jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 3, 2010 22:20:25 GMT -5
Lots of gunshot garble.
A police officer can tell in seconds whether a body was shot.
They said the kid was shot!
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 11, 2010 18:13:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2010 5:54:21 GMT -5
FYI - The man sitting to the left of Dr. Mitchell in this clip is Walter Swayze.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 12, 2010 6:54:11 GMT -5
thanks mike, i kind of thought it was swayze but wasnt sure
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 12, 2010 20:39:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Aug 27, 2011 16:20:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 16, 2017 14:08:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 27, 2018 17:39:49 GMT -5
Obviously the child actually died somehow already, so there is no need for anything particular to be wrong with him aside from having died either accidentally or on purpose. There was no reason for the prosecution to want to prove exactly how he died especially if it might be from a bullet. It seems very unlikely that the child was shot at least not if money was the motivation, maybe if it was some kind of punishment for Lindbergh I guess.
If he was not shot then most likely he was accidentally dropped which could cause any imaginable kinds of trauma. And skulls are actually very thin even in adults, around 1/4 inch. In babies they are much thinner, and no doubt less so in babies with rickets. So while you could make up many theories to explain the findings, there is no real need for much explanation or particular need for a gunshot wound or serious unknown disease except to go along with certain theories about the motives.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 27, 2018 19:08:40 GMT -5
Obviously the child actually died somehow already, so there is no need for anything particular to be wrong with him aside from having died either accidentally or on purpose. There was no reason for the prosecution to want to prove exactly how he died especially if it might be from a bullet. It seems very unlikely that the child was shot at least not if money was the motivation, maybe if it was some kind of punishment for Lindbergh I guess. If he was not shot then most likely he was accidentally dropped which could cause any imaginable kinds of trauma. And skulls are actually very thin even in adults, around 1/4 inch. In babies they are much thinner, and no doubt less so in babies with rickets. So while you could make up many theories to explain the findings, there is no real need for much explanation or particular need for a gunshot wound or serious unknown disease except to go along with certain theories about the motives. This child's skull was beyond thin. It "came apart like an orange" autopsy. As Dr. Gardner put it in his newer book, "a normal skull—even that of a two-year-old—would not have so deteriorated in that short a time. Down in the vaults of cathedrals are ossuaries from before the Middle Ages testifying silently to the strength of the bones of saints—but also of commoners. Intact skulls from the time of the Neanderthals tell us much of what we know about that prehistoric era." In other words, yes a child's skull is thinner than that of an adult but not nearly enough to do what it did here.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 28, 2018 2:33:29 GMT -5
Obviously the child actually died somehow already, so there is no need for anything particular to be wrong with him aside from having died either accidentally or on purpose. There was no reason for the prosecution to want to prove exactly how he died especially if it might be from a bullet. It seems very unlikely that the child was shot at least not if money was the motivation, maybe if it was some kind of punishment for Lindbergh I guess. If he was not shot then most likely he was accidentally dropped which could cause any imaginable kinds of trauma. And skulls are actually very thin even in adults, around 1/4 inch. In babies they are much thinner, and no doubt less so in babies with rickets. So while you could make up many theories to explain the findings, there is no real need for much explanation or particular need for a gunshot wound or serious unknown disease except to go along with certain theories about the motives. This child's skull was beyond thin. It "came apart like an orange" autopsy. As Dr. Gardner put it in his newer book, "a normal skull—even that of a two-year-old—would not have so deteriorated in that short a time. Down in the vaults of cathedrals are ossuaries from before the Middle Ages testifying silently to the strength of the bones of saints—but also of commoners. Intact skulls from the time of the Neanderthals tell us much of what we know about that prehistoric era." In other words, yes a child's skull is thinner than that of an adult but not nearly enough to do what it did here. Well, how did the child die and what happened to the body after that? That can have a giant effect on how well the skull will hold up, it could have been barely intact already which is my guess. So there is no need to assume a previously unknown malady even greater than rickets just because of this.
|
|
ian
Recruit
Posts: 4
|
Post by ian on Apr 19, 2018 21:29:24 GMT -5
I really do want to believe in the gun shot evidence. There's so much going for it, but I wonder if anyone has opinions on the practicality of the shot. For the sake of this discussion, I assume that the child was dead when it left that room, probably in the same burlap sack found on the road. I really believe that must have been the case. Otherwise, screaming or crying would have been heard. Smothering, strangulation are possible, of course, but it seems to me that those would have taken a long time. How does a gunshot fit in? It's quick, so it does have that going for it. CJr is put in the bag, shot, dropped and carried off. Does the 25 caliber gun make a sound that could be muffled with a pillow, or is that Hollywood BS? Could they really count on there being no bullet exiting the head? Wouldn't there have been the smell of gunpowder in the room? Those are my problems. So, if we are going with the idea that the baby was dead when he left the room, I guess that means CJr wasn't shot. And if he was shot, then CJr wasn't dead when he left the room..., right?
Can anyone do anything with the logistics of shooting CJr in the room?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2018 16:26:40 GMT -5
I really do want to believe in the gun shot evidence. There's so much going for it, but I wonder if anyone has opinions on the practicality of the shot. For the sake of this discussion, I assume that the child was dead when it left that room, probably in the same burlap sack found on the road. I really believe that must have been the case. Otherwise, screaming or crying would have been heard. Smothering, strangulation are possible, of course, but it seems to me that those would have taken a long time. How does a gunshot fit in? It's quick, so it does have that going for it. CJr is put in the bag, shot, dropped and carried off. That makes sense especially considering he screamed out UNLESS it was Betty who picked him up. Does the 25 caliber gun make a sound that could be muffled with a pillow, or is that Hollywood BS? Could they really count on there being no bullet exiting the head? Wouldn't there have been the smell of gunpowder in the room? Those are my problems. So, if we are going with the idea that the baby was dead when he left the room, I guess that means CJr wasn't shot. And if he was shot, then CJr wasn't dead when he left the room..., right? I've never fired a small caliber pistol, and of course I've never tried to silence any either. However, I'd say if they held it up to a pillow it would quiet it down. I've never believed he was shot. The hole that was mistaken for a bullet (hole) was caused by Inspector Walsh using a stick to turn him over. He did not lie about that and had no reason to. However, I've only ever imagined the child could have been shot later after he was away from the house. Your suggestion that it was done in the nursery was something I don't think I have ever considered. Can anyone do anything with the logistics of shooting CJr in the room? I'd like to say "they wouldn't have done that" but everything that was done doesn't make any sense either. I do think a gun shot would have left blood and/or blood splatter and probably wasn't the smartest way to kill him in that nursery. If police find any trace of blood there all bets are off that the child is still alive.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 22, 2018 11:32:41 GMT -5
Sure, in homicide cases in general (but not here), bullets "get lost" quite frequently. Whenever there is an exit wound from a body made by an exiting projectile, looking for the bullet that caused it can be a very difficult, if not futile, job.
As for X-rays, they and their applicability to visualize inside the human body (dead or alive) were first discovered around 1900. A bullet within the body would generally be simple to detect on X-Ray, because its density is much greater radiographically than the normal anatomical structures surrounding it.
Why were no X-rays of the body found in the woods taken? Could be that (1) the small rural medical examiner's office did not have the necessary X-Ray equipment, (2) the police (in deference to CAL Sr.) put pressure on Mitchell and Swayze to release the body before there would be time to do X-rays, or (3) for some reason, no one thought that X-Rays were necessary.
|
|