The Magic Bullet

According to P.J. Carisella in his book 'Who Killed the Red Baron', an Australian medical orderly by the name of McCarty souveniered the slug which sent MvR on to meet his maker.

Apparently the bullet was lodged in a small booklet(bible?)that MvR had on his person at the time of his death. McCarty made his discovery during the body prep/cleanup work done in preparation for the RAF autopsy.

Carisella goes on to say that the bullet was lost in a fire in the McCarty house at some point long after the war.

My question is this: If in fact this was 'the bullet', would analysis of it be able to distinguish whether it came from an aircraft or a ground placed source? Were there any different riflings identifiable to ground vs. air Vickers and Lewis guns?

Of course we all know that a fellow named Popkin

The bullet was lodged in a pocketbook (wallet.) It was lost when Mac moved in 1936.
Lewis gun and Vickers gun projectiles are readily identifiable because of the different rifling.
The angle the bullet entered and exited and the fact that the wound would have caused immediate death precludes an aerial (air to air) shot. The actual altitude of the DR--1 and the placement of the Vickers gun Popkin was shooting pretty well are conclusive. Only cheap novelists who sell words for a few pennies apiece have fueled this controversy.
The British credited Buie and Evans (Lewis gunners) with MVR's death, but actual forensics reconstruction gives it to Popkin.
You can argue forever, but you cannot change the forensic evidence. He was killed by ground fire, and by the Vickers gun of Sgt.C. B. Popkin.

If Popkin was to be tried for the murder of MvR no court in the land would find him guilty.
No evidence exists to substantiate the fact that he fired the shot that killed Mvr.
With Pilots, Lewis gunners and hundreds of riflemen filling the air with identical .303 bullets, without the weapon and the bullet there is no case to convict an individual.
Now if you want to convict all of them for complicity in the murder, then there would be a lot of defendents, but a chance of a conviction!!

andy

Every one of the men who were shooting at MVR are dead. He was not "murdered," he was killed in aerial combat by a bullet from the ground. Forensics has established that beyond a doubt. The fact that he died instantly (thus, the violent shuddering described by eyewitnesses as he moved the stick erratically while he died) has been corroborated by surgeons.
If you have a point, it escapes me.
Thousands of romantic individuals fantasize that MVR is their special area of knowledge, but in interviews, MVR's family in 1922 and again in 1942
stated that he had been killed by ground fire, not by air to air. Roy Brown NEVER made a claim to the effect that he shot down the Red Baron...that was a starving pulp wirter in the 1930's who FAKED an interview with Brown, and Brown vehemently denied meeting the writer or making any statement to that effect.
If you want to retreat into your little fantasy world, go ahead and write fiction. If you want to be a Historian, be realistic and rely on the facts. Paul Carisella was the last person to interview ALL of the people involved in shooting at MVR (those still alive) in the 60's. All are now dead, as is Carisella. (Incidentally, it was over an Artillery unit, not Infantry, so no riflemen were found who shot at the DR-1)He was a respected member of Cross and Cockade from the first, and his on the spot interviews and visit to the exact crash site are unrivalled, unparalleled and above reproach.
If you have a really hot Ouija Board, perhaps you can change the "facts" of the case. Historians rely on the forensic evidence put forth in Carisella's book and other writings.
You can poo-poo and jawbone forever, but you cannot come up with forensic evidence to the contrary, because Carisella's writings were corroborated by the top men in the field.

All,
Why is it that the guy who got MvR is called a murderer? Is it JUST because it was MvR who was shot? People who state that C.B. Popkin is a murderer should go back to school and figure out just what they were fighting for in WW1. But I'll make it simple for most of you, the Germans were trying to spread their Kulture over most of Europe, and the Entent was fighting to prevent this (i.e. for freedom). So could we then say that MvR was a serial killer? He has 80 men to his toll. Or how about Fonck and Bishop, should we slight them too by labeling them killers?! YOU who have not faced the fear always try to sit in lofty judgement on braver men than yourselves. However it is ludicrous to label those who were doing their duty as murderers. If you want to call someone "murderer", hang that epithet on those responsible for the deaths of a WHOLE GENERATION in that war! You remind me of those puke War Protesters (during the Vietnam era) who were calling the drafted combat vets "baby killers, and murderers". Have you ever read how a draft notice starts out??? It SAYS "Greetings, your friends and neighbors have selected you to serve in the U.S. Army." Along those lines ... most who went were 18 ... WHO's THE MURDERER NOW?! GEEZ YOU PEOPLE (AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) NEED TO GET A GRIP! Get REAL! Or GET LOST!
Gosh ... was that too harsh and insensitive? GET OVER IT!
Regards,
Jim (active duty USN, Vietnam Era Vet & Desert Storm Vet)
P.S. I never have been one for subtlety! ; )

Carisella's book is a fine piece of work. However, the new book,'The Red Baron's Last Flight' (using Carisella's book for reference) is very well writen and well worth the read.

[Barrett]

...what Dan said. Let's have everyone inclined to comment on this subject (their numbers are legion) read Norman Franks' book and THEN proceed from the same departure point.
Besides, I know that Norman would appreciate the business!

This splendid presentation of "Who Killed the Red Baron?" is a jewel in the wasteland of the internet <font size="2" face="Courier">http://www.anzacs.net/index2.htm</font>

All

This is a web-page that may interest you.

http://www.hcu.ox.ac.uk/mirrors/mirr...ment/richt.htm

It contains a good account of the whole thing and lets you draw your own conclusions. We will never know for sure what happened but this is as good as it gets.

I won't even mention the murderer statement as it is not even worth the effort.

Mark

Having "lurked" on this site for a short time, I ran across this thread. I'm curious: what prompted Jim (the Navy vet) to "go off" in such a violent manner about MvR's "murderer"? I think anybody mentioning a "murderer" was simply using a euphemism; I doubt ANYBODY seriously entertains the notion that somebody "murdered" MvR on 4/21/18.

Just wondering . . .