 I worked with some old timers who still tried to operate like this. When it came to convicting a defendant in court that they knew was guilty of the crime, they would never let a little "trial testimony" get in the way of that conviction. It had been an excepted practice. Who was he going to tell? Both Keaten and Schwarzkopf were with him when it happened. This is why Schoeffel quickly refuted the claims made by Dr. Mitchell in the newspapers prior to the trial. He attributed the hole to Lt. Keaten which makes sense for any number of reasons. One would be that he misremembered "who" made the hole, or possibly, as you suggest, there was something afoot to have Keaten testify to this instead of Walsh. Since the NJSP smeared Walsh's reputation and the fact he hated Schwarzkopf, its easy to see a reluctance to put him on the stand to testify about something so important to the State's theory. You see, the fact about the old time cops goes both ways, and its exactly why Walsh was friendly to Hoffman and assisted the Defense prior to the execution. In short, he had no reason to make this up, and certainly no motive to assist the very people who maligned him by perjuring himself. And in light of all the negative talk about him ever since his newspaper articles were written, he had every reason to break it off in their ass. And again, if it wasn't for Walsh, Hoffman may not have ever known about the burlap bag. It was Walsh who told him of the discovery. With this in mind, there can be no doubt he'd know about the hole too. He knew about the phone number in Hauptmann's closet, but protected the Reporter by not naming him in his Liberty article. He would have done something similar here too. This is important considering he had a copy of Hick's ballistics report given to David Wilentz back when he worked for Prosecutor Hauck. You see, if there was something to this, Hoffman would have pursued it. Hell, he pursued everything else. Anyway, I agree that everything should be scrutinized - and I mean everything. However, we cannot assist a particular theory like Joe did by making up evidence out of whole cloth. Claiming the child's skull was a "5" on the Mohs scale as an example, when there was no test conducted to draw such a conclusion. However, if we merely looked up the human skull, we'd see that a "normal" adult skull usually is a "5." Why did he stop there? Because it gives him what he wants. However, we have every reason to believe its current state would not rate that high. This could be due to disease or disorder of some kind and there are even other possible reasons/explanations for its skull to be weak and/or brittle.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Sept 18, 2023 12:11:02 GMT -5
Thank you Michael and Guest for the information and the reports. I know that many of the police reports generated during the course of the LKC are lacking in details and specificity, but it does appear very strange that Walsh would not immediately negate any theory that a firearm had made the hole in the child's skull. By 1932 I believe that Walsh had been an Officer/Detective/Inspector with the Jersey City Police Department for 20 years. He certainly knew that the manner in which a homicide occurred was extremely important in any homicide investigation. Hopefully there is some documented evidence in one of the numerous LKC files that Walsh did reveal his "stick incident" during the course of the investigation in 1932, long before the trial of Hauptmann. If not, I would be very suspicious of his trial testimony pertaining to the hole in the corpse's skull. As we all know, law enforcement was a different game prior to the 1970's---very rough and tumble if you will. When I first entered law enforcement in 1973 I worked with some old timers who still tried to operate like this. When it came to convicting a defendant in court that they knew was guilty of the crime, they would never let a little "trial testimony" get in the way of that conviction. It had been an excepted practice. Hi Lurp, it's great to see your valuable input here. I've been having a very similar discussion offline, regarding 'Who told who what, and when.' I'll chime in later with additional thoughts but for now, wanted to convey this information. Here is what Harry Walsh said at the trial in response to Lloyd Fisher's questions about Walsh's testimony that he created the hole in the child's head with a stick. Cross Examination by Mr. Fisher:
Q. Now did you report this matter of making a hole in the baby’s head with a stick to the County Physician, Dr. Mitchell, who made the examination of the baby’s body?
A. I didn’t have any occasion to make a report to the County Physician.
Mr. Wilentz: Just answer the question, please.
A. No sir, I didn’t.
Q. Did you report it to Mr. Swayze, the Coroner?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you make mention to anybody of the fact that you had made a hole in the child’s head with a stick?
A. I reported it immediately to Colonel Schwarzkopf.
Q. The same day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The very same day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did the hole you made go right through the bone structure, or – yes, the bone structure of the baby’s head?
A. It slightly penetrated the skull; I don’t know that it went through.
Q. To penetrate the skull, it would have to go through some bone structure, would it not?
A. It may have just been the flesh; I don’t know.
My current questions: 1. If Walsh had in fact, told Colonel Schwarzkopf immediately that he was responsible for making the hole, then why would he not have considered this information to have been important enough at the time to tell Dr. Mitchell and Walter Swayze, who would be conducting such a critical autopsy one of the most famous children in the world? 2. Why does Walsh appear to be 'softening' his position about the hole in the skull towards the end of the exchange, by essentially intimating that he may have simply poked the stick through flesh, and not bone structure? And if he wasn't sure about the exact damage he had done, why would he have thought to tell Schwarzkopf about having made a hole in the skull, right away? Something smells really bad here and it's not just the corpse..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2023 13:08:27 GMT -5
1. If Walsh had in fact, told Colonel Schwarzkopf immediately that he was responsible for making the hole, then why would he not have considered this information to have been important enough at the time to tell Dr. Mitchell and Walter Swayze, who would be conducting such a critical autopsy one of the most famous children in the world? Again, Schwarzkopf was standing next to him when it happened. So of course he immediately told him. Next, Schwarzkopf was in charge (actually Lindbergh was) and was known as the guy who was "bungling" the case. There's plenty of questions we can ask ourselves about why he did or didn't do certain things. Letting Dr. Mitchell (the man who allowed Reporters into the Morgue to take pictures and lie about it) know about Walsh's gaffe may not have been high on his list. He got a copy of the report/autopsy and could account for the hole mentioned because he knew where it came from. Or it could have been as simple as Schwarzkopf believing someone else advised him. Seems pretty simple if you ask me. For everyone else who has an interest in the truth, there was an enormous amount going on at the time. For example, police went out on investigations, concluded them, and then months later another set of cops would go out and investigate without ever knowing the matter had already been closed out. Also the opposite occurred as well, where it was assumed someone looked into something only to find out it was never investigated. 2. Why does Walsh appear to be 'softening' his position about the hole in the skull towards the end of the exchange, by essentially intimating that he may have simply poked the stick through flesh, and not bone structure? And if he wasn't sure about the exact damage he had done, why would he have thought to tell Schwarzkopf about having made a hole in the skull, right away? Have you ever testified in court before? This isn't "softening" it's called answering a specific question as truthfully as possible. You just smashed your previous assertion that Walsh was lying because that answer disproves it. Next, have you seen a picture of that corpse? There was no flesh left to poke a hole into. Why must we abandon our common sense in order to come to the conclusion you prefer?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 18, 2023 16:25:11 GMT -5
I have to take issue with Joe’s assertion that a wooden stick could not create a hole in bony skull registering a high hardness value on the Moh hardness scale. The Moh test measures exactly what it says on the can - hardness. In other words resistance to scratching under test conditions. It does not measure resistance to fracture or brittle failure under an applied force.
Hardness does not always correspond to strength. Many hard materials are also brittle, and therefore prone to breaking. Bone is harder on the Mohs scale than iron or brass, but if you had a natural human skull, plus scale skull models made of iron and brass, the natural skull would be much easier to break than the iron one or the brass one (that’s why metal helmets work). Although those metals are softer than skulls, they are tougher.
I also question where the figure of half an inch given as the approximate thickness of Charlie’s skull came from. One key determinant of whether a material will exhibit brittle failure under applied force or impact is it’s thickness. The description of his skull at the so-called autopsy as “coming apart like orange peel” does not suggest a rigid tough fully-formed bone structure half an inch thick..
If Charlie had an unusually thin skull for his age, surely this would have been recorded. Wouldn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 18, 2023 16:57:41 GMT -5
P.S. A good friend of mine at school went on to college (much to everyone's surprise) and got involved in some horse-play. He fell on the ground, hitting his head on the floor but he got up and continues fooling around. He died the following day. The post-mortem revealed what nobody had suspected: he had an unusually thin skull which had fractured driving bone into the brain. At school he had played the tough physical game of rugby union without problems.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2023 7:49:30 GMT -5
P.S. A good friend of mine at school went on to college (much to everyone's surprise) and got involved in some horse-play. He fell on the ground, hitting his head on the floor but he got up and continues fooling around. He died the following day. The post-mortem revealed what nobody had suspected: he had an unusually thin skull which had fractured driving bone into the brain. At school he had played the tough physical game of rugby union without problems. Sorry to hear about your friend Sherlock. That's a terrible story and demonstrates how freak things do happen. I remember one about an Inmate who was once shot in the head. The bullet penetrated the skin but did not puncture the skull. Instead, the bullet traveled under the skin around the skull and exited the skin on the other side. This might have something to do certain variables like the trajectory, distance, and/or caliber of the bullet, I don't know, but I'm quite sure his skull was unusually strong at the place of the bullets impact. The key word in both examples being " unusually." This, it is clear to me, is what Joe is attempting to sidestep in this case. Despite Joe's insinuation that I'm an idiot or something, as if I never researched this subject, I looked into this way back to almost the beginning. I remember Rab bringing up the bullet theory and our conversations about it lasting for hours. I was originally having a hard time with this and wanted to know everything I could find out in order to get to the truth. That's how I am and how I will always be. Like with Rail 16, my research ultimately led to the truth. Now to Joe's defense (something he'd never afford to me), a random stick at the scene should not have been able to penetrate the skull of a healthy 20 month old child. Even if it was oak, it shouldn't have occurred. But when it comes to the Mohs Scale, a "5" is what a healthy adult should be. Juvenile skulls usually aren't as hard, just as older adults can possibly even be harder. But as the body ages, bones can become brittle, which is why we hear about people in nursing homes merely tripping but wind up "breaking a hip." Additionally, the skull itself is more vulnerable where it is "thinner" like on the sides in places ... even if its a "5." Here we have a 20 month old with some sort of bone disease that was diagnosed, at the time, as "rickets." According to what I've researched, a random stick still should have been unlikely to penetrate it. And yet it DID. Unless Walsh's stick defied the odds and found a pre-existing hole that he was unaware of, there is no other explanation. So the question that any reasonable person should ask is what condition might exist to explain how this would occur? Anyway, I'm not a doctor and would never claim to be, but there are medical conditions (as well as non-medical situations) that would allow for this. It's important for me to say I'm not telling anyone what to believe actually occurred. Fact is, it was my original skepticism that brought me here and its important for everyone else to travel that road themselves until they are comfortable enough to draw a conclusion. And if not, not to draw one. Or if they disagree with me then so be it. If so, the next step is to explain the hole.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 19, 2023 12:41:07 GMT -5
Thanks Joe. I had not previously seen Walsh's testimony under cross examination by Fisher. Walsh certainly testified under Fisher's cross that he utilized a stick that made a hole in the corpse's skull, but I woud agree that at least under this cross examination his testimony was definitely not strong with the details. I was surprised that Walsh stated the stick "slightly penetrated the skull" (when the autopsy called it a perforated fracture), and that Walsh said he didn't even know "that it went through". His reference to "it may have just been flesh" is completely out in left field to me. I don't even know what he is referring to. When you read Mitchell's autopsy statement on this hole "perforated fracture about a half inch in diameter on the right side of the skull posterior to the right ear", it doesn't even sound like the same hole. It is also interesting that by the time of Mitchell's trial testimony in 1935, Mitchell now describes this hole as being "an inch and a half in diameter", and he further states that "if a bullet went into that hole it would never be found somewhere in the head, for a bullet that size of that hole would just blast the otherside of the head right out". (I believe it has been reported that indeed during the autopsy both Swaze and Mitchell were going through the brain matter in seach of a firearm slug). To me, this testimony by Mitchell has the earmarks of a little bit of trial prep by Wilentz to ensure the jury wasn't considering that a firearm may have been used in this homicide. It is another amazing LKC fact that no autopsy photos were taken--just amazing. Walsh definitely testifys that he informed Schwarzkopf on May 12th of this stick incident. It would certainly be nice to to know if Schwarzkopf ever confirmed this in any report or testimony. As I previously mentioned, author Cahill's footnotes on page 356 in his book refers to "written reports by Walsh and Schwarzfopf, dated May 12, 1932". However at the present time, no one has apparently seen these reports. I haven't yet seen any reference to a stick making that hole until the time of the trial. There is no doubt that Wilentz needed to negate any reference to the use of a firearm in this murder due to the important issues of venue and felony murder. Due to what we know of Wilentz's actions pertaining to evidence of additional suspects, one has to be at least a little suspicious on this issue. If the attached diagram has any accuracy as to what Mitchell was describing in the autopsy report, I can certainly see that IF a stick did not make this hole then a small caliber firearm (let's just guess the world's smallest pistol, a .167 caliber Liliput) that was fired up close by the right ear could have made it. That small of a caliber slug would have sufficient energy to break through the skull of a 20 month old child, traverse to the opposite side and create skull fractures and a blood clot without having sufficient energy to exit the skull. That small of a slug could have easily been lost and never found considering the state of decomposition of the corpse, and all the moving around of the body at the crime scene that occurred which Michael has just noted in his post. As usual in the LKC each individual has to look at the available existing evidence on this issue and make their own judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2023 16:32:46 GMT -5
As usual in the LKC each individual has to look at the available existing evidence on this issue and make their own judgement. Just a little bit of information to assist you here.... The first time the stick was mentioned as the culprit (that I could find) came once a reporter heard about the nails in Hauptmann's garage and asked Schoeffel if there was blood on any of them. His response included that the hole in the child's head was caused by a stick used to turn it over. As I sit here, I'm not 100% sure of the date but it was definitely prior to the trial. The exact date is important because it could take away the motive from anyone who thinks it was made up to support the State's theory since that hadn't been formulated until a specific date itself. Next, you are correct about Dr. Mitchell changing the size of the hole, and I'm glad you pointed this out. Two sources (May 12 and May 13 autopsy reports) claimed it was only about a half inch in diameter. The 13th claiming it was " somewhat rounded" while the 12 only says it was perforated. The other thing is they did shift through the contents of the head after they poured it out and found nothing. However, the NJSP dug out the entire area where the corpse was discovered down about 14" all the way around and sent everything to Squibb for examination. They found a toenail as well as all kinds of other things within it. I think if a slug fell out of the head because of the movement it should have been in this material. Dr. Mitchell suggested it could have been lost during transport, however, the transport consisted of Swayze placing the corpse in a "grippe" and removing it at the morgue. If it fell out I'd think it was in that bag which I am sure they checked.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2023 21:32:20 GMT -5
Okay so I'm not sure why but I researched this. The article citing Schoeffel comes from the International News Service and was published on 9/27/34. It credits Schoeffel concerning the stick having caused the hole and then there's an interview with Dr. Mitchell who is quoted. Exactly when Schoeffel made his comments, and when the Dr. Mitchell interview took place I do not know but they could not have been done past 9/27 and probably done earlier. Here is a link to the paper .... the article is on page 2, right side, toward the bottom of the page entitled: " Shot May Have Killed Baby Doctor Believes." books.google.com/books?id=yuc0AAAAIBAJ&lpg=PA2&dq=stick&pg=PA2&output=embedNext, the State's theory of the case... Harold Fisher was brought into the fold on 9/24/34. There were meetings with the Prosecutors on 9/24, 9/25, and 9/26. There was no agreement about how to proceed. On 9/27, Fisher wrote a letter to Wilentz outlining his reasoning for a murder in perpetration of a burglary. He did this, according to the letter, to " clear any doubt" about his position. What this proves is that Schoeffel could not possibly be lying to Reporters in order to bolster the State's theory because it wasn't even their theory - yet. The Fisher letter was designed to convince Wilentz that his theory was legally sound, and mailed it from Newark on 9/27 addressed to the State House in Trenton. The next meeting that involved Fisher wasn't until 10/4 and there were further meetings on 10/5, 10/6, and 10/7. The 8th was the Flemington Grand Jury. So what this tells us, well me anyway, is that the NJSP believed a stick created that hole in the skull.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2023 13:47:02 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your research on this issue; especially since I know that after 23 years of extensive research on the LKC this is a settled issue for you. I would like to just offer a few comments, as I've always felt that it never hurts to examine various perspectives on all investigative case issues. I will attempt to not be too long winded here, but no guarantees!!
The writer of this news article refers to "yesterday" and "today". It appears to me that his reference to "yesterday" is September 20th the day of the search of Hauptmann's garage, and his reference to "today" is September 21st when Mitchell (and I assume Major Schoeffel) both gave public comments as to what was discovered in the garage search. Therefore, the first documented mention of the stick incident by the NJSP was one day after the Hauptmann's garage search that yielded Hauptmann's Liliput pistol that had been secreted with ransom money. This would place Major Schoeffel's stick comments four days prior to the first prosecutorial conference on September 24th, 1934 where Essex county legal law expert Harold Fisher was brought in to discuss the legal strategy to be used against Hauptmann in New Jersey. Extremely close timing (and certainly after Hauptmanns arrest and the recovery of the Liliput pistol), but Schoeffel's stick comment was definitely before using the felony murder charge in the Flemington indictment.
I find Mitchell's alleged comments in this news article very interesting and informing. To me, this article makes it appear that this may be the first time that Mitchell has heard the NJSP's stick theory pertaining to the hole in the skull. Mitchell appears to be acting very forcefully when he "flatly rejects" this stick theory presented by Schoeffel. Why is Mitchell so adamant in rejecting the idea that a stick made this hole? Mitchell and Swayze were the only two individuals who closely examined this hole, and they clearly referred to it in the May 12th, 1932 autopsy report as a "perferated FRACTURE". They were also the only individuals who actually held pieces of the corpse's skull in their hands. There has been a great deal of speculation as to the condition of the child's skull at the time of death. However, who would know better of this condition than those who actually held and examined the skull pieces at the time of the autopsy? Is it feasible that Mitchell was so adamant in dismissing the NJSP stick theory on September 21st because he knew that no stick could have possibly penetrated that skull, and that the hole in question had all the earmarks of a high impact bullet slug penetration and not a stick puncture? Without doubt, Mitchell had some strong reasons to "flatly reject" Schoeffel's public comments on the origins of that hole.
In this article, Mitchell is certainly giving credence to the idea that Hauptmann's Liliput small caliber pistol could have made this entry hole into the skull, and subsequently produced the fatal skull fractures on the opposite side. It's interesting that he includes the autopsy fact that there was no external depression nor "curving in" of the skull plate at the point of the fractures. One would think that a severe enough external blow to the head of a 20 month old child that produced these skull fractures would show evidence of such a fatal blow (especially if the child's skull was below normal standards as frequently alleged).
When I add all of the above to Walsh's dismal cross examination at the Flemington trial in January of 1935, I still have doubts as to this stick incident. Fisher was a very good defense attorney and he definitely applied pressure on Walsh during his cross examination (a good defense attorney like Fisher earns his living by effectively cross examining government witnesses). However why did a 20 year law enforcement officer like Walsh start to back off and succumb to this pressure by saying such things as "it slightly penetrated the skull, I dont know that it went through", and "it may have just been flesh, I don't know"? My goodness, if he doesn't know who the heck does know. The hole that he is attempting to describe certainly doesn't sound like the autopsy's description of "perferated fracture of the skull" hole. Additionally (and just as important to me) is why did Mitchell, just 4 months after his September public statements to the press, testify at the Hauptmann trial that this mysterious skull hole was THREE times the size that he had stated in his autopsy reports of May 12 and 13, 1932, and then further elaborate in his testimony that "any bullet that made that size of a hole would have blasted the otherside of the head right out". By increasing the size of this hole Mitchell certainly eliminated any idea that Hauptmann's small caliber Liliput pistol made it. Very convenient!
For me, at the current time, there are just too many suspicious things occurring here to eliminate Hauptmann's Liliput pistol as the means of murder in the LKC. Which of course questions the NJSP's stick theory.
My apologies--I was long winded....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2023 9:10:19 GMT -5
For me, at the current time, there are just too many suspicious things occurring here to eliminate Hauptmann's Liliput pistol as the means of murder in the LKC. Which of course questions the NJSP's stick theory. Great post as always Lurp. I think anyone interested should take it one step at a time to try to work thru this. For example, from the interview and the May 13 autopsy, it is clear Dr. Mitchell suspected a bullet caused the hole. In the article, he rejects the stick assertion and offers the bullet explanation again. But he also entertains other possibilities such as a " board with a nail in it." That's important to me because the main difference between a stick and a nail is strength. We also have to remember that Dr. Mitchell was a country physician and not a pathologist and took heavy criticism from Dr. Gettler. And so, having established there was no reason to invent the stick scenario prior to it coming out, we absolutely must speculate about "why" Dr. Mitchell changed his mind on the stand. The first thing is that Wilentz, while previously in an advisory role, did not take over the case until October 5. Next, he first sat down with Dr. Mitchell to review his testimony on December 19 or 20. Did Wilentz influence him? Well, there's no doubt in my mind he told him what he wanted him to say. However, once Dr. Mitchell's story hit the press, could someone from the NJSP have gone to talk to him? Absolutely. That article was exactly the type to draw a visit. And if that visit was from Schwarzkopf, or more likely Keaten, how likely would it have been he told him he was there and witnessed it happen? Very likely if not positively in my opinion. So, in the end, did he change his mind because of hearing the eyewitness account, pressure from the AG, or both? I tend to believe it was a combination of the two. Next we have to evaluate the possibility of a gun being used. It would have had to be a very small calibur, and no one knew about Hauptmann's Lilliput on May 13. My first question is why Hauptmann, or anyone else, would have shot the toddler? It doesn't make sense to me to choose this method. First and foremost if Hauptmann was the type to murder a child he would not have wasted a bullet. Smothering yes, shooting no. But if a gun was used, the bullet could not have exited the skull after it was fired. So where was it? It wasn't in the corpse's head, it wasn't at the scene, it wasn't in the morgue, and I think its safe to assume it wasn't in the bag used to transport the corpse. Next, Schoeffel's declaration to the press proves the NJSP believed a stick had created the hole. And finally, Walsh's testimony proves he believed he had created it or he wouldn't have been on the stand.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2023 10:07:55 GMT -5
1. If Walsh had in fact, told Colonel Schwarzkopf immediately that he was responsible for making the hole, then why would he not have considered this information to have been important enough at the time to tell Dr. Mitchell and Walter Swayze, who would be conducting such a critical autopsy one of the most famous children in the world? Again, Schwarzkopf was standing next to him when it happened. So of course he immediately told him. Next, Schwarzkopf was in charge (actually Lindbergh was) and was known as the guy who was "bungling" the case. There's plenty of questions we can ask ourselves about why he did or didn't do certain things. Letting Dr. Mitchell (the man who allowed Reporters into the Morgue to take pictures and lie about it) know about Walsh's gaffe may not have been high on his list. He got a copy of the report/autopsy and could account for the hole mentioned because he knew where it came from. Or it could have been as simple as Schwarzkopf believing someone else advised him. Seems pretty simple if you ask me. For everyone else who has an interest in the truth, there was an enormous amount going on at the time. For example, police went out on investigations, concluded them, and then months later another set of cops would go out and investigate without ever knowing the matter had already been closed out. Also the opposite occurred as well, where it was assumed someone looked into something only to find out it was never investigated. I believe you're making a very sizeable assumption here that Walsh, at the very least, believed he might made a hole in the skull, by simply using his physical proximity to Colonel Schwarzkopf at the gravesite, as proof of your argument. And I have to ask why is that Walsh under oath in Flemington, appeared to be far less convinced of this event actually having taken place, than you are. Further, If Walsh and Schwarzkopf had truly been aware of the fact that critical evidence could have been potentially impacted for such a landmark autopsy, and being unaware of how the prosecution was to construct its case against Hauptman two-and-a-half years later, they would have had an absolute obligation to inform the coroner and prosecution at the time of the event, and of course, no reason to hold back, even if it applied to less than careful handling of a fragile specimen. They didn't, and so allowed the firearm theory to continue as the most likely cause of death, until very shortly before the trial.
2. Why does Walsh appear to be 'softening' his position about the hole in the skull towards the end of the exchange, by essentially intimating that he may have simply poked the stick through flesh, and not bone structure? And if he wasn't sure about the exact damage he had done, why would he have thought to tell Schwarzkopf about having made a hole in the skull, right away? Have you ever testified in court before? This isn't "softening" it's called answering a specific question as truthfully as possible. You just smashed your previous assertion that Walsh was lying because that answer disproves it. Next, have you seen a picture of that corpse? There was no flesh left to poke a hole into. Why must we abandon our common sense in order to come to the conclusion you prefer? If you consider my previous assertion to be smashed, I'll just add that to the list of my arguments that have been demolished, crushed, decimated, annihilated, vaporized, or whatever.. I'm curious to see what superlative your next post will include! In assessing Walsh's softening of his stance towards the end of this section of the cross-examination by Lloyd Fisher, I'd include the possibility that Fisher, having effectively pushed Walsh into a corner, the latter responded in a decidedly defensive and cagey manner to allow him to not have to give away any state secrets he might have harboured. Perhaps Walsh believed the next question would have been to the effect it would have been impossible for a stick to penetrate solid bone matter from the skull of a well developed child in the way the hole was reported to have occurred. By suggesting he may have poked a hole not through the skull, but through what was left of the corpse's flesh, Walsh appears to be interested in saving face by making himself appear to be interested in telling the truth. But there's far too much going on within this exchange, not to mention the physical properties side of things to accept the overall testimony as accurate and truthful.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2023 10:44:47 GMT -5
I have to take issue with Joe’s assertion that a wooden stick could not create a hole in bony skull registering a high hardness value on the Moh hardness scale. The Moh test measures exactly what it says on the can - hardness. In other words resistance to scratching under test conditions. It does not measure resistance to fracture or brittle failure under an applied force. Hardness does not always correspond to strength. Many hard materials are also brittle, and therefore prone to breaking. Bone is harder on the Mohs scale than iron or brass, but if you had a natural human skull, plus scale skull models made of iron and brass, the natural skull would be much easier to break than the iron one or the brass one (that’s why metal helmets work). Although those metals are softer than skulls, they are tougher. I also question where the figure of half an inch given as the approximate thickness of Charlie’s skull came from. One key determinant of whether a material will exhibit brittle failure under applied force or impact is it’s thickness. The description of his skull at the so-called autopsy as “coming apart like orange peel” does not suggest a rigid tough fully-formed bone structure half an inch thick.. If Charlie had an unusually thin skull for his age, surely this would have been recorded. Wouldn’t it? Sherlock, that Charlie's skull basically fell apart into its individual skull plates during the autopsy, is not directly related to skull thickness where the perforated fracture occurred, ie. 'the right side of the skull posterior to the right ear.' Charlie's skull basically fell apart due to its sutures not having fused sufficiently enough for it to be held intact and notably with loss of the overlying scalp from a lengthy period of decay, and what remained and was removed by Dr. Mitchell (Walter Swayze performing). Skull sutures in a normal child do not generally fuse until the 24 month mark, and this period could possibly be extended if the child suffered from rickets.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2023 12:11:05 GMT -5
Here's an article that reports nominal skull thicknesses in young children. It may be subject to copyright, but I trust its use here will not be construed as infringement. www.researchgate.net/figure/Skull-thickness-distribution-by-age-The-models-shown-here-were-generated-by-morphing-a_fig3_277084300The numbers associated with those areas along the side of the skull in the area we are currently discussing, are much lower than I had previously thought. Interesting as well, that an oblong shaped area of between only 1.5 and 2.0 mm thickness, (about 1/16 of an inch) for a 18 month old child, exists in the area posterior to the location of the ear, ie. the general area in which the perforated fracture was found. That Charlie suffered from a moderate rickety condition at the age of 20 months, might reasonably account for any delay in thickening of this specific area, potentially making his skull more like that of an average 18 month old, as opposed to a 24 month old child. If Walsh did in fact press against this specific area with a sturdy stick and enough force, then I do find it possible for him to have made the type of hole reported by Dr. Mitchell and Robert Hicks. If so, I don't believe this out of necessity to be an abnormal occurrence or suggestive that the child suffered from any debilitating or even non-debilitating bone disease. And I still can't fully understand that if Walsh had in fact, believed he had perforated the skull as he claimed in his guarded sounding Flemington testimony, why he would have thought to mention it only to Schwarzkopf at the time, thereby potentially undermining and compromising the official autopsy of Charles Lindbergh Jr. Michael, would it be possible to post the May 13, 1932 Mitchell autopsy report you previously referred to?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2023 12:47:25 GMT -5
There were two Reports: May 12 was the report of the “Unknown Baby.” May 14 was completed based on Lindbergh’s May 13 identification. It can be found documented in both V1 and the FBI Summary: ibb.co/yqwLmRkibb.co/k8XfpQ3
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 24, 2023 17:22:36 GMT -5
Michael,
Are these two reports typed notes that were used to prepare what I had thought was the official autopsy report? I'm referring to the Autopsy Report under the letterhead of Walter H. Swayze, Trenton, N.J., dated May 12, 1932 and signed at the bottom by Mitchell. It is a one page, about 50 single spaced lines and the final line gives the cause of death. Thanks, I'm obviously a little confused on this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2023 22:06:29 GMT -5
Michael, Are these two reports typed notes that were used to prepare what I had thought was the official autopsy report? I'm referring to the Autopsy Report under the letterhead of Walter H. Swayze, Trenton, N.J., dated May 12, 1932 and signed at the bottom by Mitchell. It is a one page, about 50 single spaced lines and the final line gives the cause of death. Thanks, I'm obviously a little confused on this. No. Your confusion is understandable because most people don’t realize there are two different reports. I tried to explain this situation in V1 for that reason. What you are referencing is the Report of the “Unknown” Baby date May 12. On May 13, Lindbergh returned from his “vacation” with Curtis and went to the morgue and identified the corpse. Due to that identification, Dr. Mitchell was asked to, and did prepare a new report on May 14 that names the child which is what I linked below. As you can see, there are differences.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 25, 2023 8:25:46 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, much appreciated. My Dark Corners Volumes I and II are still out on loan to a friend. When I get them back I will reread what you wrote on this. Not a great deal in the LKC is straight forward!
|
|