|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2006 19:29:59 GMT -5
Above is an interesting letter written by Governor Hoffman. In it we see that in 1938 Hoffman is convinced it would have been an impossible feat for someone standing on the top rung of the 2nd section to gain entrance into the Nursery then exist and descend with the child. He doesn't even mention the placement of the ransom note with the wind blowing etc. Now what about adding Kevin's observations? How do we overcome someone getting both in and out without even utilizing the top rung? ***BTW - I've added another .pdf file to the Members section. Be sure to log in and download this gem for your collections and research.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 10, 2006 9:21:20 GMT -5
IMHO, Sweeney's testimony, alone, about what he had to do to get out the window and on to the ladder is pretty clear evidence that there was more than one person involved. Both hands were too occupied to allow him to carry Charlie, much less leave a note.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 12, 2006 8:19:08 GMT -5
I think its even more important when considering Kevin's observations about this ladder.
Major problems for the "Lone-Wolf" theory (here) folks and I just don't see any physical evidence that (3) sections were used.
Yet, all other scenarios are even more improbable - how do we overcome this?
******
BTW - Happy birthday Pamela!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2006 16:36:01 GMT -5
What evidence would you like or expect to see? Remember the only evidence that the two section ladder was used are the holes and slight markings on the wall. With three sections the holes would be the same and only visible marks on the wall are absent. But two important points to keep in mind here. One the steeper angle of inclination of three sections means less horizontal force against the wall and a much smaller contact area. Two, how closely did the coppers look at the wall behind the right shutter? Another thing, and I can't believe I missed this one, the top section is just the right width to fit between the stiles of the shutter. I was so fixated on the overall width (max) of the ladder that it didn't occur to me to look at it from the opposite direction. That 11" width of the top section fits nicely onto that shutter which has about 12" to 13" of width between the stiles. When I put all of this together with the multiple ladder holes and the placement recorded on the map of the three sections it seems pretty likely that all three sections were used at one point.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 30, 2007 19:01:22 GMT -5
Kevkon~~Do you feel that the top section of the ladder would necessarily have had to be disconnected right when the ladder was taken down from the house? Anything about the break in the wood require that? Right now am trying to consider Parker's earlier time. It puts bathroom lights (next to nursery) out at approx 8pm with CAL arriving home at approx 8:25pm. The kidnappers were aiming to take the ladder just away from the house long enough to disconnect and re-nest it to take along with them(?) But they detect car lights approaching, which interrupts this, so they have to drop the ladder and run(?) That's barely 25 mins for the whole event(!) And suppose the "8:25pm" is the time CAL had entered the house after parking the car and walking inside(?) Possible, maybe(?)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 30, 2007 20:29:01 GMT -5
Absolutely not. If it's speed that you are interested in, the fastest way to get the ladder away from the house is to carry it still connected. The only concern would be if one of the dowels slipped out and it is a bit awkward, still it's the quickest method.
I don't think the splits would require anything other then the application of too much force applied to the dowel joint regardless of the ladder orientation.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 4, 2007 9:36:55 GMT -5
Kevkon - could I get your thoughts on the spacing of the rungs on the ladder. I'm sure that was done to keep the weight down, so it would be easier to transport. But in your opinion, are the rungs so far apart that it would be too difficult for a person at or below average height to use easily?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 4, 2007 12:17:35 GMT -5
Be glad to. I guess that the weight issue is the most logical explanation for the rung spacing, but I still try to keep an open mind on this. I really can't see the addition of 3 pine rungs causing the camel's back to break. It seems possible that the added work of sawing, planing , and mortising combined with the objective of a quick ascent may be reasons for the wide spacing.
I know that has been used as speculation for the height of the climber, but I really can't say for certain that there is a height limitation in regard to climbing this ladder. I am 5'9" and have no problem with the spacing when climbing it . I have never asked anyone shorter to try. In my opinion, it shouldn't pose that much of a problem as long as the person is fit and coordinated. Actually, it's the descent that is more problematic. I think most rock climbers will tell you this as well. It's always harder when you can't see what you are stepping on. And it is not the spacing distance that makes it so difficult as much as the irregularity of the spacing. That is usually a cardinal sin in construction. You always want the comfort of knowing by repetition where the next footfall will occur. Yet it obviously didn't seem to be a big deal for the ladder builder.
|
|
|
Post by deester on May 4, 2007 16:49:36 GMT -5
One interesting conclusion that might be drawn about the spacing of the ladder rungs is a bit damning to Hauptmann: a carpenter building a ladder might make the rungs more manageable (closer and more even) if it was for someone else to use. But the carpenter who built this one may have spaced out the rungs because he knew he could manage them, himself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2007 7:17:50 GMT -5
That's an interesting conclusion and it shows how there are so many different positions on these matters. If it was Hauptmann who climbed that ladder, it was probably his athletic ability more than his carpentry experience that made it possible. That and steely nerves. It takes a fair amount of bravado to climb that ladder on a windy night in enemy territory.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 5, 2007 22:22:56 GMT -5
One interesting conclusion that might be drawn about the spacing of the ladder rungs is a bit damning to Hauptmann: a carpenter building a ladder might make the rungs more manageable (closer and more even) if it was for someone else to use. But the carpenter who built this one may have spaced out the rungs because he knew he could manage them, himself. That's an interesting conclusion, and one that I can buy. Hauptmann (or anyone for that matter) would have built it to their own specifications that they knew they could use. But I still get an occasional feeling that the ladder wasn't used for the kidnapping. It just seems too difficult to pull off getting in, getting the baby out, and wiping down the room in the dark, all while making no noise or disturbing any of the items left in the room, from one person using the ladder.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2007 7:50:20 GMT -5
It just seems too difficult to pull off getting in, getting the baby out, and wiping down the room in the dark, all while making no noise or disturbing any of the items left in the room, from one person using the ladder. And so it is. This is not a one man ladder. You can climb it alone if you are strictly ascending and descending. However, getting on and off or performing any action which requires an off-center shift of weight ( usually the purpose of a ladder climb), without someone at the base to stabilize it is, frankly, almost impossible. The light and narrow design of the ladder may be good for transport, but it does so at the expense of stability and rigidity. It bends, twists, and strains under the load of a climber. If you add darkness, rain, and especially, wind to the equation the idea of a single kidnapper climbing unassisted borders on absurdity. Anyone who has climbed this ladder, and in particular, those who re-created the window entry, knew the need for assistance at the ladder base. Bottom line imho, the events of that night required multiple kidnappers and multiple climbs, period.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 29, 2008 20:42:59 GMT -5
Hi Kevkon and all, Taken from A.M.L's diary-May 19, 1932 "They have had a duplicate ladder up to the window and gone through the whole thing again. They reconstruct this: That the baby was put into a burlap bag (found near the grave) and passed or taken out of window. The ladder broke, fell against lower shutter (marks), and the man dropped the bag; the head of the child struck the cement ledge. The man(having gagged or chloroformed the child) did not know how serious the injury was at first. ........"I hadn't heard about "marks" on the lower shutter before (though I do recall Michael speaking of mud there) You are good about ladders, Kevkon. I'm not You have spoken of a ladder "scissoring". All I can visualize is folding in on itself-backward or forward. Is that correct? If when the ladder broke could something of the ladder perhaps have bent forward toward the house and struck the lower shutter? If so, it strikes me as pretty well matching the sound CAL heard--something like an orange crate falling from a chair(or to the floor?) A "clatter" sound. I guess my strongest impression is that the child's head did hit the lower window ledge. I feel that it would be consistent with the type of head fractures sustained. I'll add that I'm not especially trusting of the police description of the ground below the kidnap window (too many things become omitted, added to in the re-telling. And, too, as we know, visual perceptions can and often do vary). Then, too, there was the walkway where the child's body could have landed without ground marks.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 1, 2008 8:14:43 GMT -5
It simply folds up or pivots on the dowel joint and in the context of your question that would be backwards.
The ladder didn't break, it only suffered splits at the dowel joint. If it had broken with someone on the second section I guarantee CAL and everyone in that house would have heard a lot more than "something like an orange crate falling from a chair". They might even find a dazed German in the Library!
As for the child's injuries, who knows? Without knowing when they occurred all is conjecture. I seriously doubt he was alive before he even got to the window anyway. BTW there are some very good pictures of the ground below the window taken by Kelly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2008 17:46:36 GMT -5
I don't usually see the sense in this but after awhile I get worn out with misinformation posted by those who don't even try to learn the basics.
From the "Hoax site";
Anonymous Ladder Sat Mar 1, 2008 13:13 74.229.184.188
"Lindbergh was obviously fascinated with mechanical engineering. A mechanical engineer uses the principles of motion, energy, and force to insure their product(AIRPLANES, ROBOTS, TELESCOPING LADDERS etc.) functions safely, efficiently and reliably. That is their main concern, they really don't care what the finished product looks like." They don't?
" A carpenter seeks reward in the look. " He does? Is that a universal truth? Was Hauptmann really a carpenter?
"Lindbergh, if he built that ladder wanted it to telescope(move up and down-STATIC and DYNAMIC) he was unconcerned with look. " Then why didn't the ladder "telescope"? Are you sure you are looking at the right ladder?
"Hauptmann's reply to Wilentz was something like "I am a carpenter, the ladder looks like a musical instrument." He told Governor Hoffman on one of his midnight visits the same thing. He was embarassed by what it looked like. " I doubt much embarrassed BRH. Perhaps a more reasonable response would be to point out exactly what he perceived to be wrong with the ladder. If I was on the jury that would certainly mean more to me than sarcasm.
"Also since Lindbergh's education at Wisconsin was limited at best his finished product was flawed. He did not take into consideration the height of the window which with the telescoping ladder was either too short or too long." The guy flew solo across the Atlantic and navigated by dead reckoning, yet he couldn't measure the window in his own house?
"I think he was going to use the ladder but when it broke it became a ruse for the police." But I thought engineers built things"safely, efficiently and reliably". I guess that pretty much rules out Lindbergh as the builder.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2008 7:06:18 GMT -5
Just curious and would appreciate some opinions on this. What type of "musical instrument" do you think Hauptmann was referring to? It seems like a small issue, but I just can't see any similarities.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2008 7:25:32 GMT -5
Good question, and the thought that always comes to my mind is an accordian. Couldn't say why exactly, but its what pops into my head when I hear that.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 6, 2008 8:21:27 GMT -5
I was thinking trombone.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2008 10:38:18 GMT -5
As much as I think about it, I can't for the life of me see how the ladder resembles any kind of musical instrument! And the resemblance has to be in appearance. I wish the answer had been pursued in cross.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2008 22:01:00 GMT -5
I wonder if Hauptmann's statement has another meaning and is not actually a description of the ladder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Mar 8, 2008 8:14:35 GMT -5
Perhaps his agenda may have also included an attempt to impress to the court that it appeared to be an extension ladder vs. what it really was, more of a component-style ladder, but that the full explanation just never came forth. I've always connected this with him implying a slide trombone... or maybe he meant xylophone?
On the other hand, Hauptmann's comment about the "moosik instrument" came right on the heels of his "I am a carpenter" remark which got plenty of laughs from the courtroom audience, so this may have been inspired as much by that reaction and the realization he was suddenly the centre of attention. Was it more of a nonsensical closing comment in the style of a stand-up comedian looking to stretch out the laughs just before changing the subject?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2008 8:33:14 GMT -5
I know Joe, I think Schoenfeld's take was along those lines and I certainly agree that the whole exchange was an effort by Hauptmann's ego. But I was wondering if the specific reference to a "music instrument" might also have another purpose. It obviously does not resemble any known instrument so as a spontaneous remark it doesn't make sense. If Hauptmann had given this courtroom episode some prior thought, as I believe he did, then why choose the description of "music instrument" as opposed to the specific musical instrument that it reminds him of. It may be a small and worthless point , but I wonder if he chose that phrase purposefully. " I am a carpenter" and this is a "music instrument". Of course it could just be his limited English at work. Still I wonder if he is trying to deflect attention to someone else, someone known for making a "music instrument".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2008 10:41:23 GMT -5
Thanks to Kevin we now know this ladder was made by a Carpenter but we have to remember that wasn't the general consensus back then.
I think you guys are getting way too deep here. It seems to me to be a simple attempt to exploit the common belief the ladder wasn't made by a Carpenter but rather by someone who didn't know what they were doing. In my opinion it was effective but there were too many other things for the Defense to get past in order to neutralize the evidence and circumstances behind it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2008 12:33:14 GMT -5
So what's new about that in this case? You are probably right, but Hauptmann's utterance in front of a captive audience still seems strange to me. It always has. He makes good use of his wit with the "I am a carpenter" remark. Then he follows with "looks like a music instrument" which is obviously sarcastic. But what makes him think of a musical instrument when the ladder does not look anything like any known ( I have even looked at ancient German folk instruments)? My thinking is that the allusion to a "music instrument" may have a double meaning or purpose. Constructing wood musical instruments is one of the most skilled occupations in woodworking, so ironically Hauptmann is giving a compliment. I don't think that was his intent, though.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 8, 2008 12:44:44 GMT -5
I am going to throw this out there even though I have absolutely no comprehension about the mechanics of the ladder.
About 20 years in Cannon Beach, Oregon this really...different....guy built a house. Super intelligent to the point where he had no friends. He had an IQ of about 180 & was not shy about sharing this with everyone he met. Anyway, on the staircase going upstairs in this house he had designed, as part of the design of the bannister itself, he had incorporated musical ...musical something. It might have even been something to do with an instrument itself as I never did understand it. But it was something to do with the length & thickness of the wood itself as part of the design. I had thought that this would have meant that it was really noticeable too (as if the staircase railings would be half sawed off etc) but it wasn't as it was apparently a very subtle design.
He informed me proudly that had I been more versed in "music theory" I should have "immediately recognized this". And I bit my tongue in order to not tell him this was why he had no friends.
But my point is with all of this talk about a musical instrument in regard to the ladder, has anyone ever shown photos of the ladder to someone who is "well versed" in music theory? And if not, might be worth a try. It might be something so sublte that only a trained eye could discern what it is.
Just thought I would throw this out there.
After 76 years I just think theres nothing to lose, no matter how esoteric it may seem, when it comes to this case.
Dena
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2008 8:46:00 GMT -5
I have to admit Dena, that this seems like a long shot to me. But I am open to anything. Perhaps you could explore this avenue, I'd be very interested to hear what you find. I think where I was heading here is that Hauptmann is specifically trying to make a point regarding an instrument maker. There is at least one person who might know what I am talking about.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 9, 2008 11:57:14 GMT -5
LOL It seems like a long shot to me too. But thought I'd throw it out there. As I said, after 76 years....
Did BRH have a musical background at all?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2008 12:07:09 GMT -5
I know he was very good with numbers and math and I have noticed that many musicians, like my Sister and Brother in law, share this trait.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 9, 2008 12:16:11 GMT -5
Maybe he had one of those "eye"s that pick out things that others cannot see. Why dont you try running this ladder/musical instrument theory past them & see if they can pick up on something?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 14, 2008 12:22:36 GMT -5
From the "Hoax Board" By the man who would be Lindbergh
Hi Kevcon; is that short for Kevin Conning? I thought you would stay on your own porch; it is a lot quieter there. No it's just more sane and productive But here you are and since you anteed up, let’s see how long you stay in the game?
Watch the spelling. I think I will be around longer than you.
I can’t give you much credit for your ignorance of what happened to Charlie on March 1, 1932. But you have proclaimed yourself to be an expert on the so called kidnap ladder. Therefore you have seen it to freely comment on me, I feel free to comment about you.
You can give me a lot of credit for my ignorance of what happened to Charlie if that includes knowing it was Charlie. Feel free to comment on me. I guess that all you have in your clue bag is comments on those who disagree.
As to the ladder; a prop that was never used in the physical abduction of Charles Augustus Lindberg Jr. . . .
Are you stating a fact or an opinion?
Why did Charles Lindbergh go to so much trouble to show and convince the officers that it had been used in the disappearance of his son?
In what way did he go to so much trouble? It was laying on the ground in plain sight.
One thing led to another and the phony ladder became a key piece of evidence against Bruno Hauptmann, it was even claimed that one of the side rails on the ladder was removed from Hauptmann’s attic. Do you believe THAT? I do not.
It's not a matter of belief. We are not talking religion here. Obviously you have concluded that the ladder is "phony" and in doing so you choose to view the wood with extreme prejudice. You will see what you want and ignore the rest.
The end grain photos in your ladder report show and number the individual growth rings on both ladder rail and the board remaining and still fastened down when the boards were compared to each other. It was said that a small piece was sawn off of the ladder rail, a little over an inch if what was said is true. But I am concerned with the end grain growth rings, not so much with the width of the rings, but with the curvature of those rings. It seems to me that if one completes the arc of those rings, we seem to have a considerable difference in the size of those rings. Are you saying that you did not know that there was no way those boards could have been joined because the ends show that each board came from a different tree or a remote area several feet or even yards from each other.
First it's not my report. Second, what is your experience with wood? Have you ever tried to match grain?
So both the boards and your story do not seem to fit.
Sorry, that's not even close to a logical conclusion. An amateur opinion with prejudice equals zero
When you have it right, everything fits.
Exactly. So why not follow your own advice?
|
|