|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2012 16:35:54 GMT -5
I've already provided you with enough. All the Experts that I communicated said they believed they matched but needed invasive study in order to state so conclusively. Anna Hauptmann's own Expert asked for invasive study as well. Again, if it could be so easily concluded it would have been.
Yet, you counter by looking at black & white photos then claim to know better. Better then the Experts, and better then those of us who have been researching this Case for a very long time. That's frustrating to me and I see demands for "proof" as evidence that I will be wasting my time to even attempt it because that too will likely fall on deaf ears or draw a similar counter such as the example above.
I am not saying they match and I am not saying they do not. I am telling you what I know as a matter of fact and that I now believe they do match because any doubts I had were erased by the explanation that the Electricians cut that board then threw it out of the semi-circle window. Rauch then collected all the left-over material and placed it in his basement. When Rauch told Hauptmann to build the garage he told him he could use whatever he wanted from that basement and paid for anything else he needed from the lumber yard.
Realize that I have the blue-prints to the house. I have Koehler's personal notes.....(Rick works at the FPL and I would wager even he doesn't have those). I have the work orders. I found purchase requests folded and clip with a rusty staple that had never seen the light of day until I asked the Archivist to open it for me. I didn't make rock solid assertions then get the material by demanding the person who researched it to produce and/or spoon feed it to me.
So you aren't dealing with a bunch of idiots here. That doesn't mean we're always right but it certainly doesn't mean we're likely to always be wrong. For me, I like to compliment my positions with documentation sometimes so that I can enjoy a good faith debate I can learn from. But to provide it to someone who comes here only to tell me what the facts are would be a fruitless endeavor and just a big waste of my time.
Anyway, nothing personal but I am usually honest about most things. You are welcome to post whatever you like but I may not engage it if the tone isn't something I want to get involved with.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2012 16:41:45 GMT -5
Maybe its me, but......
S-226 and Rail 16 are supposed to make up Board #27. Okay. Well I took a close look at Board #26 and it doesn't look much like Board #27 - in color. Oh, and by the way, it had shadowing on it while neither S-226 and Rail 16 did not.
How's that happen I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 27, 2012 18:06:26 GMT -5
I think it is especially frustrating for those who dispute the prosecution’s case. Let’s take photos. I started a thread under the General Discussion board called “Did Wilentz Con Bonesteel?” Anna Bonesteel ran a restaurant near the Alpine Ferry where Red Johnsen and other servants from the Palisades hung out. Bonesteel said Violet Sharp was nervously waiting, holding blankets, just inside the door of her restaurant on the night of the kidnapping. Bonesteel had been introduced to the girl before, and had little doubt it was Sharp. Despite threats against her life, Bonesteel testified in Flemington. Then on cross-examination, Wilentz had a big “Perry Mason” moment. He showed Bonestreel a photograph and asked her to identify it. Bonesteel couldn’t. Wilentz then triumphantly announced it was a picture of Violet Sharp. In the eyes of the jury, Bonesteel was now discredited. However, I was determined to see if Wilentz might have tricked Bonesteel by using a very weird photo of Sharp, such as this one: www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U190411ACME/portrait-of-violet-sharpe?popup=1But when I asked Mark Falzini for a copy of that exhbit, labeled S-290, it turns out it has long since disappeared. Now someone will say, “”Yes, but that’s because the trial happened a long time ago and stuff naturally disappears.” OK, but I found it interesting that the very next photo Wilentz introduced, the inconsequential S-291, did NOT disappear. How come it’s the essential stuff that’s missing? Let’s move over to fingerprints. Not one fingerprint linked Hauptmann to the crime—neither in the nursery nor on the 13 ransom notes. Dr. Erasmus Hudson lifted about 500 prints (including partials) from the homemade ladder at the scene—but none were Hauptmann’s. This seemed improbable if—as prosecutors claimed—he built it. The police then washed the ladder clean of fingerprints, and Schwarzkopf refused to let the public know Hauptmann’s were never found on it. That is DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, which may also be the explanation for the missing photo that deceived Bonesteel. Then we have the 3/4 inch chisel. A 3/4 inch chisel was found at the crime scene. In the courtroom, Wilentz showed Arthur Koehler Hauptmann’s tool box, and they emphatically noted that there was no 3/4 inch chisel. They left the jury to conclude that the chisel missing from the tool box was the one found at the crime scene. However, Anthony Scaduto discovered the original New York police receipts for Hauptmann’s tools, including his ¾ inch chisel; later he found two of his ¾ inch chisels—both a Bucks Brothers and a Stanley--in storage at New Jersey State Police headquarters in Trenton. The prosecution simply lied about these being missing. Once again, vital evidence was suppressed. Hauptmann’s shoes were confiscated for comparison to footprints at the crime scene and cemetery. The prosecution omitted this evidence, too—presumably they didn’t match. (If they had matched, you can be sure Wilentz would have been all over it.) According to Gardner (p. 319) plaster casts of footprints WERE made, both at Hopewell and the cemetery. And of course, those casts also disappeared. Why is that the evidence damaging to the prosecution disappears? Now let’s move on to that ladder. According to an affidavit given by Dr. Hudson, after it was found that Hauptmann’s fingerprints were not on the ladder, New Jersey State Police Captain John Lamb then asked him: Could fingerprints be counterfeited? Kevkon, you are saying that Bornmann could not possibly have counterfeited the ladder evidence. Yet here we have testimony that Captain Lamb, who was Bornmann’s superior, was INTERESTED in counterfeiting ladder evidence. Shouldn’t this at least set off some alarm bells for us? I think it is very interesting that the New Jersey State Police took over the lease on the Hauptmanns’ apartment and Bornmann actually lived there. I know this was a huge case, and I’m no criminal justice expert, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of the police doing that in another case. Why was that necessary? The attic had already been searched by at least 37 law-enforcement agents. What did Bornmann think? That the other 37 agents were dweebs, and he was going to find a gold certificate that they missed? Why did Bornmann need all that time in the apartment? Was he LOOKING for something, or was he WORKING on something, while no one else was around to see? And if Bornmann was really “Snow White”—if he was not up to anything fishy--why is it that he, with Wilentz’s approval, consistently barred defense attorneys from the premises? If his hands were clean, he shouldn’t have had anything to hide. It can’t be argued that Bornmann was worried that defense lawyers would themselves tamper with his wood evidence—he would have been breathing down their necks, same as the police did when the defense finally got approval to examine the ransom notes. Now I realize Bornmann would have lacked the expertise to fake wood evidence. But if any man would have had that expertise, it would have been Arthur Koehler, and those two has been sidekicks for a long, long time. Kevkon, Michael says you are an outstanding carpenter, and I accept that. However, I do want to mention that even experts sometimes get fooled. Albert D. Osborn validated Clifford Irving’s Howard Hughes forgery as genuine. The Piltdown Man was validated as a genuine fossil by several of Britain’s leading scientists (some were even knighted for their work in it), and it was on display at the British Museum for 40 years before being exposed as a fake. Here is a link to some art works that fooled experts for years: antiquesandthearts.com/Antiques/CoverStory/2007-07-16__15-50-55.htmlIn view of the fact that other experts have been fooled within their fields, I wonder if you might concede that’s it’s possible that there’s some angle to this matter that you might have missed—that maybe a man with Arthur Koheler’s expertise could have hit on a ingenious way to fool even a sharp carpenter like yourself. If it’s possible to fake a painting by the Dutch master Vermeer, is it really impossible to fake a board by the German carpenter Hauptmann? I realize I’m comparing apples to oranges—but I wouldn’t be surprised if “the degree of difficulty” was no less for a Vermeer painting than for a Hauptmann board. I realize you have done detailed research on Rail 16. I’m definitely NOT saying it is wrong; I don’t have the wood and carpentry know-how to comment on it. With time, I hope I will. In the meantime, I give you the benefit of the doubt on that matter. Michael thinks you’re right, and he knows as much about this case as anybody. However, for myself, I want to make sure I keep that research within the perspective of all the other evidence, most of which I believe casts the prosecution’s case in a less flattering light.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 27, 2012 20:24:11 GMT -5
well mike, ask a wood expert. looks the same to me. the whole attic flooring is southern pine as what i seen. i wish they would had let us come back to the attic one more time
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 28, 2012 5:03:40 GMT -5
Maybe its me, but...... S-226 and Rail 16 are supposed to make up Board #27. Okay. Well I took a close look at Board #26 and it doesn't look much like Board #27 - in color. Oh, and by the way, it had shadowing on it while neither S-226 and Rail 16 did not. How's that happen I wonder? Well I can guess. Which is why evidence of the state of the attic before Bornmann's sudden discovery is important.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 28, 2012 5:08:59 GMT -5
Absolutely the crux of the matter.
They were fixing this case in all directions.
They were up to something in the attic which makes any evidence in the attic suspicious.
Just because you can't think what they might have done doesn't mean they didn't do something.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 28, 2012 6:12:12 GMT -5
theres no evidence that the wood was planted. i heard this planting crap for 20 years. its a hauptmann supporters dream
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 28, 2012 7:16:02 GMT -5
BR, very good post and your points are well taken. Could I be fooled? Absolutely. In any case my area of expertise is the design and construction of the ladder, not the identification of the rail/floorboard. But I can say with complete confidence that the ladder part known as rail 16 was at one time part of the floor in the Rausch attic. How can I say this with certainty? Because like a fingerprint, there are multiple points that must be in agreement in order to make a match. The grain and figure are just one of them. Planer marks, resin canals, color, age, relative moisture content, the location and size of the tongue and groove, the nail holes, the angle of the nail holes, and a few I missed. All of these unique qualifiers would have to be met in order to make a match. So can you forge a fingerprint? And can you do so in a very limited time in a location with many eyes upon you? What's more, as I said earlier, rail 16 is the very last piece of the ladder any forger would pick. I would take the dowels and within a couple of days have a substitute that could only be detected as a counterfeit by invasive study not even available at the time. And with the world lusting to hang Hauptmann, it would be enough.
There's been entirely too much time wasted on this subject, time that could be spent in more productive investigations, imho. I understand the suspicion regarding the police and prosecution and I know it is accurate as I have seen it. But there is a limit to what their capabilities were.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 28, 2012 7:28:53 GMT -5
But there is a limit to what their capabilities were. Have you ever considered that it's your imagination that's limited? Have you never had a "so that's how they did it moment"? The attic is tainted. Something was going on. Just because you can't think what it was doesn't mean they couldn't fool you.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 28, 2012 9:10:31 GMT -5
All the time, especially when I read these posts about conspiracies. So the logical deduction here is that the NJSP were a pretty imaginative group.
You know JD, if you really are sincere in your belief that the police framed BRH with the rail, money, spending, tools, drawing, etc., why not do what every credible researcher does, spend the time, money, and effort investigating your theory. All I ever see from these claims of conspiracy are more claims. Now, being the unimaginative type that I am and if I sincerely believed that the police fabricated the wood evidence, I would spend the time to educate myself on wood and tool mark forensics. My next step would be spend some money on a particular non-invasive examination that has never been done on the rail and floorboard. The results would prove beyond any reasonable doubt whether or not there was a frame-up. Can you imagine that?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 28, 2012 10:16:32 GMT -5
So what exactly were the Police up to in that attic when they rented it, lived in it, made a sudden discovery that lots of people had missed and denied the defence access to it?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 28, 2012 19:09:55 GMT -5
you have to say that because the wood is very damaging to hauptmann. rail 16 is the same wood as the attic floor, i saw that with my own eyes and was givin a piece of wood from a loose board from the attic. if you read kelvin keragas report on these matters it would answer alot of your questions
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 28, 2012 19:10:10 GMT -5
Ask them what? That Rail 16, or even S-226, doesn't look like Board #26? I can see that for myself and Koehler made note of it too.
When did you see Board #26?
I do not disagree with this. What I disagree with is what I wrote above. The point is I think you are seeing what you want to see.
Could you do me a favor and list the who, what, where, when and why behind your theory?
I think what you are doing is trying to back Kennedy's assertions. I admire Kennedy, however, he made mistakes too. People get into a "rut" by falling in love with a certain personality to the point where they refuse to disagree with them under ANY circumstance. We see this with Jim Fisher, and we see it with Koehler as well.
People need to let go of these "crushes" and simply let the chips fall where they may. If one is serious about solving this case one must let go of these irrational "loyalties."
I've exploited them in past debates about this very issue. When challenged by Verdict Defenders that it was impossible to find a board with these similarities (between Rail 16 & S-226), I then pointed to Koehler's supposed "tracing" of Rails 12 & 13 even "finding" boards from the exact same shipment that was supposed to have originated from the Mill!!!
What that did was shut those up who had this, well, "crush" on Koehler because they were now in a Catch-22.... (I can be pretty good at this tactic).
And that's what it is. A tactic. Why you ask?
Because Koehler's testimony that he successfully traced those Rails was fudged more then Steve's ladder climbing re-enactment - and I was well aware of that fact when I made the argument.
But you have a guy like Kevin who doesn't swear ANY allegiance to any side, person, or scenario. He DOES let the chips fall where they may. And if it makes sense, it fits, and it works then what's the point of making a fuss about it? After all - that is supposed to be our goal - is it not?
Anyway, Kevin and I do not agree on everything all of the time. And I do appreciate the points made by BR in his post. However, something "wrong" isn't always the "wrong" we personally would like to see and therefore automatically attach to it as a result. I would advise that we all come up with a list of various explanations instead of just the one we want to see as the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 28, 2012 19:23:45 GMT -5
Thank you for your earlier comments, Kevkon. I agree that faking Rail 16 would have been a daunting task for any forger. And while I don’t wish to belabor the attic too long, I’d like to raise another possibility –maybe it’s lame, but I’ll think out loud here. The main point of the prosecution’s argument, I believe, was that Rail 16 matched S-226. Here’s what Michael just posted in this thread:
I gather that board 27 is the board next to board 26, and Michael is saying they don’t look too much alike. OK, let’s grant that Rail 16 would have been way too hard to forge. I’ll concede that. But how difficult would it be to plant S-226? If I was going to choose a portion of board 27 to fake, S-226 looks a lot simpler than Rail 16.
I realize that what I’m saying may have already been investigated and refuted. There are probably a dozen carpentry reasons why it couldn’t be done. But I’ll throw in the idea anyway. Let’s say Koehler and Bornmann didn’t focus on Rail 16. Instead, they removed the original board S-226. They then substituted a new floorboard, one that had a grain pattern suitably matched to Rail 16. Souds outlandish, right? But bear with me. Koehler had been traveling around the region for many months, visiting scores of lumberyards, intently examining boards that might match Rail 16. He would have kept notes, and should have had a pretty good idea of where to find a suitable board. Would it be that difficult to find, or cut one, to the same dimensions as the original attic floorboard which we refer to as S-226? He might have even been keeping a couple of “matches” in storage.
There are probably a host of carpentry objections to this that I don’t know even know about. I suppose an obvious one would be: if they substituted S-226, it would have looked fresh and stood out like a sore thumb. Maybe the landlord Rauch would say “Hey, that ain’t my original attic board!”
But maybe Koehler would know where to find an older board? Frankly, I have an attic, and if somebody went up there while I was away, and substituted one board for another, I’d never even notice.
Maybe this could explain the differences in color and shading that Michael noticed between Board 27 and Board 26? And there were other differences. Board 27 had quite a few more nails (24) than the neighboring boards. I’m going to quote from Gardner’s description of the attic confrontation between Hoffman’s people and Wilentz’s (p. 390):
Furthermore, S-226 also differed from Rail 16. Again quoting Gardner, p. 390:
In his footnote (no. 78) Gardner writes:
Hats off to you, Michael.
OK, so in summary, S-226 and Rail 16 combine to compose Board 27, or what was left of it. But board 27 differed from the neighboring boards—both in color and in the number of nails. Furthermore, S-226 and Rail 16 were different from each other in the number of nails. By my count, that’s a total of three discrepancies in S-226. And that’s enough discrepancies to at least raise a red flag.
Of course, it wouldn’t have been as simple as planting S-226. You still had to make Rail 16 match the nail holes in the joists. And that’s why I want to recall the testimony of Dr. Erastus Hudson, who said he was positive that Rail 16 had only one nail hole in it when he examined it shortly after the kidnapping.
Perhaps someone will object that Hudson was a fingerprint man, not a wood man. But how much expertise does it take to count holes? I take Hudson’s remarks seriously because he wasn’t basing this on a quick glance or a photograph--he was handling that wood for several days, hands-on. This was long before Koehler ever had his mitts on it. Were the holes added later to match the joists? THAT doesn’t seem like an impossible act of forgery.
It may be objected that Bornmann and Koehler couldn’t have made a switch with S-226 because their activity would have been noticed. I disagree. Bornmann was living there. Koehler could have come over with a board in the wee hours of the morning, when no prying FBI or NYPD men were around. For an old wood pro like Koehler, removing a board and nailing in a new one should have been quick piece of work.
And how about this? The New Jersey State police took over the lease on the Hauptmanns’ apartment. How come the guy who gets picked to live there is Detective Bornmann—the very man who’s been riding around the country for months with Koehler? Just a coincidence?
And I’d like to know how Bornmann came to his monumental discovery. We’re supposed to believe he’s walking around the attic, and says, “Hm, this attic board looks like a match to Rail 16.” But why would he think that? Remember, there was a missing piece between Rail 16 and S-226. The grains did NOT match up, at least until Koehler made a sketch of what he presumed the missing piece looked like. Anyone think Bornmann visualized Koehler’s sketch, in advance, in his head?
Furthermore, not only did the grains not clearly match, but rail 16 was much narrower than S-226. Are we supposed to believe that Bornmann thought to himself, “Gee, even though these boards don’t SEEM to match, I bet they really DO. I bet old Hauptmann didn’t have enough lumber for his ladder, so he shinnied up here to the attic, hacked off a piece of the attic board here—a ways further down, of course—then cut and planed it down so it would fit the ladder.” Michael, I know you’ve said that the electricians threw excess wood out the window, but Bornmann and the prosecution didn’t know that at the time, correct? How could Bornmann come to such a wild conclusion—and then, unbelievably, have it turn out to be right? Either he was a smarter detective than Sherlock Holmes, or he was a crooked cop—and if he was the latter, it wouldn’t be the first time a cop won kudos for “solving a case” when the solution was from tampered evidence.
I'm not insisting it happened this way--just wondering out loud.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 28, 2012 20:07:36 GMT -5
well, how come old photographs show the nailholes before hauptmann was taken in? hudson is full of crap. again, planting of the evidence is the only way out for hauptmann supporters. the grains match
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 28, 2012 20:26:00 GMT -5
For my money, Wolf, it was Wilentz who was “full of crap”—suborning perjury from Hochmuth and Whithed; using Charlie Schleser to spy on defense witnesses; having the entire jury pool spied on before jury selection; violating jurisprudence by including new arguments in his summation; concealing the existence of Hauptmann’s chisel; omitting the footprint evidence….Given all of that, I don’t think he would have been above mis-dating a photograph to try to do an end-run around Hudson’s testimony. If you followed my thread on Bonesteel, he used a photo to trip up witness Bonesteel—and now the photo is conveniently missing.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 28, 2012 21:19:06 GMT -5
what did gov hoffman do to the chisel? what about hauptmann on the stand? a complete ass. he helped get himself fried. you really think bonsteel was a credible witness? you say hochmuth and whited suborning perjury, two defense witnesses was almost charged with that
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 29, 2012 1:29:03 GMT -5
I actually don't have to have a theory.
It is sufficient to point out how this "evidence" is inadmissible.
But OK.. you know what I think, that S-226 was a late addition to the floor and there is nothing available that shows us what the attic was like before the police rented it, lived in it , made new discoveries and denied the defence access to it to say it can't be so.
If you search lumber yards up and down the country looking for wood from the same batch you have the ring pattern.
And we know they searched long and hard.
The exact match can be fudged by "losing" a few inches at the intersection.
But alas for them, the tree that S-226 came from appears to be older than rail 16 because of the greater ring radius.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 29, 2012 1:38:11 GMT -5
well, how come old photographs show the nailholes before hauptmann was taken in? hudson is full of crap. again, planting of the evidence is the only way out for hauptmann supporters. the grains match Can you show us the photos?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 29, 2012 6:30:53 GMT -5
there in kelvin keragas report
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 29, 2012 7:30:00 GMT -5
BR and JD, I think you are both focusing on single elements in regard to the floorboard/ rail 16 scenario. If you are really looking for an answer you must look at the whole picture and that means all of the elements required to make a match between the wood. It's not just the grain and the annular rings. That floor is composed of 1"x T&G Southern Yellow pine that was produced at a specific time and with a specific mill. The board in question is what we call a starter strip. The nails and their respective holes are at various locations and angles. The wood has aged and has joist stains. It has also dried and contracted. You just can't run around to different lumber yards and find something that has a similar grain pattern. It's just not that simple. As for the various police visits to the attic, remember that not everyone was aware of the fact that rail 16 had a previous life. Even if they did , who would think it would be part of an attic floor? These guys had just found a treasure in the Garage, I think you have to take their mindset into account. Just recently I discovered a very intriguing connection between the ladder and the attic which no one has ever mentioned. It's something in plain sight, something all of the investigators walked past. Had they realized it and confirmed it it would have been a very strong piece of evidence against BRH. So, the sword sometimes cuts both ways.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 29, 2012 10:29:34 GMT -5
Why not?
They spent a long time looking.
And you are missing a crucial point.
Michael said the boards #26 and #27 are different.
Does that not ring any alarm bells?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 29, 2012 12:55:47 GMT -5
I guess you didn't read my post. I have to believe that Michael is correct in that you have already formed your answer and are really not interested in the truth. That's fine with me as this is a subject that has been gone over and over far too many times and really doesn't deserve any more time.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 29, 2012 14:46:00 GMT -5
And you have not?
Are you not willing to contemplate that S-226 was put in place later and the little saw cut in board #26 was to sell the idea that rail 16 had been cut from it?
You know how the police fixed other stuff in this case, why are you not prepared to admit that they might have done this as well?
You know they were hiding something from the defence.
What about Michael's comment about the board being different?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 29, 2012 16:12:11 GMT -5
Kevkon, I respect your carpentry qualifications, and the hours you’ve put into the case. However, yesterday I gave some famous examples of forgeries that fooled experts, and I essentially asked—if a painting by the Dutch master Vermeer could be faked, would it be impossible to fake a board by a Bronx carpenter? Even so, I went ahead and conceded that Rail 16 would be too challenging to counterfeit.
But if the argument descends to this—that it would be POSSIBLE to fake a painting by Vermeer, but IMPOSSIBLE to substitute one simple board (meaning S-226) in an attic, I think I draw the line there. You’re right—there ARE more variables to a board than its grain and annular rings. But those are precisely the things Koehler stated that he knew so much about, and given the missing piece between 16 and S-226, even the ring matchup isn’t a certainty, is it? If Koehler and Bornmann were straight-shooters with nothing to hide, I don’t understand why they were keeping the defense from inspecting the attic. People don’t hide things without a reason—and you don’t have to be a wood expert to know that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2012 16:46:57 GMT -5
I am saying that, in my opinion, #26 appears to be lighter then S-226. But in reality that doesn't mean anything because it was rough attic flooring. I would hate for you to use something I said for evidence of something it's not.
In order to plant S-226 you would need to find a board that originated within the stand of 2nd growth yellow pine from which Rail 16 originally came. It's even been suggested to me that it could have been a different board from the same tree.
Here's the flaw in your theory: Koehler wasn't searching for anything to do with Rail 16. In fact, that board was mostly ignored. The other problem is as I mentioned above: A "match" would require what I've outlined above.
Koehler spent most of his time attempting to merely "trace" Rails 12 & 13 to their shipment from the Mill. In the end, after all of that time spent, he couldn't even do that and had to resort to perjury in order to claim he had. (He was close - so I suppose he was able to justify it in his own mind based upon this fact).
That is "framing evidence." But its not the type some would like to see so they take the ball then run with it. Not kicking around ideas but rather telling us its a "plant." I've been there myself only due to the bill of goods we've been sold that Hauptmann crawled up there and cannibalized it from that attic floor. Offering me that situation which I knew was complete BS - I had to exhaust my options. And I am glad I did because now I know what the true situation was.
When the Experts told me it wasn't conclusive without invasive study but they believed it matched I had to look at the possibility this way: That's probably somewhere around 95%. Conclusive = 100%. Inconclusive = 50%. No Match = 0% So with each argument I could come up with I saw a percentage pull away from the 95%. In the end I was still left with what? 90-2% chance? I am not a betting man but those odds ain't good. Still though, left with the alternative of suspicion and the absurdity of Hauptmann climbing into the attic to saw that board I didn't see how I could accept it regardless.
But the Basement solves all of that. And it explains why the Police wanted so badly for it to have been retrieved by Hauptmann - in that attic. That way, only he or Anna could have done it, because it was accessible only to them. But the basement was open for many others - to include those associated with Hauptmann - like Fisch - who the Police needed to be innocent if they were going to convict Hauptmann of Murder 1.
This isn't what either "side" wants to hear but its the truth. They weren't trying to "frame" an innocent man, rather, they were trying to sure up and/or tie up their loose ends by fudging certain facts against someone they all knew was in this thing up to his neck.
Keeping the Defense out of that Apartment until after the Trial was part of that. Without any visit by them they couldn't intelligently refute it or even offer a reasonable counter-argument so it would be an easy piece of evidence to advance to the Jury.
I did a lot of studying concerning this type of stuff. Remember my "argument" theory of percentages above? I even checked the "slant" of the nails etc... Seems like a waste of time now but it wasn't. By working through this stuff I am now able to feel comfortable with my current position when I never was comfortable at all back then about anything...."match," "no match," or "anything."
I kind of need one if you are going to allege misconduct. And I am going to need specific misconduct as well because there could be misconduct but not the kind you are thinking. There are certain things I believe many have a misunderstanding of but I cannot address them by taking stabs in the dark at generalities.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 29, 2012 16:50:20 GMT -5
The connection between Rail 16 and S-226 has been scrutinized over the years and no one has come close to proving a plant here. Anyone who has attempted this, whether it be due to a biased mindset, lack of or incorrect information, emotional connection to Hauptmann.. you name it, has fallen flat. Of course, anyone is welcome to try but Kevin is absolutely right that too much time has been spent on this aspect of the case. The bar of knowledge and truth established by Koehler, despite whatever misgivings towards the way the final evidence was presented to the court, has been returned to that level and then some, due to some great investigative work done over the past ten years. Unfortunately a lot of bad, questionable or suggestive information about this case has been put into mass bookprint by the popular authors. They have successfully turned some of the basest and most mundane truths about this case, such as the Rail 16 connection to Hauptmann's attic, into the kind of conspiracy fodder that can capture the imagination of anyone looking to grind an ax while showing the same level of discernment they would crossing the street against a red light.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 30, 2012 1:21:41 GMT -5
I am saying that, in my opinion, #26 appears to be lighter then S-226. You also said the "shadowing" wasn't there. There is also the case of the number of nails and the spacing. Pine forests are very big and within a large area holding a lot of trees you are going to get the same ring growth pattern (gap ratio). The ring radius is much greater on S-226 (I provided pictures) and the "missing" section is only an inch or so. This is strong evidence that they are from different trees. You only know what Koehler said he was doing. What he was actually doing is another matter. Why is everyone so trusting of the police?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 30, 2012 1:28:10 GMT -5
The connection between Rail 16 and S-226 has been scrutinized over the years and no one has come close to proving a plant here. Anyone who has attempted this, whether it be due to a biased mindset, lack of or incorrect information, emotional connection to Hauptmann.. you name it, has fallen flat. But you know the Police were hiding something about this attic and you know they were fixing other things in this case. Why exactly did Bornmann have to live there for goodness sake?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2012 16:23:53 GMT -5
While I am sure that covers reasons why some might be looking you are forgetting the obvious reasons.... Clearly, a suspicious set of circumstances, a completely absurd scenario putting Hauptmann in that attic for the purposes of cannibalizing that board for absolutely no good reason, and the underhandedness of certain Parties, at times, through out this entire matter.
If Koehler was willing to lie about Rails 12 & 13 being conclusively "traced" and where Hauptmann's chisel actually was when discovered, then its not "crazy" for some level headed individuals to suspect he might be up to no good here too.
It just isn't.
Now of course, with the new information that was developed by Kevin, and suggest by both he and Rab independently DESPITE all of those who would try to stop it due to bias - now we have the truth.
And that truth lies in the middle - exactly where most don't like it to be.
While I understand and appreciate the theme of your post, I have to disagree when you refer to this as "mundane." There's nothing ordinary about it. And of course I dislike those who would label anything a "conspiracy" like, for example, if you believe in one then its like you believe in Aliens or something.
Fact is, most crimes committed began with a conspiracy - which is a crime itself.
Right - I didn't see any on Rail 16. And why wasn't it? Because the Electricians removed it so the board wasn't there long enough. But I believe I saw it on S-226 where the beams were. So the "framing" by adding S-226 doesn't work.
Right - (3) people in that attic hammering away. How many hammered on Board #27? 1, 2, or all 3? Did just one who realized he only had a handful of nails as he was? You see, despite my efforts here there really just isn't anything this actually proves in my opinion. Kevin is the carpenter so maybe he can shed some light on it - I don't know.
Everyone of both sides of this argument always suddenly became Dendrochronologists, Wood Experts, and Tool Mark Examiners. I've always called them out when they did this so I am going to call you out too... Unless you are an Expert you are not qualified to say this, or at least, say it with any weight attached to it. I've consulted with Experts and if you can conclude this then they should have too.
No one I communicated with had a dog in this fight.
Hold on a minute.... I know what he was doing because I have an entire file cabinet drawer full of his Reports over a 2-1/3 year period. If you are suggesting he re-wrote all of those reports then it means you have no idea what you are talking about.
Let me give you an example: I have all (3) of Bornmann's 9-26 attic search reports. One is back-dated. So why are the other (2) still around? Yet, Koehler "re-writes" 1000 or so Reports, Letters, and Memos then ensures the NJSP destroy all of his previous ones? Really? When they didn't even get rid of Bornmann's?
Make any sense?
Or how about the Report during the period of time where Koehler admits he did NOT trace 12 & 13 but winds up testifying that he did? Why is that one still around? And what about everything else in that Report? Is that information okay to accept in your opinion?
Whether you trust the Police or not, one cannot say everything is exactly as one believe it to be as a result of that mistrust. There's a lot that goes into researching this case and nothing is black and white. Each and every Officer had a moral compass that allowed for certain behavior to each.
Exactly when did Bornmann live there? From when to when? After you give me this answer I may or may not have another for you.
|
|