|
Post by drd99 on Jan 30, 2013 14:59:51 GMT -5
I understand, we agree to disagree. I cannot consider Douglas as unbiased, even when he states he only got $3000.00 from the Ramsey family and would not cooperate with Boulder P.D.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2013 18:32:42 GMT -5
I've got Comcast and its On Demand already. Don't have to wait till 9! Get the popcorn and have a seat.
|
|
|
Post by EM on Jan 31, 2013 10:49:35 GMT -5
Very fascinating that the sate of New Jersey won't allow DNA testing on the ransom note envelopes. That would answer a lot of questions quickly. Why no DNA testing? Who's DNA are they afraid they might find on those envelopes? Maybe the DNA of a certain anti-Semitic, racist Nazi loving misogynist so-called "American hero"? Are they still trying to protect this scumbag's reputation? I'm glad his secret children are out in the open. My only regret is that his DNA has been passed on to another generation and they will create another generation carrying Lindberg's sociopathic genes. This man was not a hero. He had one great accomplishment in his life. But he was a miserable human being. The quicker we can forget about Charles Lindberg the better. Good riddance!
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 31, 2013 11:13:38 GMT -5
Briefly: I saw it, it was fascinating, and I have enormous admiration and respect for John Douglas. There were some factual errors, such as the statement that the child's body was discovered two weeks after the ransom exchange when it was closer to two months. Minor, I suppose, but it makes me wonder. Also, the reenacted kidnapping was shown was on a clear night, not the rainy and windy one of March 1st, 1932. Douglas struck me as accepting Hauptmann too easily as a criminal type due to his past,--yes, he did those things, but he had no criminal record in the U.S.--and I don't think the name Isador Fisch was even mentioned. Still and all, I enjoyed it immensely, with the science the most fascinating stuff. Zorn came off well, I thought, and Douglas struck me as reasonable and open minded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 11:50:35 GMT -5
Enjoyed watching the Nova special. I felt the main focus of this program was whether or not Hauptmann committed the crime alone or had an accomplice(s). I think that John Douglas' position that more than one person was required to accomplish this kidnapping is sound. If nothing else, someone needed to hold onto that ladder while someone else went up and came down.
I still don't see any strong evidence connecting John Knoll to this crime or even to Hauptmann. The fleshy lump at the base of the thumb, even if it is a real characteristic of CJ's and not made up by Condon, is not in the correct place on Knoll's hand. The fleshy lump was on the palm side of CJ's left hand not the back side of the thumb. When Condon checked the hands of the men in the lineup that day in the police station, he asked them to hold up their hands with palms up. That is where he was looking for the lump, not on the back of the hand.
Like the guest poster, I would love to see DNA testing on the ransom envelopes and Hauptmann's personal mail envelopes. The handwriting specialist on this program didn't think Hauptmann or Knoll were the writers anyway but would prove that more than one person was involved with this crime if the DNA match was negative.
The way they say Charlie was killed left me a bit confused. They said that the blow to the right side of the head caused the fracture on the left. Why was the blood clot found on the left side of the interior of the skull instead of the right side? No photos were taken of the head injuries. Did anyone make sketches of the skull perhaps?
Overall, I enjoyed the program. It was nice to see Kevin (Kevkon), Mark Falzini, and Dr Gardner contributing their expertise to this production.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2013 17:34:26 GMT -5
Probably something that I was most impressed with was they got the Ransom Box right. That floored me. Too bad it wasn't a 2 hour show....but then I suppose I'd be asking for 3 if it had been. Many things to discuss: 1. John Douglas thinks more then one person was involved.
2. JD thinks there was an Inside Informant who he believes was Violet Sharp.
3. JD thinks Lindbergh should not be a suspect because he wasn't violent.
4. JD thinks Hauptmann was absolutely involved.
5. JD finds Knoll "intriguing" as a Suspect.
6. Dr. Butts says Charles Jr. had no evidence of any significant medical problems, and that if he did have rickets it was a mild condition for which he was being appropriately treated.
7. Dr. Lloyd Gardner believes Lindbergh was behind the kidnapping.
8. Sargur Srihari's handwriting computer analysis ruled out both Hauptmann and Knoll as the Ransom Note Writer.
9. Kevin Klein concluded Rail 16 does match S-226. If I have forgotten any then please go ahead and add them to the list by giving it the next number in sequence..... As usual, there are things I agree with and things I do not. It's hard for me to offer a rebuttal without knowing exactly what someone is relying on to make their personal/professional conclusions. While I do have 12+ years of research under my belt concerning this Case, there is no way I've seen and/or considered everything. In short, there's things I may be aware of that others are not AND vise-versa. 1. I agree 100% 2. I agree 100% on insider information. VS being that person is a sound position. Whether I agree or not she was is a different matter. 3. I disagree. Additionally, in the show Lloyd stated he didn't believe the child was supposed to have been killed. Operating from that position there would be no violence needed so I don't understand the basis for this conclusion being made upon violence. Personally, I do agree with JD that the child was to be killed, but I do not believe Lindbergh should be ruled out. Understanding exactly who JD is, and respecting his opinion, I do believe there are documents out there which may change his mind if he read them. 4. I agree. Where, how, and to what extent would need to be answered. 5. I strongly disagree. It has, is, and always will be my position that everyone involved is mentioned somewhere in those files at the NJSP Archives. For example, about 8 years ago someone emailed me with a story concerning a family member secretly confessing involvement to Relative and asked if I had ever heard of him. I had an entire file on the man and during his investigation he denied being involved to the Police. Had Mr. Zorn written a book on this guy I would have read it because he would be a far better suspect. Knoll may have been involved in illegal activity - I don't know nor do I care - because he is not involved in this matter. 6. I have no idea what Dr. Butts saw in order to draw this conclusion. I could be wrong but I'd venture a guess that it isn't all that I have. 7. It's a sound theory. 8. Wow! I'm not a QDE but I bet he's really pissed some people off. I've always said (and actually meant) that I believe it to be a 50/50 possibility. It looks like SS avoided the "request" writings and used the natural Begg Letter only. I don't know this as a fact but that is what it appeared to be. Since the Police influenced the "requests" that was the right thing to do in order to come to an unbiased conclusion. 9. I agree, but not under the circumstances we've all been told. Too bad Kevin couldn't go into that because outside of our Board its brand new stuff.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 31, 2013 18:34:26 GMT -5
Michael, that was my box. I only wish the actual unassisted ladder climb in and out at Highfields was included.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 31, 2013 19:47:41 GMT -5
Curious as to people's thoughts on the head injuries mentioned in the program. Amy points out that the clot was inside the left part of the skull, around that fracture, indicating the impact was sustained there. But the program postulated that the small hole, the one on the other side of the head that police claimed was a post-mortem puncture wound made by a twig, was the actual impact point, causing the fracture on the other side, which was against a hard surface. On the program, they said it's impossible for a twig to poke through even a decomposing skull. All things being equal, I would agree, as my understanding is that skeletons tend to get more brittle than mushy or pliant during decomposition. On the other hand, it was said at the time that the skull was so soft as to allow a stick to inadvertantly punch through. I'm wondering why the skull was so soft and why the reports of it as such weren't mentioned in the program. I'm also wondering why the police would make up a story about accidentally desecrating the body of America's baby, when they could've easily said that damage was due to something else.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2013 20:47:57 GMT -5
Great job! I should have known.
Me too. It would give me a chance to pose questions or make comments about it - and get your perspective since you were there to see it actually happen.
This would fall under my point #6 and its exactly why I think Dr. Butts missed some things. There was absolutely no reason for anyone to lie about this. Walsh said it from the time it happened all the way to his testimony in Court. It's important to note he was no friend to the NJSP by this time either so he certainly wasn't doing it out of loyalty. To underscore this point, Walsh seized and confiscated every "I Socked Hoffman" from each and every street corner vendor hawking it in his city.
So if it did what does that say about his health? Maybe its best just to say its impossible and go with that? Fact is, it happened. Knowing it happened now where do we go from here?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 31, 2013 21:28:16 GMT -5
Exactly. I have no doubt the skull puncturing occurred, that there was no reason to lie about it. That being the case, it's strange. So what does it mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 21:51:38 GMT -5
I wish they would have included that footage too. Were you there when they taped it? Did they use two sections or three sections of the ladder to enter the nursery?
Very nice box Kevin. Looks very sturdy. The money fit in there very compactly too. A really great visual!
Also Kevin, is it possible to tell if a carpenter is left handed or right handed when they build something?
This whole portion was problematic for me. No comments about the unusually high and prominent forehead, the cranium circumference being greater than it should be for a child Charlie's age. No mention of the open fontanel either. Disappointing. I am also not inclined to agree with the right side fracture being the first one to occur.
I think this is a sound theory too. Lindbergh stepped out of his disciplined character skipping that dinner event and came home instead. He did this for a reason.
I thought this was great! Talk about killing two birds with one stone!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jan 31, 2013 22:42:53 GMT -5
Michael—just curious. Has New Jersey given a reason for refusing DNA testing on the envelopes? By the way, there was an interesting show a few years ago where DNA proved that the controversial woman who claimed to be Anastasia (the Czar’s daughter) was in fact an imposter. I have to wonder, though, how good a DNA sample you might get off these old envelopes.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 31, 2013 23:01:14 GMT -5
they wouldnt test the envelopes for the longest times. its nothing new. i hope someday they do it. i dont agree with that handwriting expert on that show. and i am very surprised at gardner jumping on the lindbergh was involved bandwagon. mikes right, it should have been 2 hours. when i climbed the replica ladder i was to heavy to go to the window, i would have liked to see that portion of the show
|
|
|
Post by john on Feb 1, 2013 1:07:31 GMT -5
Michael, I wish it had been a three hour special! They crammed so much stuff into that one hour that my head was nearly spinning by the time it was over, and I'm an old LKC hand, know the story inside out, but still... The case is so complicated, the events surounding it, in good and bad ways (Fisch and Noso, for instance,--yes or no?) so in themselves mysterious, near labyrinthine, as to warrant a near Ken ( The Civil War, Baseball, Jazz) Burns approach, multi-episode, with lots of background stuff on every major player and suspect in the case. I appreciated the experts, enjoyed seeing the Bronx streets, though as I stated earlier, without an accurate reenactment of the crime as it was committed on that particular stormy night gives a somewhat false impression of it as, allowing for ladder issues, a piece of cake. Good luck. Good luck! Whoever climbed the ladder was lucky he wasn't blown away, broke a leg, made a big noise. More like a miracle, from the kidnappers' perspective. They,--I think it was Douglas, whom I really like--made an excellent point that the house was well lit, had lots of adults downstairs, that from an outside perspective it must have looked kinda dicey, and yet they went ahead with the snatch anyway. This makes one seriously wonder whether whoever did the did had some help, a clue, a hint, a reassurance of some kind, that enabled him/them to go ahead with their plan. Also, the road conditions of rural (rustic?) New Jersey of that time were, not great in good weather, dreadful in bad weather, especially for someone unfamiliar with the terrain, coming from NYC, a city person, who, even if he'd been around those parts before would still be a relative newbie as to navigating those kinds of (in many cases unpaved) roads in rough weather. To put it another way, whoever did the deed had to know what he was doing, where he was going, had a large measure of asurance that things would turn out okay (which they sort of did). I was struck by Douglas being so confident that Hauptmann was if not the perp, a perp in the kidnapping itself, rather than someone brought in later. There's no denying that BRH looked bad, guilty as sin as to at the very least being a gang member, and above the bag man/gofer level. He was a player. I agree with Douglas. But was he in Hopewell on 3/1/32? Douglas made a fine point about Hauptmann (perhaps) preferring to go to his death denying his involvement in the LKC, thus leaving some ambiguity ("the case, it will never die") as, after a weird fashion, "protecting" his family's name. This sounds weird to us today, as Bruno Richard Hauptmann is nowadays better remembered than the (at the time of his arrest and trial) the vastly more famous Nobel prize winning German dramatist Gerhard Hauptmann, largely forgotten now. That Lindbergh's character was analyzed at all impressed me, as there was suggested at least the possibility, albeit remote, that, as suggested by Ahlgren & Monier, Lindbergh had issues with his son's health, maybe wanted him if not killed, taken away, perhaps to a sanitarium. Overall, an excellent show, though I do think the reliance on experts, not Douglas, but some of the others, was almost too high tech for me, with its implication that these such professionals can do no wrong, that science is behind them. Well, in some cases yes, but in other cases these people were offering their opinions, backed up computer analysis, but such things are not always right. There are still those gray areas.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 1, 2013 8:15:30 GMT -5
As someone involved in the Nova production from the start , let me say this; what you all saw was not the entire story of the production. There are practical considerations that dictated the final product. And yes, that includes ratings. I can't say that I am in agreement with the final product. What I can say is this; I built an exact replica ladder which we brought to Highfields. It was climbed unassisted and the climber made it into and out of the Nursery without falling, help, or disturbing anything on the sill. We performed this action multiple times and included a weighted sack. The climber had absolutely no previous experience with the ladder. Regarding John Douglas; he and I had many conversations on and off camera. His views on the kidnapping are not exactly conveyed by the final cut. None of us believed Knoll was an absolute or even most likely suspect. Read his books and you will see. Bottom line, Nova, though not perfect, allowed me the opportunity to test the ladder and the climb. It also gave me the opportunity to discuss some of my own theories with a renowned expert. So watch the show, but bear in mind that it is a show.
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Feb 1, 2013 12:28:40 GMT -5
My prior experience with NOVA shows has proven that their producers are looking for stories that guarantee a large audience. They are NOT interested in historical accurate. Witness the experience of professional Pearl Harbor historians and PBS NOVA's recent piece of junk history concerning"Killer Subs of Pearl Harbor." After being advised of irrefutable evidence from several vantage points, NOVA producers ignored reality and broadcast a certifiably inaccurate account of the Japanese midget subs at Pearl Harbor. PBS NOVA's main concern is attracting an audience, nothing more. After watching their Lindbergh kidnapping show, I see they are still producing junk history. Of particular scorn was their "proof" that Hauptmann didn't write those ranson notes, based on a single source, that apparently only examined pen strokes, angles, whatever. I note that one of the best reasons for concluding Hauptmann wrote all the notes had nothing to do with the actual penmanship, but the odd ways in which he spelled many common words, both in the notes, in his diary, and even in his public documents. People's handwriting always varies, depending upon many factors, and it often comes down to things like Hauptmann's "x", which was always written as if it were two "e"s. PBS' NOVA's investigation of handwriting was based on one source, accuracy unknown, and, as far as I can tell, ignored the most important aspects of those samples. Really sloppy "science." There were plenty of other "facts" presented in the program that were not as certain as the program claimed. The only thing Douglas said that made sense was his certainty that rail 16 was ironclad proof of Hauptmann's guilt. However, his claim that it was normal for kidnappers to kill their victim rather than be bothered caring for it is total nonsense. The victim, alive and well, is always the key to getting the ransom paid. Lindbergh was a fool to have believed that not only did the sleeping suit prove that he was dealing with the kidnapper,but that it also proved his son was still alive. He should have told the kidnapper to take a snapshot of his son next to a recent newspaper front page and send him the film to prove Jr was still alive. The kidnapper could not conceivably object to that request, since he had already willingly sent the sleeping suit. The show made so many flimsy claims ("the prosecutors were convinced Hauptmann had accomplices"), which were both untrue and illogical to boot. Another was "the kidnappers may have received vital information (on the Lindbergh's whereabouts) from one of the household staff. That's ridiculous. There's no earthly reason to assume that Hauptmann had the foggiest notion of the Lindbergh's routine, or needed to know. He could hardly have executed the crime in a more slapdash and sloppy fashion : leaving vital clues (chisel and ladder) at the scene of the crime, accidentally killing the victim, etc. I tune in to NOVA mostly to laugh at their ineptitude, regardless of which subject they choose to fictionalize.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 1, 2013 20:17:07 GMT -5
I'd say it means his skull wasn't "normal." If it's "impossible" but happened - then its the only logical conclusion.
Good question Amy. Squire Johnson seemed to think he could tell.
Investigative Reporter Mike Holfeld tried to do the same thing back in 2002. He told me the State Attorney General's Office (at the time) informed him that New Jersey was concerned the testing would damage the envelopes.
I believe it was the same reasoning the State used to oppose Dr. Hoadley's request for invasive study of Rail 16 and S-226 back in the '80s when he was hired as an Expert by Anna Hauptmann.
I could be wrong, or there could be a different reason this time. To be sure I would give Mark Falzini a call at the Archives.
Hey Steve, didn't I see you on an episode of Storage Wars New York?
I got the impression it was because of Rail 16. This puts him in from the beginning in most people's eyes.
Kevin, I moved this whole topic over to the Ladder thread.
I know from seeing them at the NJSP Archives, several times researching, that they were interested in accuracy. Like Kevin said, it was an hour long show and some things had to give. Look at the Ransom Box - it was accurate. I suppose you could say something like: "why didn't they show where the box broke when they tried to force the extra 20K in it?".... but stuff like this could go on forever ..... most especially if you try to explain it. There's a good 10 minutes gone from the 60.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 1, 2013 20:24:42 GMT -5
Dr. Lloyd Gardner has posted his opinions/comments on his blog about the show:
|
|
|
Post by drd99 on Feb 1, 2013 20:33:50 GMT -5
An hour is not enough time to "Do it Justice", Kevcon I've read ladder forum and know little or nothing about wood. Is your report on Rail 16 anywhere on the board ? You mention that you don't really agree with some of the Nova presentation. Would you comment on that ? I agree that this was not a solo job, I think it had inside help. I'm really amazed that more of the $$ did not show up. A lot of JD's conclusions are just common sense.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 1, 2013 22:54:13 GMT -5
Interesting that Lloyd affirms, on Nova and in his blog, that he now believes Lindbergh staged the kidnapping so he could place Charlie in the Skillman Institute for Epileptics. There are many reasons against this theory.
-- The kidnapping created the largest manhunt in American history. So how long before someone at the Skillman Institute would have recognized Charlie? Then not only would the whole world know Charlie had epilepsy, but Lindbergh would have faced the even larger scandal of having deceived the entire nation.
--Lloyd presents no evidence connecting Lindbergh to Hauptmann.
--Lloyd presents no evidence that Charlie had epilepsy. If Charlie had epilepsy, Lindy would certainly not have allowed him to attend Elizabeth’s preschool. Epileptic seizures are unpredictable—they can occur at any time, and could have been witnessed by teachers and other parents.
--If Charlie had epileptic seizures, how come Mrs. Morrow didn’t know? She was watching Charlie during the Lindberghs’ 1931 journey to the Orient. Yet after the kidnapping, she wrote the pediatrician, Van Ingen, inquiring if there was anything wrong with Charlie. And Van Ingen made no mention of epilepsy in his reply.
--If Charlie was an epileptic, he probably would have been on a such as Phenobarbital and would have had his crib rails padded to protect him from injury during seizures. Again, where is the evidence?
I agree with Michael that Lloyd’s book is probably the best one on the LKC—it’s very balanced. So I’m surprised to see him now committing himself to a problematic theory.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 2, 2013 6:29:14 GMT -5
Lloyd is overthinking the crime as extremely intelligent men are apt to do. JD and I discussed the Lindbergh angle, there are just too many reasons why it won't fly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2013 8:30:13 GMT -5
I know that you aren't a big fan of JD but since I respect your opinion I am curious about what you agree with and disagree with concerning his position. So far we agree on inside help, and multiple persons being involved. But what about Violet Sharp? How about his take on Hauptmann? Or his belief that Lloyd's new theory is mistaken?
In fact, I am interested to field everyone's opinion on all of the assertions set forth in the show.
I think when his book was written he held no such theory. As he said on the show, the hidden families seem to be what led him to actually come to this conclusion. So I personally am not surprised that he, or anyone, might come to a personal conclusion eventually even if they don't have one presently.
It makes sense, and I think its what anyone who visits this site or reads a book on the Crime is looking for. After looking at all of the available "facts" to try to reconcile them to come up with a remedy to this riddle they can be comfortable with.
I think this is a pretty important observation from both of you. And I believe its needs to be considered if someone believes Lindbergh should be included in the mix.
I will have to admit that I do consider him (and this isn't a Devil's Advocate type of post). For me there are certain pieces of evidence scattered to the winds, that once brought together, snap in place. As you know its taken every bit of the 12 years I put into this thing to find them all in order to bring them together.
Of course I could be wrong, but I think a full evaluation would be in order before anyone could disregard it. And so its unfair for me to challenge until I can properly disclose what I have found.
But for the record, as I said above, I disagree that Lindbergh should be eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by drd99 on Feb 2, 2013 18:22:43 GMT -5
Michael, I agree more of JD's conclusions than you might expect, I don't question his intellect but cannot forgive his hand in the Jon Benet case, he did a great deal of harm in my opinion. I think Violet did pass on inside info and I'm not convinced it was an accident, more work should have been done on her. I'm not convinced that BRH "Did it" The head man of the NJSP was a fine military man but not a cop, Had the BoI been in charge who knows It's like very thing stopped upon the arrest of BRH. I still think that at some time other ransom bills will be found and may lead somewhere. I don't agree with Lloyd, CL was many things but I don't think a murderer. To me the handwriting was a wash, it's a very imperfect science kind of like lie detectors, it all ends with how good the man on the machine is. I'd like to hear more from Kevin about rail 16 I've read the forum on the ladder and unless I've missed it don't see his report have I overlooked it here ? I know nothing about wood, I spent over thirty years working on money laundering among other things. I'd like to hear more of Kevins thoughts on the show, what he did not agree with and perhaps what he stated that JD might not have concurred with. I might not agree but I respect every ones opinion and enjoy hearing most of them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2013 21:50:11 GMT -5
Its good to see RMC back! I only know a little about that case. I try not to drift because I've got enough on my plate as it is. But sometimes things cross-over and I have no choice. Let me ask you this: Do you think Jack Kevorkian considered himself a Murderer? This is something to consider when Lindbergh's name is mentioned. I don't think anyone believes he's Jack the Ripper. But think about abortion and the two sides to it then equate that to what might be considered a mercy killing back when those things were considered a reasonable alternative by hard-core Eugenicists. Don't get me started on Lie Detectors. I wonder how many passed using counter-measures over the years? Like you said, it all depends on the guy at the helm. This computer vs. man is a new twist in the Handwriting aspect. I'd like to hear your position on the ransom laundering. How it happened, and what methods might have been employed. Damn good question and I'd like to know too. While I have it handy, and since JD named Violet Sharp as his "insider" then I'll post this document where Governor Moore is defending the NJSP after he suicide: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 3, 2013 12:27:56 GMT -5
mike, storage wars? no you didnt. cant stand those shows. kevcon good job on the show. i wish they would test the envelopes. gov barnes was all for it in a early documentry on the case, saying when the technology in forensics improves we should use it in this case. kevcon, if you want a copy of kelvin keregas research on rail 16 and the wood let me know. mike why would gardner put his neck out to say lindbergh was involved, im surprsed
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 3, 2013 12:53:17 GMT -5
What didn't I agree with about the show? Well for one, and here again I was involved from the beginning, there was a decision made by the Nova producer to stick to the Zorn storyline even though everyone involved in the production ( except Bob Zorn) felt it was flimsy at best. Then the omission of the ladder climb because it did not reinforce the multiple participant theory. (Interestingly, Dr Gardner also disregards this in his blog since it doesn't exactly support the Lindbergh did it theory, so it's not just Nova) Then there was too much wasted air time on fluff. Once again though, given that most people don't even know who Lindbergh was let alone Hauptmann, I guess this is just a reality of television. Regarding Dr. Butts, he should have had more air time because what he said and not shown is that there is absolutely no way you can poke a stick through a skull, rickets or not. Probably what happened was that Walsh thought he had made the hole, when in fact, it already existed ( or is that too simple?) Then there is John Douglas, the things I learned from him were amazing. Bear two things in mind though regarding the show. He was scripted and he was following the directors cue. Also he was edited. That doesn't mean he didn't believe what he was saying, it simply means that he did have other thoughts involving the crime. You have to remember the vast amount of cases he has worked, the LKC was not one of them , so there was much he was not aware of. Not to mention that he survived a near death experience which has had a lasting effect on him. The bottom line is that we should all be grateful that Bob Zorn was so media savvy and persistent. No, I don't agree with his theory( even though I spent countless hours on the phone with him while he was writing his book). In the end, a major production was launched that re-explored the LKC and hopefully introduced it to a new generation. I have to take comfort in what that production allowed me to discover regardless of whether or not it ended up on the TV. Really, who among us would fork over the time and money to re-create the ladder climb?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2013 13:18:11 GMT -5
No doubt in my mind Walsh poked a hole in the skull with the stick he used to turn over the corpse. It's not too simple to say he coincidentally happened to poke a "stick" in a pre-existing hole that he didn't see. So what condition would allow it to happen (because there are such conditions)? If you believe the child was healthy or only had a "mild" case of Rickets for which he was being appropriately treated, I would agree with his conclusion. For me that's the problem. From the material I've researched - I do not believe he was suffering from a mild case of Rickets. Walsh doing what he did adds to the proof.
But do you really believe one man did this? Or does this climb simply allow for the possibility of someone being able to do this under the right circumstances?
For me it doesn't change anything because there is much more evidence for multiple participants then a ladder climb. But its important to get all of the known facts out there so they can be appropriately considered.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 3, 2013 14:05:03 GMT -5
It just couldn't happen regardless of the severity of rickets. If it could that skull would be too soft to even examine. Not to mention that the "plug" made by this stick poking would clearly be evident.
I don't draw any conclussion regarding the number of participants from the climb. I do accept however, that it is possible that one person could do it alone.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2013 14:14:28 GMT -5
I get what you are saying but I am not basing this on Rickets. I have reviewed just about everything there is at the Archives. Dr. Mitchell, for example, had much more to say then just what's in the Autopsy Report. So I made a list of what I found and consulted numerous professionals asking what could cause what. Nothing about Lindbergh, or anything like that. I got a wide range of feedback. Some used words like "unlikely" or "rare" but no one said "impossible." Anyway that's just where I am at - it doesn't mean I am right because no one will ever be able to say with certainty - not with the evidence we have.
But I do have to say that I believe there's much I've seen that most haven't. I think if you are going to conclude something its important to see and consider everything.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 3, 2013 14:34:37 GMT -5
kevcon, id like to be there to see it, im not climbing it again
|
|