|
Post by rick3 on Sept 3, 2006 7:19:30 GMT -5
Similarity--resemblance, likeness, semblance, approximation. Every once and a while we are reminded about conclusive forensic evidence: The John Mark Karr fiasco helps us with that: eg DNA is the gold standard. Without DNA evidence JMK would likely have been charged AND convicted? (Well, unless his entire family said he was in Alabama) The Innocence Project run by Barry Scheck has released about 100 convicted persons using DNA, 7 from Death Row. Other examples are: fingerprints, footprints, blood typing, bullet rifling, chemical analysis. You know the thing buried or missing in the LKC! The key word to describe the evidence we have at our fingertips is SIMILAR, no more no less. All microscopic evidence like hair and fibers is just SIMILAR. Some want to convince us that the hair evidence confirms Charlie Jr. It doesn't. Only chemical analysis or DNA testing can confirm. And now the family has removed the DNA evidence from the NJSP Museum/ all of it gone forever. So lets review the evidence: a 3/4" Buck Chisel, some disguised handwriting and a board....all no more than SIMILAR. One reason given for holding the Trial in Flemington and not Mercer County was the Jury would be easier to fool? They surely were/ JFC said CJ looked similar to BRH's brother [If you want to see some spooky handwriting, see page 237 in Fischer's The Lindbergh Case and compare Anna's singnature with Richard's] Maybe Anna wrote the ransom notes? BRH had Lindbergh Gold Certs and said he did not. Apparently, so did lots of other folks albeit not $14,900 worth? 100% of the remaining evidence presented against him was no better than SIMILAR. Some of it so SIMILAR it even fooled him/ and most of us? Any confounding or exculpatory evidence was folded, spindled, mutilated or deep-sixed. Who was it that was folding the Gold Certs into 8 squares and tossing them out to cashiers? Oops slipped away? Ellis Parker said that "persons can be fooled into seeing whatever they want to see". Truer words were never spoken and the primary reason why eye witness testimony is NOT the gold standard.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2006 9:39:25 GMT -5
You make all good points here Rick.
But at what point do we decide to take all of these similarities and weigh them in their totality? Individually they all show a degree of uncertainty, however, when piled on top of one another they seem to be an impossible mountain to climb.
Again, I believe it shows involvement - even taking some of those out of the equation.
It appears the frustration of over 2-1/2 years of being made fools of led these Authorities to make sure Hauptmann went down. When they saw he wouldn't confess and/or name his associates they figured they would take what they had (and then some) and run with it. In essence, the others may be getting away but surely it would be at the expense of the one that didn't.
For me I believe each piece should be weighed accordingly to decide Hauptmann's position on the totem pole and/or his degree of involvement.
I am convinced that is the child. He was sick and the corpse revealed it as evidenced by the skeletal remains and the hair from both the corpse and his hair-cut. No one can convince me "they" found a replacement with a special condition existing on the hair - same as CJr. Besides that, even the face is the same and that alone is a hard one to get past.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 3, 2006 11:05:54 GMT -5
Hi Michael.....we are in total agreement! I just dont want us all lead merrily down any garden paths. I don't think BRH is innocent of everyding, just not guilty of everyding as the Lone Wolf either. If he were he wouldnt have been caught with the Gold Certs and the Lilliput pistola. BRH is no mastermind/ I hit paydirt this morning, however. I had a 20 minute Friendly Chat with an olde MD pathology professor of mine about Charlie Jr. and surrounding controversies: www.pathology.wisc.edu/faculty/bio.aspx?name=rhuntingtonQuestion #1....Can we estimate rates of decomp in Spring 1932?? Well, Bob admits that determining time of death and decomp have way too many variables. Decomp is even influenced by vomiting and stomach contents let alone temp? You have to know where the body really was all that time and "the brain always pours out"! We might conclude that Ellis Parker got as close as possible? Question #2.....Could some embalming be involved because the heart and liver were not consumed (Theon Wright)? Probably not, maybe the rats and mice just didnt get to them yet? Question #3..... Could the baby have died of a bullet wound that passed thru the brain and fractured the skull on the opposite side? BINGO! Very likely and a reasonable theory given that Dr. Mitchell said exactly this the night of May 12th 1932. We should read up on Gunshot Wounds by the authority: www.co.lawrence.tn.us/events/LawSeminar/2002/VincentDiMaio_bio.htmQuestion #4.....Could any stick poke a perfectly round hole in the back of Charlies skull while turning him over? Not too likely, especially in light of #4 above! [Please recall that Ellis Parker worked with Dr. Charles H. Mitchell on real live gunshot cases--see the Brewer Case pp 96-104 in Master Detective. Notice how JR leaves Dr. Mitchells name out of the Readers Digest version] Conclusion: Charlie may well have died from a gunshot wound to the head which fractured his skull. (Hyperkinetic Plumbosis) We should "repost" Dr. Mitchells newsmaker interview of 12 May 32 if we can find it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 3, 2006 11:47:48 GMT -5
Why would anyone need to shoot a 1 year old ? What happened to the bullet if no exit wound was found? Wouldn't a bullet wound leave telltale beveling ?
Agreed. But if you are sure of the gunshot wound to the child, you are talking cold blooded murder here,not accidental death or at least unintentional death. That ups the ante for BRH even if he is only an accomplice.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 3, 2006 12:13:11 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 3, 2006 13:25:46 GMT -5
Of course not Rick, but we are not proscecuting here. You have to admit that shooting a 1 yr old in the head doesn't leave much doubt as to intent. One could at least believe that smothering or an impact to the head could be accidental or unintended. Big difference as to the character who carried this out, imho.
|
|
|
Post by leah on Sept 3, 2006 19:52:45 GMT -5
hope you dont mind but im confused here. it seems as if there was a gunshot wound that a bullet (if thats the right term) would have either been inside the head or would have had an exit wound, maybe even "blown out the side" oopposite of the shot. am i missing something?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 3, 2006 21:08:17 GMT -5
Well Leah, that would only be under ideal conditions. Here we have an illegal autopsy performed by a coroner (Swazye) because of arthritic hands on the MD Mitchell. Even Dr. VanIngen objected to this illegality. VanIngen asked if CAL or Schwartzkopf knew of thier little ruse/ they said NO. (see pp 116-119 Fischer)
So what we end up with is a corpse very severely decomposed. Nevertheless, Mitchell observes a bruise opposite the hole, thus indicating Charlie was alive when the skull fracture occured. It is logical, on his part, to declare a gunshot wound. As he does that evening to reporters immediately after the autopsy?
Swazye cuts open the skull but it falls to pieces, its so far gone? The brains run out and he says he looked for foreign objects but none were found? Where any bullet went is anyones guess? Maybe the two working together were not thorough enough? Nevertheless, with all his years of forensic experience Mitchell told the Press...its a gunshot.--which now accounts for the skull fracture. Just another mystery I suppose? Or an oversite? I dont know, maybe it was just a hack job? CAL views the body "after the autopsy" & Charlie was cremated within 24h. Not alot of time for reflection? One thing should be clear...gunshot wounds to the head cause skull fractures!
In the William Brewer case the bullet in his brain "moved" and was not seen by xray? In fact, the bullet entry wound was thought to be merely a hit by a bottle? He lived for 10 days and then died. The bullet was found in the lower part of the brain much to everyones surprise? [The Cunning Mulatto/Master Detective]
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 3, 2006 21:12:08 GMT -5
Hi Leah~ Re: bullet~~ You say you are confused. Well I am thoroughly scrambled! I have to say I'm not nearly as well read on the matter as others , but I haven't seen anything to convince me there ever was a bullet hole. A bullet wound would bleed, yet Mitchell says there was only an internal-inside the skull--blood clot. No matter if the occasional bullet to the head can ramble around inside and not exit, I find it unbelievable this could happen in an infant's (softer) skull.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 3, 2006 21:21:19 GMT -5
Rick~ So if Mitchell says it was a bullet hole, maybe it was a knee-jerk call ---a mistake. It's happened before. Perhaps his first impression was on the arthritic side, too?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Sept 4, 2006 6:16:32 GMT -5
Hi Rick,
Hopefully this post goes through.
Since the topic is about the corpse, VanIngen, Mitchell, Swayze, I thought I'd ask you about Inspector James R. Wilkinson, a pioneer in the fingerprinting field during the 1920s and 1930s. He was a Canadian who founded the "Inspection Bureau," and was on the Windsor Police force in Ontario. He appears in a chapter of The Border Police: 125 Years of Policing in Windsor, published in 1992.
According to the Windsor Police website, Gordon Wilkinson says his father went to inspect the body of a baby after the Lindbergh kidnapping. Whether this was the Lindbergh baby or another baby, I am not sure.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Sept 4, 2006 6:24:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 4, 2006 7:12:29 GMT -5
Hi Mairi--well I suppose? Lets face it, this was a very challenging autopsy, under stressful conditions, on the most famous baby in the World. On the other hand, Dr. Mitchell was experienced and did not just fall off a banana boat? So he should have known what he was doing AND what he was reporting at the close of the autopsy? He had dealt with gunshots before how many we dont know...he was at least olde so experienced maybe? Hes the County Doc, just not trained in Forensics like CSI? Three facts ring true: round hole back of head, hematoma/bruise opposite side of head AND skull fracture. These all add up right. The caliber of gun/bullet would effect/affect this conclusion--too low powered to penetrate twice. Did they misplace the bullet? I don't know? But as is usual in the LKC....It Don't Add Up Just Right....but neither does the famous stick poke? Whats Who's Motive? Apparently nobody heard anything at Highfields--let alone a gunshot?
Hi Sue/ you better ask the MasterM about James Wilkinson? I have not heard of him so far. I cant open up your attachment with Windows 95 now replacing my Webtv that was toasted by lightening? Anyhow, hes going to have trouble getting fingerprints. Look Mom no hands? Could he even get to Trenton Morgue before Charlie was creamated....I doubt it? Yikes/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 4, 2006 8:13:39 GMT -5
Rick, did you ever consider that the bullet was made of ice, like the ones in mystery novels? ;D
Seriously all kidding aside, I think the original thread you started is good and insightful. Perhaps the reason we so often clash on this board is due to a fundamental difference in our approach. I don't agree with your assessment of the physical evidence in this case. I firmly believe that it is much more than "similar" in its' nature. And I am convinced that even without access to the most modern testing methods, much can still be wrung out of it that is conclusive. Just look at what Rab has come up with on the mailing and note spending. Or take a look at Joe's practical and low tech analysis of the hole punching. You seem much more comfortable with theory, which is fine. But I do think that the physical evidence has much to tell yet if you are willing to wring it out till your hands are sore. And as you pointed out in the Ramsey case, the evidence can certainly eliminate a suspect as well as convict them. For example, there are some who don't believe Hauptmann built the ladder. Well I can think of several low tech methods to determine that. Is it absolute? What is? Who knows in several decades, they may be overturning DNA evidence based on some new science as of yet unknown. But for the present it is all that we can do, imho.
|
|
|
Post by Leah on Sept 4, 2006 8:36:46 GMT -5
the autopsy leaves alot to be questioned. just the fact that the participants lied about it and it was covered up all those years leaves me with questions. i was wondering if the questions during the trial by the defense re: blood colagulation dealt with the fact that for a blood clot to form the child had to be still living at least long enough for a clot to form. Rick, i could also imagine a scenario where the baby's head was accidentally bashed and when the kidnappers stopped to check realized he was critically wounded just decided to kill him there and despose of the body. that gunshot might explain the extensive skull fracture. those little heads are pretty pliable. it must have been extremely distasteful to search for that bullet if an experienced coroner mentioned the extreme odor. i'd be hurrying to finish! so many things if this investigation seemed rushed, this may have been one of them.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 4, 2006 19:27:38 GMT -5
Kevin/ Leah/Michael....Im not certain where we are headed but I wont let that stop me: 1. I want to at least take a shot at the "cumulative similarity" concept...or additive similarity....or the pretty close theory. Sorry but close only works in hand grenades and horseshoes. I once had a lab mate in Grad School who invented a cumulative assay: for years he never got significant "p-value" differences in his tests so he just added them up and claimed "significance" Sorry Charlie/ no go--this was scientific dishonesty and misconduct! If you get 3 close putts or 3 close buckets or 3 close field goals you get Nothing. All attempts are independent. Thus close with chisel name or marks, and similar with the handwriting and similar with the wood grain are in fact never going to add up to the electric chair? Juries can be convinced otherwise/ but we cant. 2. One disturbing aspect of the autopsy is that Dr. Charles Mitchell should recognize a gunshot. And hes no idiot, there may have been a bullet too...why...because Mitchell knows that. For a few hours the LKC was out-of-control of the 4 Colonels....then Shwartzkopf and CAl return to take charge? What are the chances that Charlie fell out of bed and bumped his head, and THEN got a bullet wound. I don't know...maybe 1 in 17? The bruise/clot/hematoma/fracture just happens to be in the most logical place across from the hole? Sure its possible. It is also possible that something weird happened to the bullet, or to Charlie before the gunshot....but that doesn't change Mitchell's post autopsy press conference before control blew into towne. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3023363.stmWhat pray tell has not disappeared from the LKC: footprints, fingerprints, DNA, pay records, etc why not a bullet too? Its a small object and we can draw certain common sense, logical conclusions without it/ they didnt loose the hole. Also, Mitchell lied to DHReilly on the stand under oath.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2006 19:42:18 GMT -5
I am aware of who he was but this is new information to me. I haven't read anything to support this story, however, it seems an odd one to simply "make up" and connect it to him. I will keep my eyes open and post if I happen to find something.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2006 21:03:05 GMT -5
The bullet theory has its roots in something Dr. Mitchell said to the press (excerpt from p 110 FBI Summary): On removal of scalp I found a marked fracture of the left parietal and occipital bones, the fracture extended from the fontanel across the left side of the head slightly posterior to a point posterior to left ear, then it divided a break going forward and one backward on the skull.
There was also a suspicious opening at a point about one inch posterior to the right ear, the opening was about one-half inch in diameter, somewhat rounded and resembled a bullet would but, on examination of the cranial vault, I could not locate a bullet but he fracture of the skull was directly opposite this opening and could have been done by a bullet entering the right side of the skull, striking the inner table of the skull and the bullet could have been lost in transportation of the body as the brains were exuding from the fontanel and from the opening on the right side of the skull. Of course I have always said the FBI Summary should be viewed as a "guide" because they got some stuff wrong - unless - it can be backed up with a secondary source. I have searched and found one in Lt. Hicks. Hicks wrote a report after Hauptmann's arrest trying to tie in the .25 cal with the baby's death. In a separate letter to Lt. Col. Calvin Goddard (don't ask where I got this) Hick's quotes Dr. Mitchell as saying the above and much more - for example: The fracture of the skull was directly opposite the hole, and could have been caused by a bullet entering the right side and striking the inner table of the skull on the opposite side.
The peculiar feature of this fracture was the fact that it was not depressed or the skull was not curved in at the point of fracture.
A fracture of this kind could have been produced by a blow from external violence, but that cannot account for the opening opposite the fracture. A board with a nail in it, for instances, could have punctured the head on the right side and caused the fracture opposite without causing an exit wound. We have to remember there was never any evidence of blood - anywhere - and an open wound, especially one made by a bullet, would have caused bleeding. How does one account for this? Now, to answer Kevin's question I suggest someone would shoot the child as a "mercy killing" kind of like the Cop who shoots the deer you just ran over and is suffering on the side of the road. Now before anyone goes and pulls an "Allen" on me I am merely making a suggestion. I don't necessarily buy the "bullet" theory but I am not ready to eliminate it yet. Of course I am sure by now someone is ready to point out that Walsh poked a hole in the child's skull when turning it over.... We know the 3/4" hole from the unclosed fontanel was visible and I often wondered to myself if this wasn't where the stick actually went and Walsh was called on to eliminate the bullet theory so as not to "confuse" the Jury as we see occur so often in Flemington coming from the Prosecution. I also consider this which I quote from the same Hick's letter: When Dr. Mitchell was informed of this he declared that he had never received a report on that incident, but that it did not account for the wound.
"A stick," Dr. Mitchell said, "could not have penetrated the skull, because the bone was very thick at the point where the hole was found." Of course this opens up a whole new can of worms as it possibly concerns the child's obvious medical condition and whether or not brittle or weak bones could account for this... Anyway - in Hick's ballistic report he makes much about the hole being completely round and not jagged which he claims shows the hole did not come from a stick.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 6, 2006 0:26:47 GMT -5
Michael....it seems to me, that more effort was made trying to discount or cover-up Dr. Mitchell's observation of a bullet hole, than trying to confirm, follow up or prove it? At least on the part of Schwartzkopf and the NJSP?
What possible motive is there in this other than confusion, obfuscation, and misdirection? It feels almost like someone or some group already knows this to be factual, but wants it to remain a hidden possibility? AGWilitz cant have been involved here this early or this quickly trying to steer the Trial of the Century from Trenton to Flemington?
It is interesting that Hicks appears so precise and competent in this FBI report. Is this the same Robert Hicks that is later so discredited during the Hoffman inquiry of the LKC?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2006 5:35:49 GMT -5
It's the same Lt. Hicks. He had many titles but the one I see the most is "Criminologist." He was also a handwriting expert after passing the qualifications for such during his stint working with Gov. Hoffman. Personally, I wouldn't find him a solid stand alone source without a secondary source but that's just me.... I am kind of like this with most sources nowadays because of all the contradictions I find with everyone from Schwarzkopf on down.
He originally comes into the case in early '32 after being hired by Hauck. Later he attempts to gain entrance by his "bullet" theory report which he sends to the Prosecution. Mrs. McLean hires him then loans him to Hoffman for his re-investigation efforts. Somewhere mixed in there he is hired by magazine editor Clancy as well. He would fall into disfavor with Hoffman, perhaps for leaking information (I can't remember the exact details at the moment). Eventually he turned up during HRO's claim of being the child and its during this time he reveals a conversation he had with Hoover and indicates how he worked on other cases with Farrer, Cole, and Appel.
His reputation swings from one side to the other. Many people didn't like him but he seems to be involved in a lot of things and in the middle of the action involving some very high profile people. So I think he must have some valuable skills or he wouldn't be involved.
Obviously what I have written above is at variance with Mitchell's testimony. I've come to realize a ton of Flemington testimony is when crossed with other source material. The problem here is that Mitchell, no matter what the source, never says it definitely was a bullet, and of course there was no blood found which for me is a very hard one to get past.
I simply believe the theory of the "dropped baby" did not fit in well with this gun-shot possibility so they prodded Mitchell to avoid and evade it during trial as best he could. In one of my other posts you can clearly see what Peacock's position was and its what the Prosecution stood behind.
I'll have to check the Parker, Means, and Curtis trials to see what else Mitchell said when I get some extra time on my hands.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Sept 8, 2006 17:39:14 GMT -5
"In New Jersey, Slip-Ups Show Autopsy System Deficiencies" by John Hordheimer New York Times October 20, 1993 Page A-1 (2 pages)
Ever Since Lindbergh
"There have been periodic efforts to revise the State's medical-examiner system ever since deficiencies in the system became clear during the investigation of the States most notorious crime, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping in 1932."
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 8, 2006 19:44:12 GMT -5
Hi Sue/ I agree there were a whole list of serious medical shortcomings, all of which continue to haunt us:
1. Right from the get-go Walsh claims to poke the body or head with a stick....nice going? Or Schwarzy claims for him? Great technique/ maybe he thought it looked like road kill?
2. Back at the Trenton Morgue, a few doors down from Wendel's house, we have an arthritic MD, Physician of Mercer County and the Coroner to act as his hands (and eyes) and Charlie's pediatrician Van Ingen who is a child disease specialist? Although VanIngen objects, they conspire to deceive.
3. No xrays or photos of the body or autopsy are recorded.
4. No NJ State Officials of any kind even watch the autopsy? No pathology tissues or fluids are saved?
5. Dr. Charles Mitchell gives an impromptu press conference after the autopsy. He is experienced with gunshots, and Ellis Parker, so he should know what hes talking about. He declares "Baby killed by gunshot"/
6. No Inquest or Coroners Jury is convened. Cause of death from Mitchell alone: skull fractured by external violence. But then, a gunshot is external violence too--leads to 2 skull fractures.
7. All evidence goes up in smoke within 24 hours. CAL views the body AFTER the autopsy and has Charlie cremated at once.
8. All these mistakes and no saving of any tissues for microscopic pathology or weights of organs or photos are still wreaking havoc today. Dr. VanIngen declares "for $10 million dollars I could not say this is Charlie Jr"? That builds our confidence in the outcome?
9. Heres my thought, as long as all the pathologists have both hands above the forensic table, and no high profile celebs or politicians start interferring, then the system works just fine to the publics advantage. But with such a minimalist system, leaving way too much to a County Physician then big problems crop up quickly--just like what we have missing here. After all , Ellis Parker only complained about Gow and Cal momentary and cursory identificaitions and had worked with Dr. Mitchell before? Parker would also understand about the presence or absence of a magic bullet in a high profile kidnap/murder case that needed to be steered toward or away from some particular direction?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2006 22:57:05 GMT -5
I am still trying to fully understand the Flemington testimony. It seems the skull basically fell apart in sections when they were getting ready to saw it. I wonder if this was caused by the fractures....they don't say and imply, at least from my perspective, that it wasn't.
Anyone have an opinion to offer?
Also, Inspector Walsh's testimony seems sincere. It's not definite he actually poked a hole but it does seem possible. Again, I am wondering if a stick meant to "prop" up the corpse should have the strength to penetrate the skull in this way. Is a 20 month old's skull this fragile? Could the rickets account for this?
Furthermore, Allen's testimony certainly seems to support the child have been buried by someone.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 9, 2006 7:24:55 GMT -5
Michael....Dr. Huntington said skull bones cannot be penetrated by sticks. Maybe after the gunshot fracture but not before?
A body lying on the surface of the ground which can be seen and chewed by foxes, skunks, rats and mice is not really buried. I like Kevin's dragged from the road theory.
Someone from Hopewell saw the B urlap B ag along Hopewell Princeton Road earlier than May 12th....for me dumping the body along a highway like garbage is no less brutal, cruder or crueler than a gunshot?
|
|
|
Post by Leah on Sept 9, 2006 7:32:29 GMT -5
michael, my opinion is the skull fell apart at the suture lines. those lines would have to have been not fused because of the rapid growth of a child that age. with the extensive decay described in the autopsy i think the little skull just disintegrated. also, this is just speculation of course, but if the head was bashed and the baby lived for some time after that injury (the blood clot might suggest that) then the brain might have swollen and further stressed the skull. think of babies with hydrocephalous.
|
|
|
Post by leah on Sept 9, 2006 7:42:05 GMT -5
just to add, i thought in one of the recent posts it was conjectured that the stick might have puntured the dried skin and slipped into the fontanelle. also didnt the autopsy state that the fontanelle was large enough for brain matter to seep out? that would imply that there was very little covering the skull to me its amazing that there was any face left yet the photos seem to show features
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Sept 9, 2006 11:21:28 GMT -5
Lets get real here people and get back to report written by Dr. Charles H. Mitchell MD (in this thread):
When Dr. Mitchell was informed of this...eg "the famous stick poke"...... he declared that he had never received a report on that incident, but that it did not account for the wound.
"A stick," Dr. Mitchell said, "could not have penetrated the skull, because the bone was very thick at the point where the hole was found."
And from my reading the skull only fell apart when Swayze started to cut it open with a saw?
#2 Norris [Talent to Deceive] in his description of the baby's discover uses the term "bloody burlap bag"? Now, it has been opined that there is never any blood found anyplace? But its been raining for some time and maybe the baby and burlap has been outside in the spring rains? Does blood ever wash away with rain? There is no luminol test in 1932. Maybe animals licked it off?
#3 It takes a pretty big mouse to tear off an arm and a leg bone and drag it away? Therefore, some big carnivore may have drug Xharlies body from the road to the little hill and covered it with leaves? I cant see any car parking here very long after the kidnap and the killers taking time and shovels to bury the evidence. This body was supposed to be found...maybe even sooner than 12 May?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Sept 9, 2006 15:37:43 GMT -5
"bloody burlap bag"
Are these Norris' words or is he quoting someone?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Sept 9, 2006 15:55:59 GMT -5
According to A. Scott Berg in Lindbergh:
"Upon exiting the cars, two of the officers observed a burlap sack--worn and bloodstained--on the ground just off the side of the road." (page 271)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2006 18:48:29 GMT -5
There is nothing in any of the source material which supports blood being on the burlap bag or anything else for that matter.
Squibb Labs detected nothing, and even if you assume they didn't have to ability to detect it considering rain or any other variable then consider the NJSP would have detected it during their re-investigation in the '70's. Blood is detectable for a very long time even if someone takes counter-measures to cover up its existence.
Now back to the "bullet" theory.
Considering and then agreeing with Leah's position concerning the separation of the skull I think its a 'given' if any caliber of bullet went into the head of Charles Jr. then it would have come out the other side. Mitchell found no bullet inside the head and I don't believe Inspector Walsh would have lied.
Why?
Well for one he never says he definitely did poke a hole there but simply could have. Next, the NJ treated him so badly he never forgot about it. He even made it clear he was 'friendly' to the efforts of both Fisher and later Gov. Hoffman.
For me, a stick easily making that hole there is further proof of CJr.'s ailment(s) and I can only imagine being alive how fragile he must have been. The external trauma could have occurred at any time - all we have is proof that it happened when he was alive.
No blood.
No bullet.
No exit wound.
No gun shot.
|
|