|
Post by sue75 on Oct 15, 2009 18:29:45 GMT -5
pro.corbis.com/Search/SearchResults.aspx?q=lindbergh+bullet&ac=nullHere are 3 Corbis pictures that support the theory that the baby was shot. Investigators went back to Mount Rose in 1934, where Charles Jr. was found in 1932, searching for the bullet. This was right after Hauptmann's arrest. Why did Dr. Charles Mitchell believe there was a bullet wound to the head?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 15, 2009 19:27:31 GMT -5
good post Sue: Mitchell reported to the Philadelphia ledger immediately following the autopsy that Charlie Jr had been killed by a gunshot. Mitchell was an expert in forensics, and knew what he was talking about, having seen many bullet wounds before. So the real question is: Who got to him and squashed his testimony in less than 24 hours? Did it really matter what killed Cjr? what was the motive to shut Doc Mitchell down? - the Harry Walsh stick-poke was pure fabrication--after all its a skull. So why did Schwartzkof lie?
- Noone had any crystal ball about the ultimate prosecution of BRH in 1934--so what avenue of FBI investigation was neutralized or avoided by denying any gunshot? Mafia/Mob/moonshiners/ Purple gang/? Who else shoots kids?
- Bullets get lost all the time? Were there any Xrays in 1932? The hands in the autopsy (Swayze) was only a County Coroner--so maybe he didnt know how to properly locate the bullet? Was the autopsy bungled too? Why no photos?
- why did BRH hide a 25mm gun inwith the money in the garage. Was this gun a match to the one normally carried by Nosovizky in his vest pocket? Could Charlie have been killed for revenge? Why not--CAL must have made some enemies?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2009 9:24:41 GMT -5
Here's my take on it.... Dr. Mitchell made his observations. And he did so without knowing anything at all about the situation. In fact, he had never before even seen the child. So, at the time he was unaware that Inspector Walsh made a hole with the stick. I do believe Walsh did create a hole so I disagree with Rick here. It shows just how brittle the child's skull was - which it shouldn't have been. The key is something Kathy pointed out about a year ago.... the blood clot found. So to Mitchell, we have one hole leading to the crack on the other side but no "exit" wound. So he looks for the bullet and finds none. It's assumed, if a bullet made it, then it may have fallen out during transportation. But he never concludes a bullet was the cause. That's important. Next, once Hauptmann is arrested, Wilentz then does something really bizarre. He hires Newark Attorney Harold Fisher to be "creative" by finding a method to "bend" the law in such a way Hauptmann can be convicted of Capitol Murder. This Fisher does (which is legally debatable), and so in order for "idea" to work, Hauptmann had to have Murdered the child in the commission of the "burglary." For the child to have been shot would have created a legal nightmare for the Prosecution. They would, in essence, have to claim this shooting was done on the premises. That would be a real hard sell.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 17, 2009 17:57:44 GMT -5
Michael--I agree this confusion has two phases: 1st--the immediate reversal of the gunshot by Schwartzkopf and ii) Ag Wilintz cause of death theories after BRH arrest in 1934. - yes of course, Mitchell calls the shot as he sees it, honestly. He gave a news conference after the autopsy.
- he didnt just fall off a tomatoe truck--he knows a bullet hole when he sees one--he should be considered an expert witness. Doc Mitchell even turns up in a gunshot to the head case in The Cunning Mulatto!(seepg 204 Deathbed Identification--what a coincidence)
- But Schwartzkopf et al decides to supercede Mitchells call the very next day after CAL comes back? This is highly unusual?
Since when does a floorwalker at Bambergers trump the medical examiner? Clearly he holds some ulterior motive.
- Did Schwartzkopf see Harry Walsh do it--or just stick it on him unawares? Did Walsh confess this faux paux to Schwartzkopf?
- Did Harry Walsh ever admit the stick poke that looked exactly like a gunshot? when, and what was the timing? there were 2 holes in the skull--maybe Harry poked a hole in the fontenelle covered only by skin?
- Noone attending the autopsy mentions any "fragile skull or long bones"--just advanced decomp? Skulls can survive 100s of years?
- Even the NJSP did not believe the magic stick poke? A full 30 months later they are still digging for the bullet when a pistol is found in BRHs garage! Mitchell and Swayze believed the bullet might have fallen out!
- It sure was convenient that the stick poke was behind the ear directly acrossed from an insider hematoma--thus 1 + 1 = 2? Murder hits are often right behind an ear?
Would a professional detective turn a body behind the ear? Its a wonder the head didnt twist off?
- AG Wilitz provided every single possible cause of death he could think of: smothering, falling, chokeing, trauma, hitting with chisel--but never proposed the gunshot? Noone heard one?he could have charged that BRH shot Charlie in his car driving down the driveway to Mt.Rose Hill? Why leave that out that possibilty?
- Mitchell never lied--clearly gunshot falls under the aegis of "skull fractured by external trauma". He could read the tea leaves except he LIED when Riley asked him if he called it a gunshot the nite of the autopsy? Isnt that perjury?
- At one time, in a previous post you inferred the stick poke was bogus? You were checking the timing of Walshes statements I think? Oh, I see--did Walsh testify under oath?
- Sure, I agree, the prosecution might want to bury the single bullet theory, but not in the first 24 hours? Charlie then cremated. The flaw seems to fall onto Schwartkopf?
- In all of human history, has anyone ever poked a hole in skull with a stick gently trying to turn over a dead body? My forensic pathologist said "no"? Skulls are not paper thin? i imagine you plan to argue "the severe ricketts theory of bone loss"?
- Please clarify Kathy's clue: "The key is something Kathy pointed out about a year ago.... the blood clot found" Wasnt the blood clot directly acrossed the skull inline with the hole where one might expect a small caliber bullet to cause a bruise?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 17, 2009 19:31:36 GMT -5
No cratering at the the hole = no gunshot wound
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2009 8:16:59 GMT -5
He calls it a "suspicious opening", and "somewhat rounded" that "resembled a bullet wound." He does a search for a bullet but doesn't find one - then offers and explanation why it could have been a bullet even though one wasn't found. However, he never says in his Autopsy report that it was a bullet.
You're right Rick when you say "external trauma" that could have been the result of a bullet.
I think there were various ways to determine whether or not it really was a gun shot wound, as Kevin posted, but according to Swayze, the Post Mort em wasn't done like an official Autopsy would have normally been done. It was more like a quickly performed ceremony in order to make this whole thing official.
At one time I was looking at the timing. I am satisfied that Walsh was honest about his actions. The key is what happens and what is reported about during the time of events and not a switcheroo that happens so often during the events of this case.
The question now becomes whether or not the stick could have gone through the bone. It shouldn't have been able to, yet, there was something wrong with him which involved an over-sized head, and un-closed fontanel. For me its just another fact concerning his health issues that allowed for the stick to so easily penetrate his skull.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 18, 2009 9:04:29 GMT -5
I'm actually a little disappointed With the propensity toward always taking the more complicated route so prevalent in this case and the creative thinking usually employed, I'm surprised no one has suggested the hole was surgically made prior to the kidnapping. Maybe a vain attempt to shrink his head
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2009 10:07:43 GMT -5
What's the easiest route?
Rick is right that when he says the skull should not have been able to be punctured by a stick when Walsh used it to turn it over.
So if we believe this was the cause we go from one problem to another.
Would the easiest route be that Walsh used the stick in a pre-existing hole, or simply used an angle of the decomposing head? Or do we say Walsh didn't do it at all? Or, since the child had been moved several times being "flipped over" for different purposes... could one of the other Officers at the scene flipping him over have made that hole?
I see no easy solution other then what seems to be the most logical in a swirl of differing possibilities. When I am faced with this type of situation I look at every answer and the problems each answer then creates versus the other known or disputed facts.
If one works where it creates another issue that can be reasonably explained then that's the one I will go with.
The stick works when it is explained by CJr.'s health problems, otherwise, the stick doesn't penetrate the skull creating that hole. Without these known health problems I would have to go with the bullet as a very real possibility when considering everything we know. What we don't know or what might be is a totally different story.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 18, 2009 10:53:54 GMT -5
It's not a matter of the "easiest route" rather the one which doesn't add more and more layers of complexity and the commensurate explanations which follow. Among many other things the body had a hole in the head but absolutely no evidence of a bullet. So why add an element of complexity when it's not called for? You might just as well conclude that the child had limbs and digits severed by a knife. Add to that Walsh's action upon a body in a severe state of decomposition. Is it reasonable to believe that he fabricated his stick story? Keep it simple and you get to the truth. Complicate it and you get further and further away from it.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 18, 2009 15:25:05 GMT -5
Maybe this has been discussed before or maybe it's just unlikely: The location of the mastoid fontanel seems consistent with the hole in the child's head, as described in autopsy. Since the anterior fontanel closure was delayed, would the others have been as well(?) Have tried and tried to find dimensions of the mastoid opening but with no success and by now I'm just all goggled out. I find myself doubting the bullet hole idea.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2009 18:29:51 GMT -5
Mairi - I assume if that were the case Dr. Mitchell would have been aware of it. For me I just don't have any other choice.
Kevin - I have to disagree. There's a hole which seems to have been caused by an exterior force. Maybe it wasn't, but I think the circumstances lead us there. Next, while I don't think it was a bullet hole its in Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report that he thought it was suspicious and might be one. For me that counts as something to consider (and maybe even pursue). Mitchell, like Rick said, had been around the block a few times. So if this wasn't in his report then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
I don't believe Walsh fabricated the stick story because it serves no purpose to do so at the time he claimed it happen. It's not like what Lindbergh did when he said he didn't hear a noise but later claimed he did, or Whited who said he saw no one then later claims he saw Hauptmann. Walsh always claimed he used a the stick. Additionally, he was in favor of the Governor's actions and was a friend to his position. That's important because "no one" (Police and/or Officials) seemed to take a middle-ground position when it came to what was going on. Either you were with him or against him. Each side did exactly as it implies....either helping where they could or setting up obstacles when the opportunity arose.
For example, I am almost certain sure it was Walsh who first "reminded" Fisher about the burlap bag.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 18, 2009 19:50:43 GMT -5
Everyone who reads and considers this thread thoughtfully should consider it a win/win situation--as the facts come out there are no winners or loosers! This is a just one more serious and critical aspect of the LKC to be understood--either way. So lets switch to the downstream ramifications of the stick poke theory of the hole: - VanIngen, Charlies pediatrician, attended the putative autopsy...so he should have been able to shed some light on this controversy? He could have advised Mitchell of any neonatal defects....over and above dry skin and overlapping toes?
- We should all agree that for Harry Walsh to poke a hole in a skull, behind the ear, could only happen if there was some very serious defect in the skull...or a very sharp metal stick/rapier?
- In this day and age--it is unlikely that a deformity this serious would not have a specific "name" and also would have been known to Charlies ped: Dr. Charles VanIngen! [and Anne and CAL who keep insisting Charlie jr is perfect--their words!}
1. Anorexia Nervosa 2. Hyperhomocysteinemia 3. Hyperparathyroidism 4. Hypophosphatemia 5. Osteoporosis - macrocephaly - mental retardation - blindness (wasnt an enlarged skull noted?) 6. Rickets
- So this too becomes a complex labirinth to unravel just in case there is a stick poke that looks like a bullet hole? Now we have some conspiracy of silence between the parents and CJrs ped-doc?
- the huge quarter sized hole in the top of the head is shown clearly in the photo of Charlie in Gardners book! [note this is the same gateway to the soul cameoed in Dan Brown's book]
- also, many have argued (?) that Charlie's face-mask looked exactly in death as it did in life? Even after 72 days missing and advanced decompostiion?
- Its fine with me to add in some congenital illness that thins the skull--but arnt there some other side-effects of this severe defect? Hearing, speech, mental allertness and learning to consider? And multiple trips to hospitals and specialists?
- Was this defect so cryptic as to be missed by Swayze and Mitchell? As evidenced by Mitchell did not mention bone thinning? He did however make a big deal about the hematoma on the inside of the skull on the left side.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 19, 2009 8:28:50 GMT -5
With what part, the single stick theory or keeping things simple?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2009 11:13:17 GMT -5
Just this part.... Among many other things the body had a hole in the head but absolutely no evidence of a bullet. (Kevin) Just the fact Dr. Mitchell considers the possibility enough to record his suspicions, look for a bullet, and then offer an explanation for why it may be missing tells me there's at least some "evidence" it could have been a bullet. I can see where its debatable. Also, I want to point out that bullets sometimes do some very strange things when they hit a (normal) skull. Especially with a small caliber bullet. I've seen cases where they exit the eye or ear. Sometimes they hit the skull, don't penetrate, then travel under the skin and around the skull. The Case I just sat on involved a .38 which the 1st shot hit the forehead and still didn't penetrate the skull....it traveled under the skin and exited out the back of the scalp taking some of it with it. But in the end do I think it was created by a bullet? No. I think we both agree on this one. Rick, this examination was more "ceremonial" in nature to make the whole thing "official." It was quick and easy with his simple observations duly noted. It's what makes everything so hard to contest because that body was removed and cremated before anything more could be determined.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 21, 2009 3:00:56 GMT -5
Either way, plus or minus any bullet hole, Dr. Phillip Van Ingen is playing his cards pretty close to the vest. He claims to have examined Charlie Jr on Feb 28th[+/- 10 days] prior to the kidnap(?), BUT for $10,000,000 million bucks cannot even confirm that the found skeleton is in fact is our Little Eaglet? [why not--far too decomposed?] Some might claim he also described the wrong curling toes? So he sure is acting cagey in full support of the CAL & Family. He reminds me alot of Atty Robert L. Thayer--a key player at first--then dissappears off the radar screen and never testifies under oath, not at any Inquest or any Trial? How exactly is he any help at all: Answer--he isnt. PVI is more like an interested bystander? Like Thayer, VanIngen speaks volumes in silence thus obfuscating the truth so skillfull, but refuses to LIE outright...and for this reason alone is never called to testify! Both would have made great defense witnesses...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2009 15:59:11 GMT -5
Van Ingen played it close to his vest? What do you mean by that?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 23, 2009 6:25:02 GMT -5
Well, Dr.Phillip (not charles) Van Ingen,MD. from NYC does not seem to aid or help the cause of death OR medical condition of the blackened skeleton at all as to actually being Charlles Lindbergh Jr? Doc Mitchell, Swayze and the NJSP had never seen lil Charlie before--so their off-the-cuff comments are pretty worthless. [eg "it looks just like him"--When: June 1931?]. If during the autopsy Mitchell or Swayze would have opined that Charlies bones sure did appear to be "thin and/or brittle" then Van Ingen might have said something like...."well, I have been treating him for severe rickets and a very soft skull"? DR. Van Ingen is the pediatrician that saw Charlie recently, so he is the expert medical witness in the room for his own patient. If VanIngen cannot postively identify Charlie, well, then not only is WHO it is thrown to question, but so is the putative stick poke thru the skull which requires some rare medical condition known only to his pediatrician! In the end, Mitchell should be able to recognize solid bone and a gunshot, at least when sober. [since when does counting teeth result in a positive identification--seems superficial without dental records?]. Isnt it curious that most of the questions were directed towards Who is IT? or isnt IT? [Parker, Hynd, Dunlap] rather than the cause of death? Even CAL seems quick to accept its Charlie rather than how he died? Numerous authors tried to find the real Charlie Jr in the still living state...Fisher, Dutch and Hoffman, Wright and Jones...thus dismissing the skeleton on Mt Rose Hill entirely as a plant by bootleggers?.
In other words, doesn't a gunshot favor a plant?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2009 15:40:02 GMT -5
You are correct that Van Ingen said he couldn't say definitely the body was CJr. Jim Fisher was wrong (again) about this. But its not the same as saying it wasn't him. Don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Oct 25, 2009 18:41:02 GMT -5
i dont know where this stuff came from. that doctor identified the child. fisher was right. scaduto and gardner were wrong
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 26, 2009 4:12:53 GMT -5
Not really. VanIngen is in between a rock and a hard place. He surely knows the correct answer, but Schwartzkopf (NJSP), Gow (t-shirt) and CAL (family) have already decided its Charlie Jr? So VanIngen reads the stars and decides its not prudent to say ITs NOT. [He could have readily rolled over and acquiesced--but decided not to lie]. Handily, in the coffin photo its a blackened skeleton--so its easy to hedge Condon-esque. Consider this shocking headline:
"BABIES DOCTOR SAYS IT IS NOT CHARLES LINDBERGH JR"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 26, 2009 7:31:59 GMT -5
Or maybe Rick, at a time when common sense was a bit more common than it is today, those present realized that the body was that of CAL Jr. and there was no need to bother with Dr Van Ingen.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2009 7:56:08 GMT -5
One thing I do when thinking about certain perplexes contained within this Case, and you may not believe me based upon how I post on subjects at times, is to entertain at least one alternate way of looking at it even if it isn't the strongest possibility (to me) at the time. Sometimes you simply add another piece, which wasn't known originally, and the next thing you know the "alternative" is looking like a better bet.
Many of the Police who had the opportunity to compare the corpse with their picture of the child they had believed it sure looked like the child. Some who questioned it's identity did so for other reasons which wouldn't make sense to them at the time unless they looked at it from an angle they were not willing to make at the time.
Since I am finally writing and plan to assemble it into a book, I am going to guard certain things I plan on including. I do believe I will be re-writing the history of this Case with facts generally ignored and/or unknown. I think its important that the truth, the real truth, be recorded instead of what has been accepted as the truth.
That's why I have to upset Steve by saying Fisher (and I think Berg who used Fisher as his source) were very wrong when they said Van Ingen identified the corpse. He absolutely beyond all doubt did not. If you listen to Fisher's source for this then you will easily see why its wrong and how reckless it was of him to use it in the first place.
But even so, you can still add in what he DID say as a circumstance favorable to that corpse being the actual child.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 26, 2009 18:19:31 GMT -5
Even if Van Ingen had turned down a million dollars rather than say the corpse wasn't CALjr, his opinion is a moot point here. There's no rational argument against the Mt. Rose Hill corpse having been Charlie with all of the individual points of identification over the years, not the least of which is NJSP's Alan Lane's hair analysis. They're all well documented.. time to move forward.. this point reminds me of Hauptmann spinning his wheels in Featherbed Lane.. a total waste of time.
Fisher is a bit too staunch a verdict defender for me in his treatment of the case and made his share of mistakes, but on the whole, he calls it straighter than anyone else who's written about it. And he's not against bashing a few state witnesses for their questionable testimony. Moreso and simply stated, he's not willing to mince any words for an unrepentant killer.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 27, 2009 5:54:50 GMT -5
i dont know where this stuff came from. that doctor identified the child. fisher was right. scaduto and gardner were wrong Wolf--your post is a bit of a mixed metaphor but you raise three important points within: - Yes--Jim Fishers coverage of The Baby in the Woods (Chap 9) and Attacking the Autopsy (Chap 32) are very thorough, informative and well referenced in Notes..see pages 435-439 The Lindbergh File. Fisher also includes Doc Mitchell's direct testimony: pages 310-313. It is riveting...even in print.
- Yes--Gardner's analysis of this aspect of the LKC is fatally flawed in that Dr. Charles H. Mitchell is mysteriously AWOL from The Case that Never Dies in toto? The attempt to turn the tables on Al Dunlap on pages 410-411 is also razor thin on a good day? Its more far more likely the bullet swelled the head and the stick poke hole was the opened fontenelle--then confused & misspoken by Schwartzkopf as usual.
- No--VanIngens putative concession on the baby's ID comes only thru Coroner Swayze in 1977? This is the weakest of sources/ Fisher page 115 and Notes page 436.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2009 5:55:34 GMT -5
Well I wouldn't say that....it is what it is. I think since he says he can't say positively then he's saying it wasn't. That's a terrible leap to make because it isn't at all what was going on. For me its more evidence it was him.
And while I can see room for speculation, I don't see how what we do have can be over-ruled by it.
While respecting your opinion I have to say there is so much important information he writes about, after looking into it, which is totally incorrect.
He invents dialog. This is something I have only ever seen in Novels (and one other place). There is nothing real about fantasy.
He restates information without properly researching it. If one is to be regarded as Joe does him, then no amount of time can be skirted. You can't evaluate evidence if you don't see it. Van Ingen is a perfect example of the myriad of terrible mistakes Fisher makes within both his publications.
This is problematic on more then one front. For example, Researchers who come along and trust his information will simply cite him as a source and therefore repeat the bad information he recounted. It then works its way through history as fact when its nothing more then guess-work and fiction.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Oct 27, 2009 19:13:58 GMT -5
im not upset mike, gardner knocks fisher in his index of his book, but he shys away in metioning that scaduto had multi mistakes, and fisher killed him in a live debate. it seems to me gardner stayed on one course and relied on you, and the other researchers in his book, this baby was identfied by lindbergh and betty gow, the nightshirt, the bluethread, as fisher told scaduto, "give me a break". to say that it is not the baby is crazy just like saying fisch had hot money, another dead end.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2009 5:43:16 GMT -5
Well, while its weak I'm not sure it tops the other of his weak stuff. There much like this to go around and that's the problem. Then to present the position like its been "debated" as if others saw it this way too before he did is a tired tactic.
I don't agree that he "knocks" him. He attempts to prove the situation, does, then points out that Fisher has a different perspective. I think that's both ethical and responsible - especially since its Fisher calling everyone else "Revisionists."
By the way, I'd hate to be in a debate with a guy making false claims backed by the only things he knows about. Do you know what I could "prove" with some of the stuff I have (minus what disproves it)?
That course, in my opinion, has always been to get to the bottom of the historical facts surrounding the Case. He doesn't attempt to prove or disprove it. He used all available sources to draw the most logical perspectives to ask valuable questions. He is meticulous, and I can't even count the number of times I've run into him at the Archives.
In short, Lloyd's book raised the standard of research. Apparently the previous standard was Fisher, or so it was implied, and now one can see there's just no comparison.
I do agree it was Charles Jr. But the issue exists for several reasons. Certainly not the bogus Claimants however.
I have been researching this Case come January for 10 years. I started working on my 1st chapter about 2 months ago. Even if its poorly written by certain standards I promise you there will be shocking and provable information in it. Now, how do you think I know this? It's taking me so long to produce just one chapter because I have too many sources! Some agree, and some don't. The idea is to cross-reference everything in order to bring out the truth which is my ultimate goal. So while there may be those who say the misrepresentation about what Van Ingen said means nothing I have to disagree. We must rely on certain truths to bring us to other truths. If we rely on something false it will lead us on a path straight to the wrong answers about other other information that everyone will consider valuable.
We need to rely on the information as real because one thing certainly runs smack into another.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Oct 28, 2009 13:52:42 GMT -5
mike, i agree on the baby being charles jr, but as long as we can remain friends, even though i probably wont agree with some of the stuff in your up coming book, thats more important to me
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2009 18:12:15 GMT -5
We'll always be friends Steve.... And you'll have no choice but to agree with what I write because it will all be backed by real sources that are cross-referenced, tested, and double-checked.
It's why its taking me so long to produce. But with all the new information I am hoping you'll think its worth the wait.
Sorry about your Mets... GO PHILLIES!
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Apr 3, 2010 11:53:18 GMT -5
There are at least two high-profile experts (one a renowned medical doctor, the other a ballistics expert with decades of experience) who claim(ed) that the hole in the Lindbergh baby's head may have been caused by a bullet. Dr. Michael Baden is one expert. See Judge Duggan's page 11: 2. When, where and how the baby died was hotly contested. The autopsy was grossly inadequate. It is one page long and no tissue slides or photographs were made or preserved. A hole in the baby’s head was found by Dr. Michael Badin, in reviewing the records for a symposium several years ago, to be consistent with a small bore bullet hole. Had the baby not been killed “in the course of “ the unlawful entry, even this capital charge theory of the prosecutions case would have gone by the boards. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/duggan.pdf---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The other expert is Howard Donahue. Donahue, a Baltimore gun shop owner, was the first one to demonstrate (he had no axe to grind) that it was possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have gotten off 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. Donahue did it in under 5 seconds! In the 1992 book, Mortal Error, Bonar Menninger uses Donahue's extensive knowledge and experience as a ballistics expert and firearms examiner to support the conclusion that Secret Service Agent, George Hickey, shot John F. Kennedy in the head when Hickey's AR-15 rifle accidentally went off in the chaos and confusion in Dealy Plaza. I find this theory absolutely fascinating! So, Donahue believed that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first two shots. The first one missed Kennedy and the others in the limo. The second went through Kennedy's back and out through his neck, and on through to Connelly. And the third one blew Kennedy's brains apart! Was Hickey to blame? Also, for further reading about the accidental homicide of JFK, try to get a hold of Ralph Reppert's 2-part article spread over two Sundays in the Baltimore Sun Sunday Magazine from 1977. I believe the dates are May 1 and May 8, 1977. These articles launched the JFK accident theory. Donahue did a 1978 BBC television special where he offered forensic evidence that showed the Lindbergh baby may have been shot. See the 1999 write up in the Baltimore Sun, and the sentence that refers to the Lindbergh baby: articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-12-21/news/9912210051_1_donahue-ballistics-expert-warren-commission(Note: Arrow down for the complete article, and don't forget to click on page 2!) Gunsmith Donahue did research and prepared reports to prove the Lindbergh baby may have been shot! Has anyone heard about or seen this 1978 BBC program mentioned in the Baltimore Sun?
|
|