|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 4:15:50 GMT -5
You would also have to argue that as even as presented Rail 16 came from a tree with a tighter ring radius. Look at it from this angle. Look at the bottom half - Rail 16 curves "in" much more than S-226, quite markedly so.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 5:51:30 GMT -5
To further illustrate my point, I traced one of the rings round. (The blue area appears to be a knot of some kind in S-226 that isn't apparant in Rail 16 but you can see continuation lines beyond the knot). Rail 16 is a much tighter ring radius (a younger tree?) Lots of trees from that same area will have that growth pattern, the key is to match the ring radius and I don't think we have a match here and I think the document is very clever in hiding that fact.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2012 7:22:59 GMT -5
John, I've been where you are now and I encourage you to continue looking hard at this. However, if this isn't simply a debate tactic then I would advise you to look at all sides of the argument to consider what could be what before drawing a conclusion. While Cabinet Makers and Lutists would be people worthy to consult, I do not think they would qualify as Experts in Tree Ring Analysis. Dendrochronologists are Scientists whose Expertise is just that - the study of tree rings. And I know that not all Experts always agree which is why I communicate with more then just one. This sounds correct, however, when communicating with Experts who seem to think these two pieces still should match then I cannot use that argument anymore. The other problem is that these two pieces, S-226 & Rail 16, do not exist at the exact intersection between the two. It has always been asserted by Koehler that there is a missing connecting piece. Agreed. But things aren't always black and white. There are many shades of grey and a ton of things one could potentially hide. I believe this is correct. It might have to do with the timing of the "discovery".... This distortion on S-226 is due to the location of a Knot. Check out the New Jersey Department of State's documents on this matter:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2012 7:59:47 GMT -5
You really have to look at the two pieces of wood in totality, especially since there is a section between them that is missing. By totality I mean that you can't just look at the endgrain. You have to look at the grain pattern, color, machine marks, etc. Because of that small missing section and because this is Southern Yellow Pine with a knot close to the end, there is room to believe that the boards are not a perfect match. Not to mention the importance of this particular board. However, one has to look at all of the factors that are used to determine that the two boards were in fact one. If that still does not convince you and you believe the board was planted, then you must consider the reality of what would be required to achieve this swap to the degree that it has. Once again, that would include; end grain , face grain, grain direction, deformity, machine and tool markings, color, nail holes, moisture content, resin canals, and some I have missed.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 24, 2012 10:21:02 GMT -5
the grains match perectly. ive never heard a expert say otherwise
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2012 11:30:48 GMT -5
the grains match perectly. ive never heard a expert say otherwise I think it is better to say that the boards match beyond reasonable doubt. Saying the grain matches "perfectly" is an impossibility given that there is a section between the two missing.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 11:59:13 GMT -5
the grains match perectly. ive never heard a expert say otherwise The grains do not match perfectly. I've already 100% demonstrated that. I know there is a small gap missing, however the change in ring radius is severe. A smaller ring radius strongly suggests a younger tree. There is also - looking at the top view - a significant difference in grain density. Rail 16 has a stronger heavier grain. Coupled with the fact that the police were absolutely hiding something about this whole affair I think the rail 16/s-226 link is pretty worthless.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 12:03:27 GMT -5
the grains match perectly. ive never heard a expert say otherwise I think it is better to say that the boards match beyond reasonable doubt. Saying the grain matches "perfectly" is an impossibility given that there is a section between the two missing. I think there is reasonable doubt. 1) Hauptmann was never interrogated about the attic. 2) The Police were highly secretive about the whole attic thing and denied the defence access to it. 3) The ring patterns do not mirror each other even allowing for a small gap. The police behaviour on it's own would have made this "evidence" inadmissable in court today.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 12:09:04 GMT -5
You really have to look at the two pieces of wood in totality, especially since there is a section between them that is missing. By totality I mean that you can't just look at the endgrain. You have to look at the grain pattern, color, machine marks, etc. Because of that small missing section and because this is Southern Yellow Pine with a knot close to the end, there is room to believe that the boards are not a perfect match. Not to mention the importance of this particular board. However, one has to look at all of the factors that are used to determine that the two boards were in fact one. If that still does not convince you and you believe the board was planted, then you must consider the reality of what would be required to achieve this swap to the degree that it has. Once again, that would include; end grain , face grain, grain direction, deformity, machine and tool markings, color, nail holes, moisture content, resin canals, and some I have missed. Until you know what the police did in all that time that had total and exclusive access to the attic you can't rule out anything. There was some serious evidence fixing going on on this case. There is no custody chain for this evidence.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 12:13:31 GMT -5
There is a part of a knot at the end of each piece of wood.
The knot affects the ring pattern of S-226 (although you can see the continuation beyond the knot) but has no effect on Rail 16.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 24, 2012 12:18:47 GMT -5
i was up in that attic, that would be the last place police would plant things. theres photos of rail 16 before hauptman was discovered and the comparisons are the same as the ladder now. some people believe hauptmann built some of the rails up there i seriously dont think so. the linen closet was the only way up then with a wodden hatch which was still there when i was up. as far as the grains i was quoting koehler
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 24, 2012 15:14:25 GMT -5
I don't know tree rings and things. I do however, have problems with the rail 16 being thicker than the rest of the board. The small missing chunk doesn't change that, so far as I can see. Also, with that attic experiment it was said that the nail dust in the joists wasn't "dead" (and it should have been). Also Bornmann is said to have lowered the kitchen pantry shelf - painted over where the shelf had been, to make it seem that Anna could have seen what was on the top shelf. There are so many "throw-downs" in this case-including the trickery of the tool box at trial ! If any of the above is inaccurate, please do correct me. -------------------- -------------------- Michael, I meant to tell you how I enjoyed see the photos of Gardner's lecture. I was wondering if any of our forum folks were there and pictured. Did you attend? Also the photos of the ladder with the overlay were terrific!!
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 24, 2012 18:23:10 GMT -5
mairi, the same shelf was still in that pantry closet when i was there. the owner told me theres no indication that the shelf was touched. i even looked and took good pictures. they really didnt have to move it, because you can see the top shelf even at annas ht. i should have measured it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 25, 2012 10:45:46 GMT -5
What source is being used for the 1/16" difference in thickness between rail 16 and s-226?
I would still say that the best way to dispel the replaced board idea is to actually go through the process of every step required to attempt that. I say attempt because it's just not possible and that's not saying that the police weren't capable of trying. Another way to look at the frame-up idea is to ask, why not use another part of the ladder? Rail 16 is probably the most difficult piece of wood on that ladder to use as part of a method to link BRH to the ladder. It would be my absolute last choice due to so many difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 25, 2012 11:12:22 GMT -5
i dont think its the most difficult, the nailholes in the joist matched up with the existing holes in rail 16
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2012 12:34:13 GMT -5
Unfortunately I missed it. I was told it was a packed house!
It was in the Governor's Press Release and I believe he was relying on Arch Loney. I could look it up if you want me to.
The Experts that I have communicated with all said that while they think they are probably a match, invasive study would be needed to say so conclusively. I believe even Dr. Hoadley was trying to get permission to do invasive study but was shot down. Unfortunately, that's where this evidence is. Anna Hauptmann had employed Dr. Hoadley so I think if was easy to say they did not match or they did match he would have done so. Do you see what I mean? If they didn't match from looking at them then what's the point to ask for a further study?
Anyway, I labored over this for years because I wanted to know conclusively since so much of the scenario made little sense. But now, with the board having been in the basement - it all does make sense to me so I don't have any issues here like I used to.
Anna made this claim when she went back saying it was lower. The NJSP eavesdropped on her conversation with Hauptmann in the Flemington Cell. Somewhere I believe she said they moved them back although I just can't remember.
You could be right Steve. I don't think it was ever proven to have been moved. But I do believe Anna thought it had or she wouldn't have mentioned it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 25, 2012 14:17:06 GMT -5
No need to waste your time. It would be no surprise if the two were slightly different in thickness as they have been in entirely different environments. Still, I would say the 1/16" is probably an exaggeration or an approximation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2012 17:35:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure where the reference to a 1/16" difference arose but tend to believe that back in the day someone made a basic math miscalculation or perhaps got hung up on the apparent discrepancy in visual representation of the vital ends of both Rail 16 and S-226 when trying to align continuity of the grain pattern. This appears to be the trap that Scaduto fell headfirst into.
In any case, the difference between the two boards is negligible (at least measured in modern times) and as I recall from Kel Keraga's micrometer or caliper measurements, we're talking less than 10/1000 or 1/100 of an inch. I believe this would be representative of the thickness differences one would expect to find, given the relatively irregular surface along the length of a board that has been roughly planed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 25, 2012 19:58:44 GMT -5
Always amazing how things take on a life of their own in this case.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 5:58:38 GMT -5
I have no idea what the milling process was.
Were the boards cut to length first and then planed individually or where they planed and then cut to length?
Anyway all this is irrelevant.
The fact is that this "evidence" would not be admissible in court today.
And rightly so.
Due to the amount of fixing going on in other areas of this case and the fact that the police were up to no good as far as the attic secrecy goes we can not say anything with certainty about these pieces of wood.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 26, 2012 6:52:47 GMT -5
I would strongly disagree. The wood evidence would certainly be admissible and would be an important part of any trial. The big difference would be in the expert testimony. I would gladly answer any questions you have on the machine marks and the wood, but it sounds to me like you have already made your mind up on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 8:22:36 GMT -5
I would strongly disagree. The wood evidence would certainly be admissible and would be an important part of any trial. You have to be kidding? There is no proper chain of custody. Totally inadmissible. Thanks, so how was it made? Was it cut to length before or after being planed? There is a reason to the question. Well it sure seems like there are a lot of entrenched positions around here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2012 9:00:27 GMT -5
This is something you have to be careful about. Just because you see something that is "wrong" it doesn't necessarily mean the "wrong" is exactly what you are personally assigning to it. Most people go "black or white" or either 0 or 100. There's many reasons why certain actions could be occurring and they should all be considered.
The chain of custody could be called into question. But the State did appear to have its ducks in a row for this challenge. Would it be excluded today as evidence? It might. I think there are many issues which could be raised - but I am not bold enough to predict what a Judge would rule. Some Judges are different too - just look at the Supreme Court decisions over the years. Going back to 1935, Hauptmann's Lawyer Pope was a Judge and totally dumbfounded by some of Trenchard's rulings.
Anyway, there are many files which contain the chain of custody forms the NJSP used to transfer evidence. If you get a chance you might want to go through them someday if you feel strongly enough about this position.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 9:41:50 GMT -5
This is something you have to be careful about. Just because you see something that is "wrong" it doesn't necessarily mean the "wrong" is exactly what you are personally assigning to it. Most people go "black or white" or either 0 or 100. There's many reasons why certain actions could be occurring and they should all be considered. But unless you know exactly what the Police were up to during all that time they had possession of the attic and denied access to the defense then you can not claim anything is certain about it. There is no could about it, what they did would never be allowed today and would absolutely be questioned. We are 80 years down the road and we know from many many cases just how bad the Police can be. There is no might about it, if the same sequeunce of events happened today with the renting, the secrecy, the sudden discovery and the denial of access - any defence lawyer worth his salt would have a field day. I suspect there is no chain of evidence for the attic - please show me if there is. Where are the pictures from the previous 9 searches of the house? Did no one take pictures?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2012 5:26:08 GMT -5
While I do realize much of what you are doing is a debate tactic, and there is no one more then me who can appreciate what can be learned by that, however, I don't want to spend time researching (searching) for things you really don't want to see.
I think that was Kevin's point earlier.
The example here is that you made a rock solid assertion then ask me to prove it for you. The fact of the matter is that you should be proving it to me. If you aren't sure or don't know, why isn't that reflected in your earlier post?
Pictures were taken but not of things they did not find. They back-dated the reports, therefore, the pictures came when they actually had the evidence at hand. That came on the heels of Koehler's investigation of that "find" which of course came much later.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 27, 2012 6:14:07 GMT -5
I can't prove a negative.
However I thought you guys might be able to provide some proof that the attic as Bornmann suddenly discovered it was always like that.
I thought it was a fair question.
As for pictures, surely someone took one of each room at least?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 27, 2012 6:36:30 GMT -5
i took pictures all over the house. alot of things are still there, famous shelf, the whole attic looks like rail16 same wood. same door to the babys closet
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 27, 2012 9:01:50 GMT -5
I can't prove a negative. However I thought you guys might be able to provide some proof that the attic as Bornmann suddenly discovered it was always like that. I thought it was a fair question. As for pictures, surely someone took one of each room at least? But you can prove a negative. You are making a claim that there is no chain of evidence. The proof would be an absence of that chain. As it happens there are numerous reports on the attic board discovery. Now, does that mean that there wasn't some funny business involved. Absolutely not. I think the police would do whatever it took to secure a case against Hauptmann. However, there are limitations on just what they could do. To fabricate the board evidence would be beyond any of their capabilities especially given the limited time and undetected access to the attic. I have been a carpenter for over 30 years specializing in custom woodwork and I couldn't make that switch. As I said previously, that is the absolute last piece of wood on that ladder that would be a good candidate for some type of frame-up. The easiest would be the wood dowels and it would have the same effect. Anyone who has spent considerable time researching this case will tell you that the lack of certain evidence, such as photos, plaster casts, etc that one would expect to find just don't exist. It can be extremely frustrating at times.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 27, 2012 9:28:28 GMT -5
But you can prove a negative. You are making a claim that there is no chain of evidence. No I said I suspect there is no chain. You are free to tell me there is and show it. Absolutely. You can't say that. You have no idea at all what went on. Good for you. Again, you also have no idea all what went on in that attic. Something happened and they didn't want the defence to get access to it that is for sure.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 27, 2012 10:46:47 GMT -5
I most certainly can say that and what's more, I can say it with conviction. I know exactly what is required to fabricate the evidence of rail 16. It doesn't matter what went on in the attic, what would matter is what would have to go on outside of the attic. Do you have any idea of what is involved with this whole scenario? Do you have any idea how many points have to match? You are certainly not the first to propose this switch and I suspect not the last. No one who has made this claim has ever done the work to support such a position, nor will they. Why, I wonder?
|
|