|
Post by johndoe on Mar 31, 2012 1:44:35 GMT -5
Michael said:
have you changed your mind?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 31, 2012 1:50:11 GMT -5
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. Can you go back show them the picture I posted and get them to explain how the ring radius can become so much greater over a space of 1.5 inches and just exactly what was the shape of that tree? If no one is allowed to have an opinion but an "expert" the justice system would be in a poor state and you or any others here wouldn't be posting. I'm an expert in logic by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2012 6:19:14 GMT -5
No. I was thinking one thing but apparently wrote another. I did not see evidence of joist shadowing on Rail 16, but I did see it on S-226.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2012 6:40:33 GMT -5
They saw them.
Certainly people can have an opinion. But one would absolutely have to consider what the Experts were saying. To take a Science then to pretend to know better is a little silly. I would think certain questions could be asked then attempted to be answered.
Now I know that not all Experts agree about everything and here is where our opinions may matter most. But have you found any to disagree? Or would you prefer to simply know better then those who have studied this Science when you have not? One has to qualify their arguments. Concerning the Handwriting you may try to argue it really isn't a Science and those "Experts" disagree a lot.
But I haven't seen anything coming from you to question any Science at all.
I honestly don't know what that means. I just think you have to base something on something solid in order to draw a conclusion. If something looks suspicious it doesn't mean its indicative of wrongdoing and if it is - it doesn't mean its the wrongdoing you happen to have hitched your wagon to.
That's not only common sense its a truth that was born out of 12 years of Archival Research concerning this case.
The other thing I see a lot of people do is argue something in one place but ignore that very same agrument in another. I think I exemplified why it cannot be done concerning Koehler if one is to say his reports are all faked. Because if you do, then you have to explain how it was done then take away a major point concerning false testimony about Rails 12 & 13.
It isn't "all or nothing" or "black or white" so in the end - everything is fair game - piece by piece - point by point. It all has to be gone through then carefully looked at.
I would have loved Rail 16 to have been a fake. That makes for a great story. But its not the truth of the matter. I am convinced we found the proper answer and that answer is in the middle. The Group on this Board seems to represent every school of thought but mostly were all "thinkers" who don't like to be told what to believe. We want to learn, discover, think about, and study - what happened for ourselves.
We will all never fully agree about everything. I for one will always say to keep an "open mind" until you are ready to conclude something. But its a personal decision when that time comes.
That time may never come for you JD, I don't know, and I welcome any ideas or thoughts that you have. I think my issue may be the delivery of those ideas as coming from a position of "matter of fact" when its speculative in nature. Speculation is good and its gotten us this far, but it should be presented as such in my opinion. I am also in favor of qualifying a position - if one is made.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 31, 2012 11:38:34 GMT -5
? The rings are supposed to join up, because of the difference in ring radius over 1.5 inches the tree would have to have been conical. Like handwriting? Experts are often wrong. Often. People get hanged and fried on the wrong opinion of experts. I've not seen any science that explains the difference in ring radius over such a short distance. I am an expert in logic, I have been for 30 years (you'll have to take my word for it). Sometimes I am wrong. The ring radius is a puzzle for me.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 31, 2012 11:42:14 GMT -5
Who knows what he was up to. All I know is that people were faking stuff on this case, everything on the prosecution side has to be viewed with suspicion. Koehler may have found some "interesting" pieces of wood on his travels and not said anything. What is in the reports isn't necessarily the whole story.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 31, 2012 13:16:13 GMT -5
How do you know this? I'm not giving the prosecution a free pass here, but what exactly was faked as oposed to misrepresented or withheld.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 31, 2012 13:19:07 GMT -5
Michael, thank you for continuing to show respect for people holding diverse views.
I want to pick up on a significant part of your thinking:
First, I think everyone, regardless of their general position on the LKC, would agree that it would be more credible to build a ladder piece from wood stored in the basement than going up to rip wood from the attic.
Michael, based on the above post, I gather you are saying that the prosecution ALREADY believed Hauptmann built Rail 16 from wood that had been discarded from the attic and was stored in his basement. Is this conjecture, or do we have documentation that this was their true position?
You are saying that the prosecution decided to argue that Hauptmann ripped the board from his attic, rather than taking stored lumber in the basement, because that basement was more accessible to other people, yes? And they were worried that the defense could challenge that someone else could have taken the lumber from the basement?
I have some questions about that. I have never been to Hauptmann’s house, but I have lived in places where the basement was just as inaccessible to outsiders as the attic. Was Hauptmann’s basement unlocked from the outside? Who other than the Hauptmanns would have accessed the basement? There was the landlord, and there was the other family who lived there—but obviously the defense wasn’t going to name them as alternative suspects.
If prosecutors were worried that the defense might argue that FISCH went down there while Hauptmann was away—well, for that matter, Fisch could have gone to the attic while Hauptmann was away too.
It just doesn’t jive for me. If I put myself in the shoes of the prosecution, I want to win the case, right? And what’s the jury more likely to believe—that Hauptmann ripped a board from his attic to get a piece of wood for the ladder, or that he used spare attic lumber that was stored in his basement? Obviously, the latter is much more credible. If I was Wilentz, would I risk sacrificing credibility just to avoid the unlikely possibility that Reilly might jump up and propose that Fisch stole the lumber from Hauptmann’s basement? Reilly wouldn’t do that—because if he did, he’d have to concede that the lumber came from Hauptmann’s house IN THE FIRST PLACE.
So unless I misunderstood you, I can’t buy. What I’m hearing is
--Hauptmann did it BUT
--The prosecution had to fudge the WAY he did it
--EVEN THOUGH this “fudged explanation” would look less credible to the jury
--Then they had to BAR the defense from the premises—not because they were hiding anything, but because they thought cheating and secrecy was the best means of achieving truth and justice—even though the truth, in this instance, was based on a FUDGED explanation anyway.
Sorry, I used some hyperbole there, but I didn't intend it as sarcasm. Your research on wood being in the basement is outstanding.
OK, here’s a different twist. Your remarks about the basement reminded me of Condon’s story that it was Samuelsohn who cut the wood for the kidnap ladder (Gardner, p. 375). Now I realize that Condon spun dozens of lies, and this was probably one of them. However, I don’t want to go the “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf” route of dismissing EVERYTHING Condon said.
If your argument is that some of the ladder wood came from Hauptmann’s basement, that might put a kernel of credibility into Condon’s story. Was there a half-truth in it somewhere?
OK, I’m going to think out loud here, which means I will air some ideas that will be easy to shoot down, but this is how we sometimes hammer things out.
It has been said that no crime is perfect without a patsy. Let’s just say, hypothetically, that Hauptmann was chosen to be the patsy. There were a number of “clues” in this case. One was the ransom notes. If BRH wrote them, it made no sense to me that he would substitute the German “gut” for “good” and “haus” for “house.” BRH certainly knew how to write such simple English words—if he wanted to disguise his writing, fine and well, but why do it in such a way that leaves obvious clues that the kidnapper is German?
Another clue was the money. Continuing with our hypothetical scenario of Hauptmann as a patsy, Fisch leaving him the ransom in an easily accessible shoebox made it likely that Hauptmann would find the money sooner or later, and fall under suspicion.
Of course, the most famous clue was the ladder. If the intent was to frame Hauptmann, wouldn’t it make sense to build the ladder from wood that could be tied to him?
If so, Michael, your explanation about the basement might not be the noose around Hauptmann’s neck, but a key that helps set him free, if the basement was as accessible to outsiders as you suggest.
Sure, I know there are holes in what I’ve just said—for instance, if someone like Fisch took lumber from Hauptmann’s basement, how could he EVER anticipate that a wood expert would later link it to Hauptmann’s house? And how could he even be sure Hauptmann would spend the ransom cash when he finally found it?
However, if we’re going to have the basement explanation lead us back to “Hauptmann did the crime, from building the ladder to collecting the ransom,” then it sounds like we’re pretty much coming full circle from the original verdict, and still left with those many perplexing questions such as, how did Hauptmann know the baby would be at Hopewell on a Tuesday, the lack of a single incriminating fingerprint, etc., etc.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 31, 2012 13:33:51 GMT -5
BR, since the Basement location for rail 16 was partly my doing, I will give my opinion to you, if you don't mind. I don't know if the prosecution knew or believed this. What they knew was that they had a board that was part of the ladder and once part of the floor in the attic. I think it would be understandable for them to keep it that simple. Sure, conceivably someone else could have had access to that board. Of course they would also have to have access to BRH's tools and do a little carpentry in the Garage, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2012 14:10:31 GMT -5
I think it depends on the Expert, and the Science they represent. Next, who is wrong more often - an Expert or someone who isn't? If you find what you think is a Picasso in a Thrift Store - are you going to bring it to to me for my opinion - or to an Expert?
Need I say more?
Please re-read my posts concerning the Experts I communicated with.
I have no reason to doubt you. And of course sometimes you are wrong just as I am about various things concerning this case despite all of my research. But I think if you have a handful of Experts in anything that disagree then there's an error somewhere. But if a handful from all over the World seem to agree I'd say the likely hood for error is exponentially slim. Without invasive study the door is always going to be open but for me, as the proper explanation presented itself, that door has now been completely shut.
This is true. There are some things in the Reports that refer to conversations not mentioned within them. But some reports specifically mention Rail 16 so its clear what he thinks about it. The problems arise when one lets their imagination run wild. Give yourself a wide range of reasonable options then work from there. Don't jump immediately to conclusions and never consider any other possibilities.
That's a huge mistake concerning this Case.
One could argue that I don't know they already knew and they'd be right because there is nothing in writing to back me up. But I believe at some point they figured it out. Exactly when is a matter of speculation.
Absolutely. Their charge hung by a thread. Factor in anyone else then the question arises about whether or not that other person was the one who killed the child. Without anyone else there is only Hauptmann and he wears it. The "why" was answered for me once I read how specific Bornmann was about who could access that attic in one of his reports. It's a preemptive move.
Anyone. Of course those living in the house, and it was an outside door. I don't think it was locked but even if it was I don't think it matters. For example, one of the Contractors, the Plumber I think, had his material stolen which I believe was in the basement at the time of the theft. Hauptmann's Neighbor often picked the lock to his garage in order to borrow his tools.
Fisch would have to break into the home, go to the closet, remove the shelving, climb into the attic lugging tools, saw the wood, pull the board up, come back down with the tools and board, put the shelves back in, leave the house, and avoid the Landlady who would be outside with the Police having heard the sawing AND knowing the Hauptmann's were not home.
That doesn't work in my opinion, however, suggesting he went into the basement or garage does for just about anyone you like. You don't even need a break-in because knowing the material is there it could have been given away by anyone in the house.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 3:51:34 GMT -5
After looking at this I no longer have an issue with the ring radius. The radius gets pushed wide by the knot but returns to a narrower radius futher on. I now think the theory that rail 16 is an extension of S-226 is a bit stronger. My next issue is that the grain pattern in rail 16 sits higher than S-226. If they were planed as one board then how does that happen?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 4:16:08 GMT -5
OK here is another angle.
How many pictures exist of the ladder taken pre-Bornmann discovery where the rail 16 grain is visible and identifiable with any post-Bornmann discovery pictures?
I've aware of one so far.
The reason for all these questions is because the Police were hiding something about this attic.
People are now telling me the evidence is solid. So what were they hiding?
In my guts I feel there is something wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 5:27:08 GMT -5
One last point for now.
All of the boards excluding S-226 and Rail 16 were nailed to the joists from the side, there were NO top down driven nails.
When confronted with this at the Hoffman attic meeting Koehler said that S-226 and rail 16 were laid first and that it was common practise to nail the first board with many nails from the top.
Is there any evidence for what he said being true? is that wat carpenters did on a partial laying of floor boards?
Surely no nails visible everywhere is the desired result when laying boards and you can anchor the first board this way?
And considering that the boards sit perfectly in the middle of the attic floor (check the plan in Kerga - 11'4" either side) , is it not more likely that the center boards were laid first with the attic appex as centre reference point?
Doesn't Koehlers reasoning sound like he was making it up as he went along?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 1, 2012 9:18:05 GMT -5
The attic floor is a utility floor and the 1x6 t&g flooring reflects that. That type of wood was the pre-cursor to today's plywood and it was usually not meant to be seen. In the case of the attic it provides a storage area and the typical installation is a starter course face nailed and then the field courses tongue nailed. Because that wood is so ugly, it's not uncommon to have to both face and tongue nail it. What you are trying to achieve is to get the tongue and groove joint as tight as you can, but with such long lengths that becomes difficult.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 9:46:19 GMT -5
How is board #26 nailed to the joist?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 1, 2012 14:51:16 GMT -5
Well, Michael, Kevkon, Joe, this is is a huge turning point for me—a sea change. It’s a tough thing for a man to own up when he’s wrong. But after being on this board for several months, you guys have finally convinced me. Hauptmann did it. I have to admit—I was so loyally committed to Hauptmann, I was blinded to the objective evidence, especially the evidence presented by Rail 16.
April Fool’s!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
And you guys know what you can do with Rail 16.
Sorry again, guys, my apologies for that last line, just kidding, really just kidding.
You are right—but in the courtroom the argument would never have reached this point; the defense would never have argued that Fisch took the wood because they weren’t about to concede that the wood was from Hauptmann’s home anyway. I was just raising the question—if the basement was so much easier to access than the attic, why would Wilentz sacrifice credibility with the jury by claiming Hauptmann went to the attic instead of the basement.
By the way, if the courtroom debate HAD reached a question of Fisch accessing the attic, I’m sure Wilentz would have loved to use your points—they are very well stated.
Now—regarding this basement business. It seems that the idea of Hauptmann building the ladder from stored attic lumber in the basement, rather than going up to the attic to rip a board, is fueling increased conviction in Hauptmann’s guilt. In other words, we’ve found a way around the rather implausible thesis that BRH cannibalized his attic. If so, it really is amazing to me that Wilentz himself didn’t jump on the basement angle, although I understand what you are saying, Michael, about his reasoning.
However, I have to ask if the basement business is really that damning anyway. Michael, you said that electricians tore out the lumber and discarded it out the attic window; then the landlord stored it in his basement, and he told Hauptmann he could feel free to use it—is that about correct?
But if so, wouldn’t Hauptmann have likely recognized that the lumber was from the construction of the house, and therefore could be potentially incriminating? I think we should give Hauptmann’s intelligence some credit here. Maybe he wasn’t a superb carpenter, but he certainly wasn’t bad a one. So I have to presume he knew something about lumber himself.
I would expect that, as a handy man (he even built his own garage), he presumably made a few visits to his attic. And if that board was really missing as Bornmann said, he probably would have noticed it. Now if Hauptmann went down to the basement, and saw the discarded lumber, isn’t it likely that he would made the connection, and recognized it as some of the attic flooring? I mean, if Bornmann, who wasn’t a carpenter, could make that connection from a cut-down Rail 16, couldn’t Hauptmann upon seeing the whole board?
And so why would BRH build a ladder for “the Crime of the Century” from lumber that could be linked to his own home? Why not drive to some lumberyard—doesn’t have to be one in the Bronx where people know him—and just buy a proper, non-incriminating board?
I’m not insisting that BRH would have recognized the lumber in the basement as coming from his attic, but I think it’s a reasonable possibility. In short, I don’t know that moving the source of Rail 16 from the attic to the basement necessarily increases the likelihood of Hauptmann’s guilt.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 1, 2012 15:03:26 GMT -5
BR, I liked your April fools joke. You really had me going, there! ;D
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 16:02:47 GMT -5
If he made it - and I now think there is a possibility he may have - I don't think he knew it was intended for "The Crime of the Century".
I think maybe someone asked him to make a ladder and he did.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 1, 2012 17:03:16 GMT -5
Pretty expensive ladder, I'd say. What is it about Hauptmann that makes him seem so incapable to some of being part of the crime? Is he not brave enough? Is he not criminal enough? Is he not smart enough? Or is there something else that he lacks? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 1:06:40 GMT -5
Pretty expensive ladder, I'd say. What is it about Hauptmann that makes him seem so incapable to some of being part of the crime? Is he not brave enough? Is he not criminal enough? Is he not smart enough? Or is there something else that he lacks? Just curious. He was elsewhere at key moments - that's what. Everyone who got to know him believed he was innocent. He told the garage attendant he had more like that at home - which strikes me as him not being aware this was hot ransom money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2012 7:48:12 GMT -5
Ok, fair enough. But have you subjected that witness claim to the same degree of scrutiny as you have with the wood evidence? If you are willing to accept a major effort by the police to fabricate evidence would it not follow that the same could apply to the opposite side regarding the defendants alibi?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 2, 2012 7:49:11 GMT -5
Kevkon, that is an important question, and because the answer involves quite a few details, I think it should have a thread of its own. I will try to get one started when I get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 7:58:13 GMT -5
Did you?
I do know that when Hauptmann's first first lawyer supenored the work records for March 1st and called them in court, they failed to turn up. They were "disappeared" by the prosecution and Employer witnesses changed their story after speaking to the Police and Prosecution.
Which was pretty outrageous.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 8:01:41 GMT -5
You perhaps missed this point.
That's what the garage attendant said.
Does that sound like a man who knew this was ransom money?
Especially a man who had alledgedly written serial numbers inside his closet so supposedly knew the notes were traceable?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2012 8:09:53 GMT -5
2 1/2 yrs of eluding capture in the midst of the investigative dragnet might make anyone act a bit cocky. I don't think anyone can really say.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 8:35:37 GMT -5
Sometimes you want Hauptmann to be devious and clever and sometimes to be stupid.
I see a man unaware of what that money was. Go to a garage, in your licensed plated car, hand over a increasingly rare bill, have a conversation about it in which you indicate you have more of them at home?
Nope.
Unless he was stupid.
But you don't think he was do you.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2012 9:05:45 GMT -5
JD, all of us are both clever and stupid. Hauptmann was no exception.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 10:57:19 GMT -5
There's stupid and STUPID.
I wonder who has the biggest pair of blinkers here?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2012 14:12:40 GMT -5
There's stupid and STUPID. I wonder who has the biggest pair of blinkers here? How many crimes have you studied?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 14:17:16 GMT -5
In another thread you have Hauptmann as clever, resourceful and not to be underestimated.
Here you have him with his traceable car blabbing to a garage attendant about how many gold certificates he's got at home.
That's way beyond STUPID.
|
|