Vanished Amelia Earhart "A Simpler Explanation"

"It's so hard to identify it because you're looking at the ghost of the air-frame; you're looking at the coral that has grown around the structure and that structure is gone."

Crime scenes might be the running theme for this trial. But here’s a scenario that I want to explain to people who aren’t familiar with this case. It’s an easy visual; so, follow me. Imagine you’re a detective called in to investigate a murder. Let’s say in this case the victim is a woman and the likely suspect is her husband; a domestic situation gone terribly wrong. When you arrive at the crime scene; let’s say it’s the home of this couple, one thing is obvious; there’s no body. At the crime scene there’s multiple pieces of evidence to investigate; it looks like there may have been a struggle of some kind, maybe you find a little blood; you might even find a murder weapon; all solid evidence yet no body in sight. Then suddenly, you learn that a body of a woman was discovered several miles away in an alley that appears to have several similarities to your apparent victim. Here’s the question. Do you investigate the body? Or do you ignore it and try to prove your case based solely off the crime scene? Tonight, we’re going to talk about a theory that’s been at the forefront of the investigation into the vanishing of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. And this theory happens to have a body. And that body is none other than that of an airplane carrying multiple similarities to the plane they vanished in almost 82 years ago. It’s time to dissect the third of five theories with experts, evidence and testimony for the Buka hypothesis.

SHOW NOTES

EXHIBITS

ADDITIONAL SHOW NOTES