It was not proven a fraud. It's a fact. His illustrations and his obsolete understanding of the evolution process was challenged, not the biological fact that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. His basic observation that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has not been in any sense reversed by science. It means merely that a series of developments take place during ontogeny (development in the womb) in approximately the same order that they took place during phylogeny, i.e., during the evolutionary process.
Your enthusiasm is to be commended. But it is misplaced.
It went to court during the 1930's, I beleive is the time period, and again it was proven that his drawings were fraudulent. In the 1950's it was discovered he had set back embreology several dacades. I think you need to look at some photos of human embreos at very early developement. At twelve days they already have a human beating heart.
As I said above, it was his drawings that were fraudulent, and his obsolete understanding of the evolutionary process. The concept embodied in ORP was not fraudulent.
