kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 3, 2013 14:46:03 GMT -5
Just think about this proposition in practical terms. How soft would a skull be if a`stick could make a clean hole in it? It would have to be so pliable that it would not even be able to keep it's form. Dr Butts couldn't believe it was even considered.
Steve, it's not stucco but just the irregular surface of the stone wall. That essentially kept the ladder from sliding sideways when getting on and off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 17:01:47 GMT -5
I am on the fence about the stick poke through the skull. I originally thought that Walsh's stick went through an existing hole also. I also now realize that Charlie had some serious health issues that I think go beyond a mild case of rickets. Was Charlie's skull that soft while he was living? Could it have been pierced that easily before he died or did the skull get that soft after he died? My reason for asking is that the large fractures on the left side of Charlie's skull that occured while he was alive (blood clotting proves that) show the type of fracturing you would see in bone that was firm. Had it been soft, I would think the fractures would have been much different. Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Feb 3, 2013 17:28:09 GMT -5
Just dropping by to say that I just finished reading Robert Zorn's book and found the whole thing unconvincing in the extreme. I can see why some people with a basic knowledge of the case might find it captivating but it's highly selective in the "evidence" presented and ignores mountains of other facts that don't fit. I'm sure Mr Zorn didn't act with any malice and it's clearly well researched in terms of the hypothesis it sets out to prove but I don't find it at all relevant to the case. It doesn't even pass the most basic tests of proving any connection between Knoll and Hauptmann.
So I came on here out of curiosity to see the reaction to the book and in doing so learned of the PBS show, which I've just watched. Allowing for the need of such programmes to be entertaining and to fill in the gaps for the masses, I didn't see anything new in there and it sounds like the most interesting piece - the experiment with the replica ladder to which Kevin refers - didn't even make the cut. I know that Mr Douglas is renowned in his field but I personally find his field to be nothing more than informed guesswork. I think profiling can have benefits in the search for a serial criminal but I don't see how it can possibly apply to a single crime. Clearly, also, Mr Douglas is no real student of the case. He makes the astonishing claim that if Hauptmann had one third of the ransom money, who had the other two thirds? This, of course, ignores the fact that Hauptmann had to live (and play and speculate) for two and a half years before he was found with "his third". Like Mr Zorn, he completely ignores all the financial evidence (which I'll admit I can harp on about at length) even though it's all still available and there in black and white. The numbers don't lie.
I have to say I'm a bit taken aback to see Dr Gardner putting forth the Lindbergh involvement theory. It's so full of holes I wouldn't know where to start. I think sometimes when we look at something too long we fail to see what is in front of our face.
I think one thing from the PBS show that is worthy of comment is the handwriting analysis. This is the same expert and software programme used by Mr Zorn in his book. In the book, he quotes the outcome of the testing as being 95% in favour of the Knoll being involved in writing the ransom notes. This is based - apparently - on the comparison of ohn (from John) in Knoll's self-addressed envelopes and the ohn from the ransom envelopes sent to Condon. However, on the show that assertion seems to have been changed completely so, again, the book perhaps tries too hard to pick out the positive and forget the negative. The show implies that Hauptmann's writing was compared with the ransom letters on the basis on the Begg letter whereas the book says it was on the basis of the Begg letter and the Hoffman letter (the latter of which shows signs of Hauptmann clearly trying to alter his handwriting). I'm not sure why they would use the Begg letter alone when we have the margin letter (which was more contemporaneous with the kidnapping) or Hauptmann's many notebooks to compare. But interesting nonetheless.
Anyway, it's late (here) and work calls in the morning. Hope you, Michael, and all are well.
Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 3, 2013 20:54:11 GMT -5
Rab, for what it's worth I desperately tried to get Nova to look at your work and concentrate on forensic accounting, all to no avail. I still believe that that is the very best evidence in this case. Regarding the profiling, without an agenda it really is a very accurate tool for criminal investigation. I think Lloyd has backed himself into a corner which he ca not get out of. I saw`this happening years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2013 0:46:38 GMT -5
Is it possible Walsh accidentally thrust a stick through a pre-existing hole in the skull of the child's corpse without knowing it?
I suppose anything is possible. But for me there is no doubt he took the stick, poked it through the skull, as he did this he watched/heard the damage occur.
Honestly it doesn't harm any position I hold whether he did or he did not. But I think its incorrect for someone to speak in absolutes without seeing everything there is to see before making a decision. Could someone be right anyway saying it didn't happen? Sure, but in this case I don't believe so - for many reasons.
For one - Walsh was no friend to the NJSP or the Prosecution by the time of the trial. They needed his testimony to upset the Defense who they knew was going to try to make a case the child could have been shot. Since Walsh was friendly to the Defense, and not so friendly to the State, if he had not poked that hole there why would he testify to it at Trial?
Was the skull pliable or brittle? Was it in a condition from a disease or medical condition? Was it normal? What did the stick look like? I simply accumulated everything I found. There are certain unknown facts as well which must be considered from ALL possibilities that could exist. Then I fielded opinions, after which I came to a conclusion. If it was that simple just to say "impossible" then I would have to accept it. Although I've heard doubt from some, I never heard it was impossible under any circumstance.
For me its more of a matter of historical correctness to get these things right. So don't let me talk anyone into believing or not believing before checking it out yourself. And also know there is more information to be learned besides what's in the Autopsy - although that is a good starting point.
Good to see you back Rab! Thanks for dropping by and hopefully you can get free from time to time to check in with thoughts and ideas. I agree that sometimes what is in front of us we fail to see. That's an important observation that I believe applies to each and everyone of us. I missed a ton over the years only to discover much of it later, and yes - it was in front of my face the whole time.
I believe this too. Is it 100%? No. But when you're dealing with the likes of John Douglas then you'd be an idiot not to at least consider what he has to say. Informed/Educated guesswork, if one believes that's what it is, has solved many crimes.
I think for anyone who doesn't believe Lindbergh was involved in any way then this would be the position to take. But there is a lot of information buried in those files to consider.
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Feb 4, 2013 10:32:22 GMT -5
My first observation about NOVA's program is that it obviously didn't have much content, as it padded the show extensively with irrelevant background info. The second observation is that it showed two kidnappers carrying the ladder, which was fully extended, which would be very unlikely, since it was constructed very compactly and would have been carried up to the house unextended. It also weighed all of 38 pounds, which hardly required two burly men to transport it. Of course, this was all just another NOVA technique of convincing LKC-ignorant viewers that what they are seeing has been proven. PBS NOVA is up to their old tricks of deceitful storytelling. Remember "Killer Subs of Pearl Harbor"? The subs were killers, but not in the way NOVA claimed - they killed all but one of their 10 crewmen, but nothing else. From the reports of professional historians on that show, NOVA producers are not averse to tampering with evidence, editing out portions of eyewitness "interviews" that contradict their inflammatory claims. PBS NOVA has no credibility. As to the Douglass claims, the first observation is that he was a profiler, not a detective. He does believe Hauptmann's guilt not subject to any doubt, so I'll give him his due for not imagining phantom kidnappers and obscenely complicated and illogical theories like those from Kennedy and practically every other LKC author, all transparently out to make a buck or push their own agenda (Kennedy), or both. His sole evidence for an accomplice is the $14,000 recovered from Hauptmann's garage , etc. "Where's the rest?" he asks, although apparently he didn't doubt that this was all Hauptmann got from the ransom. However, I have seen an audit (can't remmeber where) that listed Hauptmann's assets as $49,000. This for an unemployed carpenter who rented his residence. Doesn't sound like Douglass believes the old dictum : follow the money. If there actually was any money to be unaccounted for, it isn't explained by Douglass pointing out that Knoll and his wife took a trip on a ship - what did this couple do after returning? Did they start spending like crazy, or buying a house with cash? Douglass has nothing to say about that, either because he doesn't know, or because it would discredit his theory. His evidence against Knoll is beyond paper-thin - it is virtually non-existent. There is also the strange belief that Hauptmann could not have squirreled away a lot of money that was never found during the investigation. It's easy as hell to put money where no one can find it. One wonders why Hauptmann never worried about his garage burning down, destroying the money he had cached there. It could very well be that the money in the garage was his everyday and every month/year supply. The rest (if there was more) hidden in a more protected location, like a safety deposit box, etc. Did anyone ever monitor Anna Hauptmann's expenditures after the execution? I seriously doubt it. Certainly the police would have had no reason for doing so. What I would like to see is a detailed description of Hauptmann's known assets, both before the kidnapping and after. If there is anything yet to be discovered about LKC, I would suggest that it may be (may be) about where the ransom money ended up. At this point I assume that the money can either be accounted for by Hauptmann's new found net worth, or that he put it where the cops couldn't find it. He was, after all, intensely concerned about protecting his money. For me, the proof that there wasn't an accomplice is twofold : the crime scene clearly indicates a single kidnapper - the abandoned ladder and obviously forgotten dropped chisel would never have occurred if two were involved, or if Hauptmann had not injured his leg in his fall. Thereafter it is obvious that Hauptmann was responsible for everything - the notes, the ransom meetings, etc, And Hauptmann is hardly the type to either trust anyone else or split the ransom with anyone else. He was, as we know, very cheap and tightfisted. And all the alternative theories can be shot full of holes and none have convinced me that the stories they tell are even plausible, much less convincing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 15:21:10 GMT -5
So, Michael, is this opinion based on an actual statement made by Walsh? If he did hear something when the stick passed through the skull bone, then perhaps the skull has just firm enough to create a sound. Its possible that whatever disease or condition existed at the time Charlie died was causing his bones to be thinner than normal bone would be.
I don't know a whole lot about Walsh. Mostly from the Violet Sharpe episode. Since he testified to this at the trial, he must have truly believed he poked that hole in the skull accidently. Why do you say he was friendly toward the defense? Did he ever assist Hauptmann's defense team in any way?
This is another area I am going to add to my growing list of things to research at the archives!
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Feb 4, 2013 15:30:17 GMT -5
Forgive me for not mentioning NOVA's biggest piece of nonsense - the handwriting issue. I didn't catch the whole segment, but I believe that NOVA claimed that some mechanical whiz bang handwriting analyzer should be taken seriously as casting doubt on the handwriting evidence. First off, I saw no evidence to warrant any belief in any advantage of the system versus individual examiners. But most important of all was the fact that I did not hear any mention of by far the most persuasive characteristic of those samples, namely the odd but consistent misspellings, and other Hauptmann characteristics, present both in public documents written by Hauptmann and his diary entries. You certainly don't need to know anything about handwriting styles in order to conclude that the notes must all have been written by one man and that the man was Hauptmann. Limiting analysis to just the handwriting style, per se, is deliberately misleading, something NOVA seems to do repeatedly in most, if not all, of their productions. NOVA has zero credibility. I will give them some credit, however. They did spell Lindbergh's name correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Feb 4, 2013 17:06:12 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I have never accepted the Walsh story. I have always thought it was an after-the-fact explanation to cover the temptation of Hauptmann's defence to claim that the child had been shot. This would have made the death in the commission of a felony (burglary) charge very difficult to prove and also raised questions of jurisdiction. If indeed Walsh made a hole in the skull it seems very strange that he managed to do so exactly opposite the site of the (other) fracture. The child's body was found face down but in order to manoeuvre it he chose to put a stick behind its ear? It doesn't make any sense. He would surely have put a stick under the body, not behind it. Kevin, thanks for your efforts, I realise that dry financial information is not exactly the most exciting thing for any TV show. For Arthur, there are many claims in terms of Hauptmann's finances. I don't suggest I have the full story but I have in the past tried to account for his various cash deposits to bank and brokerage accounts, which from the kidnapping onwards peak at about $18,500. I've also attempted a tally of his and Anna's known income and expenditure from the kidnapping to his arrest which comes to about $6,500. And, finally, there is the money found in his garage. Overall this comes to about $40,000. If you are not as generous to Hauptmann as I have been (i.e. including the supposed $4,000 he had in the house in early 1932 - of which there is no evidence - and assuming that all his cash withdrawals were netted against later deposits) then the total creeps much closer to $50,000. More detail below: homepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/all-accounts.htmhomepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/iande.htmOver the years I've come to believe he did have some help but that he was the major player. The help perhaps being after the fact rather than involved in the kidnapping itself. But who knows. Rab
|
|
|
Post by drd99 on Feb 4, 2013 17:52:41 GMT -5
Rab very interesting, I agree that if you follow the money more knowledge will turn up. Did you do the work on silver coins deposited by BRH, A while back Michael had linked me to it and I cannot find it. I've still not read every post on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:15:21 GMT -5
Rab, Thank you for your comments on the Walsh story. If this explanation was not forthcoming shortly after the autopsy results, it can cast a different light on its veracity. Your point is well taken about why he would try to turn the corspe over by using the back of Charlie's head which was facing up. Much to think about here!
I do believe Hauptmann was involved with this crime also. I am also interested in Hans Mueller. Hans was related to Anna Hauptmann and the Liliput gun found in Hauptmann's possession when they found the ransom money, belonged to Hans Mueller. Hauptmann never told the police it was Hans. Hauptmann said it was his. He was protecting Hans. Perhaps one of the reasons he would not give up any accomplices was because there was a family member connection involved.
Thanks for your input Rab.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 4, 2013 20:43:04 GMT -5
Really, who among us would fork over the time and money to re-create the ladder climb?[/quote]
if ever I win a big lottery, I will! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Feb 5, 2013 2:41:09 GMT -5
For drd99, I did indeed do some research on Hauptmann's coin deposits. It's still available here on the board in the archive section: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=309For Amy, I'm afraid after all this time away I'm a bit rusty on when exactly Walsh started making the stick claim but I don't believe it was at the time of the autopsy. It may even have been as late as the trial. I'll have to check my notes or perhaps Michael can help. There are two autopsy reports, of course, the first one of which speculates as to whether the hole is a bullet hole, the second which makes no mention and was the one used in court. Hmm. Hans is also my favourite candidate as Hauptmann's deputy. There is a lot of stuff about him that makes one suspicious. I think you make a good point about Hauptmann's silence and family. I think that played a part. I think also as the major player (in my view, given the financial evidence) that he had nothing to gain by giving up minor accomplices. Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 5, 2013 8:36:40 GMT -5
I think that probably hits the nail square on the head.
For those interested, I can give an account of the progression involved with the Nova production. There were many things examined and discussed which just didn't make it into the show. Bear in mind it was an evolution of sorts and we all learned as we went along. Unfortunately, the producer in Boston was not part of that experience.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 5, 2013 20:49:47 GMT -5
I too thought the handwriting portion of the Nova show was a bit odd, and the most sketchy. Unlike most sciences, I really don't see how any computer program can aid handwriting analysis. determining paper, ink, age; yes. but strokes & loops etc; are computer results really better than a human analyst? Handwriting analysis is much like lie-detector tests; you can always find someone to take an opposite point of view.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 5, 2013 20:57:23 GMT -5
on the topic of stick-poke/not a stick-poke: the expert on the Nova show said that given a position of lying on his left side (or head turned that way) a blow on the right side could have created enough force to crush the skull thereby causing the fracture on the left. seems logical but my question is what caused the "blow" on the right? it's a pretty small, symmetrical hole. pistol butt? chisel handle? admittedly those would do damage, but enough to cause death?
also, I think amy pointed out the blood clot was not mentioned. would gravity cause the blood to pool downward over time?
further; I don't recall if the show mentioned the wipe down of the nursery. I would love to know what John Douglas thinks of that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 5, 2013 21:01:40 GMT -5
No I was trying to make a common sense argument by putting ourselves in the shoes of someone doing this. Sorry if it was misleading because I didn't intend it to be.
A perfect example concerning how two people can see the exact same thing differently. Rab uses one of the same arguments I do to support the opposite position. It's why this case can be so complicated - and down right interesting because a neutral person should be able to see the sense in both of them.
Walsh was an "old school" Cop who was probably the best suited to tackle this investigation. After the series of newspaper articles on the crime, Schwarzkopf had him sent back to Jersey City. When his name came up, the NJSP Brass threw around unsavory adjectives like "Lindbergh-itis" to demean and humiliate him. Don't think for a second that Walsh didn't catch wind of this because he did and its documented that he didn't like Schwarzkopf.
Like I mentioned earlier, when the I Socked Hoffman came out to make Hoffman look bad, it was Walsh who drove around Jersey City and removed each magazine from the stands that were selling it. When Hoffman first started his re-investigation into the case, whenever Schwarzkopf came down with "amnesia", he would have someone contact Walsh, sometimes Fisher, to find out the true situation. Existence and the circumstances surrounding the burlap bag is one example of this. Walsh even attended the ladder experiment with the Defense Team once they were able to gain access to Highfields.
Unless I am mistaken, most of the above isn't common knowledge so I expect it will be a surprise to many.
And so why on earth would the Prosecution use a potentially hostile witness to be the one to "lie" under oath for such a crucial point of fact? Most especially since there were others before him, loyal to the NJSP, who could have made such a claim?
Do you see where I am going?
Next, I've studies the Hoffman Collection at great lengths. I think probably more then any other human being on the planet. I am quite sure - no positive - that if Walsh lied that accusation would have found its way into those files. Everything else did.
That's hard to say why it is where it is if he did. I've checked out all of the available information coming from those at the scene looking over the corpse before Walsh moved it. The body was face down, and they all noted the 3/4" hole (the one attributed to Rickets). However, no one sees the one Walsh claimed to have made after they saw it. In fact, the corpse had been flipped over before Walsh even touched it - for photos. Walsh moved it so that his clothes could be cut off. So its possible the corpse wasn't exactly face down when he did this.
I remember that Walsh testified that he told Schwarzkopf immediately. However, I have never been able to find it documented where this occurs before his testimony except coming from Schoeffel to explain the hole. His explanation was cited in a letter dated November 9, 1934 but doesn't say when Shoeffel said it. (As a side note it took me 8 years of researching at the Archives to find this letter).
Lastly, before I bore anyone, I think if, by design, they had someone commit perjury to support the "on the scene" death, they would have included everyone who needed to be included in on the conspiracy to do so.
They did not.
I have some more but you get the picture. Again, I am not the "end all" here and its not "impossible" that I could be wrong. Like I said, it doesn't harm any position I hold other then what I believe to be the historic truth.
(I will do my best to read through more tomorrow - I don't want to be left out of any of these discussions)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 22:51:22 GMT -5
I appreciate you sharing this info about Walsh. When you say "old school" do you mean he was along the lines of Ellis Parker in how he investigated a case? Do you really think that Schwarzkopf didn't like Walsh or was Schwarzkopf just reacting to pressure and sent him back to Jersey City? Was Walsh actually off the case? Was he asked back at some point since he was at the Mount Rose site on May 12.
This is an interesting point. Is it possible that Walsh had doubts about Hauptmann's guilt so he wanted to assist Hoffman with his reinvestigation efforts?
I am not sure I understand why he would have been considered hostile. The prosecution wanted to show that the hole was caused accidently by Walsh. And that is how Walsh testified. Seems to me if he were going to be hostile he would have denied causing that hole. His testimony seems to be right in line with the prosecution's position regarding how this hole came to be in Charlie's skull.
Trust me Michael. You are never boring. Don't even go there. If you were, this board would have died a long time ago. You are very generous with all of the knowledge you have and how you willingly share it with all who participate on this blog. I thank you very much for doing so.
Hans doesn't come up hardly at all in the books I have read so far. I am hopeful that the NJ archives will have a file on him.
I am very interested in whatever you can share with us, Kevin. I hope the show ends up with good ratings. Maybe they could make a second one and go into more detail about the ladder and other evidence that must have been looked at but they were not able to put into the show.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 5, 2013 22:58:16 GMT -5
I don’t know that Dr. Butts is right, but his conclusion was one of the few new takes that Nova had.
I do want to mention a possible parallel in the matter of skull damage that occurred in the Kennedy assassination.
President Kennedy’s body had two small bullet entry holes—one in the back of the neck and one in back of the skull. The one in the back of the skull traversed Kennedy’s head – as it did so, the bullet collected brain tissue and then exploded massively out the front of his skull. This explosion out the front left a gaping wound and caused Kennedy to jerk backwards (as seen on the Zapruder film). This led to numerous claims that Kennedy had actually been shot from the front (i.e., the grassy knoll). While there are certainly many who still argue for this, I personally accept the forensic analysis of bullet entry from the rear, leading to a large wound in front.
I bring this up because there may be an analogy in Charlie’s skull. Based on the same principles, is it possible that a narrow-diameter object, causing injury to the skull on one side, could have led to more massive destruction on the other side? I am no expert, but the medical forensics on Kennedy may have a bit of relevance here.
I don’t know much about Walsh, but I like the way he pursued Condon, and my feeling is that he was simply after the truth with no agenda. I can buy the possibility that Walsh may have mistakenly believed he poked a hole in the skull, not realizing that the hole pre-existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 9:00:56 GMT -5
I really like your analogy here. It could very well be why there was clotting on the left side of Charlie's skull and not on the right. I have never really looked into the Kennedy assassination but I have watched the Zapruder film on you tube. From things I have read, the exit hole of a bullet is larger than the entry hole so perhaps this might apply to Charlie's skull. We don't have an exit hole, however, to base this on. If a bullet were involved it never came out the other side.
From what I have read and what Michael has shared about him, I agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2013 16:23:21 GMT -5
Yes and no. No one was like Ellis Parker. Walsh was what you think of when you mention "old school." Experienced, no nonsense, called it like he saw it, and a little rough around the edges.
I believe it was around September of '32 that he sent Coar, Fitzgerald, and Walsh back to Jersey City. Of course he sent along a nice letter to Chief Wolfe but this was just a common practice of "blowing smoke." The sources I have state that Schwarzkopf believed Walsh suffered from "Lindberghitis." To give you an idea how insulting this was - it was the exact same term he used for the Cranks that were writing in with ridiculous or delusional letters. He spoke of him within the rank and file with contempt. It's could have been jealousy, it could have been that Lindbergh wanted him off - or both.
See above. When Walsh started writing the Jersey Journal Articles in November, Schwarzkopf really ramped up the insults.
It's possible. But I believe he was motivated more by what he observed during the time he was involved in the Case.
This is my point. There was bad blood between Walsh and the NJSP. If Walsh didn't think he created that hole, then why use him to testify he did if its not true?
My stance being that Walsh testified truthfully and this fact helps prove it. It's also important, I think, that Walsh publicly said (if asked) he would testify for the Defense before the Trial.
So I think I have made made enough counter arguments to the "Walsh lied on the stand" allegation to at least consider he did not.
I will say that I do not believe he used a weak twig to gently probe then lift the corpse. I think he took a heavy stick with a sharp end then stabbed the corpse in the head in order to have the ability to lift it off of the ground. He obviously toned it down because, as another point in fact, in hindsight it was not one of his better decisions. He just did not want to touch it but needed to do what he did in order to get the child off the ground while cutting off the clothes.
As far as the stick finding the pre-made hole accidentally I don't buy it. Not under the circumstances especially when no one saw that hole before hand. He's stabbing the head with this stick and never saw it.
Remember, Walsh was friendly towards the Defense and not the State. So use this as a guide to what he's testifying to.
I am not trying to change your mind, but do consider he was looking for a way to get this corpse off the ground. Don't you think he looked at the head before stabbing it? If he saw a hole there already wouldn't that be the spot to insert the stick for leverage? And so if he's telling the truth, then the hole seems to have been invisible or camouflaged in some way - unlike the other one which everyone who viewed that corpse saw.
This isn't a slight on Dr. Butts. I have no idea what evidence he had available to him but I am certain he was making his determinations based upon what he did. Like we all do.
We cannot consider what we have not seen, do not have, and/or do not know about.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 6, 2013 17:00:59 GMT -5
The stick stabbing (as opposed to twig prodding) to get a look at the face is, I think, a good explanation. It also makes sense that Walsh would've subsequently toned down his action to "gently prodded with a twig", so as A) not to come off as a brute, and B) because it probably wasn't a good idea to disturb the scene like that at all. Also, as to the hole being made by a bullet: If this is was the case, I've often wondered (as I think has already been mentioned) why, if the hole was a bullet entrance wound, where, without some sort of JFK-esque exit wound, would the bullet have been if not still inside the skull when the body was discovered? To my knowledge, nothing like that was ever found. The little hole could've been from a hammer or the butt of a gun, as the NOVA program suggested, but, then again, if Walsh claimed all along that he made it and had no reason to make something like that up... I did have a question though, for Michael (or anyone else who might know): Were there any photos taken of the body in it's original position, before it was turned over? The only ones I've seen are the ones I assume were taken after it was moved: in the woods (body on its side) or in the morgue (body on its back).
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Feb 6, 2013 18:05:55 GMT -5
I don't really buy this image of Walsh as some man of integrity who wouldn't lie in order to secure a conviction. I don't dismiss your points, Michael, but would say in return that this is the same Walsh who hounded Violet Sharpe to her suicide and who apparently coerced Condon into identifying Hautpmann at the trial. If he was willing to have Condon lie (as many believe) to convict Hauptmann then why is is a stretch to think he lied himself? I think the fact that there is no mention of this stick episode until after Hauptmann's arrest is also very relevant. Surely the policeman with integrity would have made this fact known to the coroner at the time, at least? Also, at the conference arranged on June 1 1932 to review the evidence with all of the investigative bodies he makes no mention of the stick incident, despite being specifically asked: Mr. Nathan: Did the autopsy show the head had been crushed?
Insp Walsh: Compound fracture, both sides all the way around the skull. The feature about it was that the skull was not compressed, it seemed to be more or less of a clean break and some instrument of great weight must have hit it as there was no splintering.
We also have other evidence of trying to cover up the possibility of a bullet hole. The autopsy report entered into evidence at the trial does not appear to be the original (or only original). The FBI files include a different report which makes mention of the bullet theory, information completely excised from the autopsy report at the trial. In addition, contemporaneous to the events, Mitchell was telling anyone who would listen about his bullet theory (I think this was originally found by Sue, many years back): 1932 Philadelphia Public Ledger Article SHOT KILLED BABY, PHYSICIAN INSISTS
Condition of Skull Indicates Single Bullet Caused Both Fractures, He Says
THINKS CHILD SOON KILLED
Trenton, May 13.---A bullet wound in the head caused the death of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., in the opinion of Dr. Charles H. Mitchell.
Dr. Mitchell, Mercer County physician who performed the autopsy on the body of the kidnapped baby Thursday, expressed this opinion today.
He believes the abductors held the child several days after he was stolen from his crib at the Hopewell home of his parents, Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh, and then deliberately shot him and hid the body in the woods at Mount Rose, less than five miles from the Lindbergh estate.
Calling attention to the "peculiar condition" of the two skull fractures, the county physician said the theory of a bullet wound was the most tenable one. He added that traces of old blood in the brain itself tended to bear out the theory that the baby was shot through the head, a single bullet inflicting both wounds.
Dr. Mitchell said the wound in the right side of the head, behind the ear, was round and large enough to admit a bullet, and that the fracture on the left side pressed the bone outward, indicating that the blow was struck from the inside. "This," he added, "could only have been done by a bullet."
He emphasized the fact that there could be no definite decision of what caused the wounds, as no bullet or weapon was found near the body.
In the official death certificate, which he signed this afternoon, Dr. Mitchell gave the cause of death as a fractured skull, "due to external violence."
He said the body showed evidence of prolonged exposure and usual decomposition that would occur in approximately two to three months, depending on climatic and othe conditions.
And while all of this is going on, Walsh stays silent with his stick story. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For Kevin: I too would be very interested to hear more about the production and any other theories which were developed. Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2013 20:15:56 GMT -5
I think we're kind of arguing the same points to support our differing positions....
I don't think you have to buy into any levels of "integrity" in order to believe he's telling the truth. Walsh had no interest in the conviction. If he did, why was he telling the Press he would testify on behalf of the Defense if asked? You see, he was friendly to the Defense and not the Prosecution. So, for me, it doesn't make sense he'd lie for them.
Without going off on a tangent.... I believe Walsh's tactics were not the friendliest. But sometimes that approach is what's necessary. Whether or not he hounded Sharp to her death is debatable. Obviously she wasn't happy about how he treated her but that's the idea.
The issue involving Condon to which you refer I believe was when he supposedly threatened to throw him off the Palisades. That was during his June 2, 1932 interview I think (Walsh was out in September 1932) but the point you are making is still the same regardless. Here again I think its debatable because I believe this claim came from Condon's book, however, reading the Statement of that date Walsh did take the kid-gloves off that Condon had gotten comfortable with. I personally believe Walsh was very near the truth, and he did in fact plan another interview in which he intended to get even harsher towards him.
That probably would have solved the Case if he had been allowed. But I digress.....
It's the personality I see in him that would cause him to tell Wilentz to pound sand if he were asked to lie on behalf of New Jersey. They would have been crazy to ask him, of all people, to do such a thing. They had others who were loyal who could have made that claim if need be.
Schoeffel's statement is the only other one I have been able to find reference to, but I cannot date it before Hauptmann's arrest. Unfortunately, if this is your sticking point, there's not much I can do to remedy that at the moment.
I understand this point as well, and I believe Reilly tried to score on it too during trial. But Walsh wasn't in touch with the Coroner. I think the real question should be why Schwarzkopf didn't tell him - because he was.
To me this makes perfect sense. He's asked what the autopsy showed, and he doesn't mention the hole because he was responsible for it. So he's talking about the fracture as the findings were relayed to him, and not about the hole because that is irrelevant.
This is obvious proof they did not know about the stick. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. If Walsh had said he told them then we'd have him.
I am not sure what you'd expect him to do. He claims he told Schwarzkopf. He is friendly with the Defense, and dislikes the State. That would be like Allen asking me to come to Court and perjure myself for him. On the other hand, if I were issued a subpoena and ordered to testify, I'd have to tell the truth concerning whatever I know regardless.
That's what happened here.
Don't get me wrong - I can prove people lying all over the place in that Courtroom during that trial. But Walsh had reason not to, and not the other way around.
For what its worth. We may never agree. Maybe I'll find something new one day.
I believe so. Unless someone answers before tomorrow, I will look it up for you. I should have it in the chain of custody logs.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2013 6:45:37 GMT -5
LJ: Unfortunately the Chain of Custody doesn't say what the position of the corpse was. There appears to have been (15) photos of the child and (17) of the clothing. It appears (5) of the child were of no value (I don't know about the clothing shots as of yet).
I seem to remember seeing some of the child face down. Maybe I have one - I'll check. The problem would be to properly answer your question we'll need to know the sequence in which they were taken.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 7, 2013 7:51:13 GMT -5
Not as much about new theories as about the old ones. Until the ladder climb, we were all pretty much of the belief that there had to be more than one involved in the actual abduction. To that end we had no problem with Zorn's account ( other than the obvious flaws in his theory). After we all witness the climb and the ease in which it was performed, many of us had second thoughts. I spoke quite often with John Douglas and was surprised that he had a suspicion regarding what actually happened that was in perfect agreement with my own thoughts. Namely, that what occurred may not have been planned as it happened. Then there was the opinion by Dr Butts which outlined the probable cause of death as a result of blunt force trauma with the victims head resting on a hard surface and being struck. One thing that we all universally agreed upon, Lindbergh was not behind this. Now you can argue that profiling is not a science, but I would seriously recommend to anyone who believes this to read some of John Douglas's books. There are consistent patterns of behavior exhibited by criminals and the crimes always reflect it. This crime in no way reflects Lindbergh. You may not find Lindbergh very likable and you might find some of his views to be repulsive, but the kidnapping just doesn't have his signature anywhere. So did Hauptmann have help? Possibly, perhaps more so after the actual crime. As far as the handwriting analysis, I don't think any of us took it too seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 13:59:34 GMT -5
Rab, thanks for posting the article on Dr. Mitchell's findings. It really explains how the skull was injuried on both sides and why there was a blood clot on the left side of Charlie's head. What I don't understand is why this needed to be hushed up. Charlie was the victim of a crime. If his death was caused by a bullet to the head, as tragic and ugly as that is, why hide that?
Perhaps Walsh was the first one to find that hole when assisting with the clothing removal. Maybe that is why he didn't report poking that hole in the skull because he didn't. When it came time to try the case they needed Walsh to say he poked that hole so there coud be no claim by the defense that a bullet created that hole. Perhaps Walsh resisted at first having to testify falsely making himself a potential hostle witness. If he was the one who found the hole, he was the one who was pressured to conform to the prosecution's position and would have to say he caused it.
Wow! Can you give more details on this please.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Feb 7, 2013 16:06:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Kevin, for that summary. I think you've left us all intrigued with this unplanned element. Can you say more?
Michael, we're probably not going to agree on this Walsh thing for now. For what it's worth, the coercion of Condon came originally from JTA but was verified by Lloyd in his book (p132). My point being if he was willing to coerce Condon to secure Hauptmann's conviction then I don't see why it's a stretch to see him do it elsewhere. Also, I don't think Walsh answered the question from Nathan honestly, if he had actually made the hole himself. He says "Compound fracture, both sides all the way around the skull." So here is is claiming a fracture on both sides of the skull, not saying that there was a fracture on one side and on the other a hole he made himself. Taken together with the fact that he told nobody about it (as far as we can prove) for two and half years and it's also consistent with the ditching of the original autopsy report it seems open and shut to me.
Amy, the reason why it would have been something to lie about is because the murder charge (and jurisdiction of the court) only held if it could be shown that the child was killed during the commission of a felony (burglary) at that location. It didn't matter whether the child died accidentally or not. But trying to claim that the child was shot during the burglary and nobody heard it is obviously a very difficult thing. If the child was shot elsewhere at a later time there is nothing tying Hauptmann to a murder charge and also the jurisdiction would have been in Mercer county. So anything which suggested a death by shooting was very problematic for the prosecution. To be honest that's not really my interest as the trial is a whole separate discussion, I'm just interested in what actually happened to the poor child and I think this Walsh story obscures real insight into how he really died.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2013 22:07:56 GMT -5
There's no doubt in my mind that its a Science. Nothing's a 100% of course but there is substance behind it. One thing I do know is that a conclusion can only come from the facts they know about. Omission of something rather important could factor in dramatically - if known. Might they also agree there could possibly be facts they are not aware of? Haven't crimes been profiled, for example, and the Perpetrator skipped over because they didn't think he fit the criteria - only to find out later on that he actually did? There are a ton of "unknown" facts waiting to become known buried in those files at the NJSP Archives. Of course that doesn't mean they are wrong. I just try to leave the door open myself for anything I haven't found yet. You must allow for that possibility. I believe I wrote in a previous thread about finding new information concerning the J.J. Faulkner angle. I found that one at the end of my 12th year. Certainly I am no John Douglas, very few people are, but I don't know what his impression of that find would be if he hadn't seen it. I am not suggesting anything specific, rather, I am just trying to make a point. I know we're not, but I wanted to add some in response to your post.... You are absolutely right about Lloyd proving the Palisades story. I felt it was unreliable because I viewed it as coming from Condon. But Lloyd's source is Agent Sisk's Report in which he was told by Lt. Keaton this happened. That's important because Keaton was with Walsh when this interview occurred. It was a psychological tactic being used because Walsh felt he was involved. As did Keaton. I think you might be misremembering this a bit. It wasn't being done to get Condon to ID Hauptmann. This was in June of '32 and it was being done to get him to stop playing games and tell what he knew. Although I understand the jist of what you are saying I don't think it quite makes it to that level. We are interpreting it differently. Understandable since we hold opposite opinions. I think he's talking about the fracture and not the hole. As an example here is Dr. Mitchell's testimony about that fracture during the Gaston Mean's Trial: That child died by some external violence to the head which caused a fracture of the skull. It had a marked fracture extending from the top of the head down the side, and then it branched off, one going posteriorly and the other anteriorly on that side of the skull (indicating). In other words, he had a marked fracture of the left side of the skull. Instead of "both sides" he says top to bottom and branching off posteriorly and anteriorly. Ones a Cop who observed the Corpse and the other a Doctor who performed an Autopsy. In my opinion, neither are referring to the hole, and both are referring to the fracture. And I guess I should lay this issue to rest but I wanted to share that I found a little more about Schoeffel's comment. It was during an interview where he shared the fact they found a keg of nails in Hauptmann's garage. A Reporter asked if they were looking for blood to see if one of those nails didn't cause the hole in the child's head. Schoeffel responded as stated above. So it wasn't before Hauptmann's arrest to be certain. Lastly, I wanted to post a little of Schwarzkopf's position concerning Walsh: Colonel Schwarzkopf stated that never at any time did he really want Harry Walsh in the investigation; that Walsh was more or less forced upon him by the Governor of the State and they had regretted it ever since. They "broke" with Walsh, he stated, when he published the series of articles in the Jersey Journal; that they have had nothing to do with him since then....
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 8, 2013 7:33:28 GMT -5
i think walsh was putin the investgation because gov moore knew him from jersey city
|
|