kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 19, 2008 7:42:24 GMT -5
Just food for thought, I wondered if anyone has given any thought to the "packet" dimensions in relation to the ladder's nestled dimensions. Both are about 14" w x 6" d ( actual ladder 14 1/8' x 5 1/8"). I have always suspected that the ladder was designed with multiple parameters in mind and that it's overall depth was dictated by the need for concealment. Could there be a similar issue with the "packet" and that they both share this need? I just don't see those "packet" dimensions as being arbitrary, there had to be a reason for such a specific request.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2008 8:58:19 GMT -5
The dimensions of the "packet" correspond almost precisely with the measurements required to fit three stacks of wrapped bills placed side by side. Considering the bulking value of used bills, Hauptmann wasn't that far off from my own previous calculations, so I think he may have done a bit of experimenting before he specified those ultimate dimensions. I also believe he intended to mean some form of container as opposed to a wrapped package and it was just his poor use of terms to describe it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 19, 2008 9:10:34 GMT -5
Yes Joe, I agree and you are right about the definition of "packet", but I am only talking about the overall dimensions. I built a replica ransom box so I know how the bills layout. But consider this, it really depends on how the bills are bundled, which was not specified. Also the packet dimensions could have been any multiple of the size of a single bill. I just wonder if Hauptmann is picking two of those dimensions based on a need for concealment in some particular place and that space was also available for the ladder. I know one thing for certain about BRH, he is inclined to place or hide things within containers and spaces. I'm sure a psychologist could comment on this, all I know is some people are very adept at doing it. Hauptmann almost makes an art out of it. I strongly suspect that the ladder was concealed when not in use and prior to the crime. I think whatever space and where ever that space was might also have figured in the "packet" dimensions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2008 10:28:03 GMT -5
Might Liz's soil research provide some sort of clue? I mean, should we consider the possibility the ladder was brought to Hopewell earlier to be pick up before the crime? Or do we believe all of the items were brought down on March 1, 1932 from the Bronx?
Next, was the concealment for this ladder meant for both before and after the Event? I think that's important.
The box itself..... What was its purpose? To conceal? To carry? Or to play a shell game of smoke and mirrors? The box itself is almost as incriminating as the money.
Kevin, you have been very right in my opinion as it relates to everything you have suggested concerning the ladder. And so your opinion as to this box is very important to me.
Obviously, Hauptmann doesn't wind up with this box. The dimensions are specific and there seems to be a reason or else why be specific? But if you believe Uebel, and accept Hauptmann was the man who accepted the box, then we have an issue concerning what it was intended for don't we?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 19, 2008 14:34:12 GMT -5
What I know from years of making one off custom woodwork is that you always have a starting point. By that I mean some design parameter or objective which sets the project in motion. In looking at the ladder I see several possibilities all of which are more or less viable. One would be that the ladder was constructed around the material at hand. In this scenario Hauptmann would base the overall layout on the primary components, the rails. It's a little difficult for me to believe this as he had access to all types and sizes of lumber and given the end use of this ladder and what is at stake makes me doubt it even more. But, it is a possibility that he had to go with 7' long 1"x4"s. Of course this doesn't answer the question of the width which he had the freedom to make wider by cutting longer rungs. Another possibility is the often mentioned need to stow this ladder in the Dodge. The problem here is that no one to my knowledge has accurately defined the maximum length, width, and height this would accommodate. Still another parameter may have been the width of the shutters, something I have suggested before. Once again that doesn't explain the choice of 1x4 rails. The reason I keep mentioning the rails is simply because the choice of 1"x4" is a poor one, especially with the dowel joint. Just going up to a 1"x6" would afford a lot more strength and very little of a weight penalty. Overall, I feel that the width, height, and depth of the ladder have some significance to the builder beyond transport and use. I have the feeling the same is true of the "packet". I know Hauptmann could not allow anyone to see this ladder as it is unique and whether intended or not, the possibility of leaving it at the crime scene was anticipated. His garage is not secure, so there has to be someplace this ladder was hidden when not in use.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 20, 2008 6:59:56 GMT -5
Hmm Kevin, I can't really see the advantage of going with 1 X 6 siderails. You're probably looking at a minimum additional 5 lbs. which for something already weighing 37 lbs. starts to make it a bit unwieldy. Then there's the difficulty of getting a grip on it and carrying it with one hand, especially if one is looking at the prospect of a possible hike of over a half mile. And would it really address the tendency for this type of wood to split near the ends? I guess I've always seen this as a simple oversight, Hauptmann not wrapping the ends with wire or a screw strap.
My understanding of the ladder's fit into the Dodge was that there was a couple of inches to spare, which suggests to me that Hauptmann was either just plain lucky it fit or he took some basic measurments and then tested for fit with a couple of siderails before he got too far along in the construction. At some point, he must have realized he had to fully contain the ladder in his car.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2008 8:26:03 GMT -5
Well Joe, I'd take the 5 lb penalty if it meant a little more safety. Also one has to wonder why bother carrying that third section all the way to the house if, as some opine, it was not needed or used. It's funny how much resistance I get when suggesting that third section was used and yet here the argument turns on the difficulty in carrying an extra 5 lbs when that "unused " third section is over a third of the total weight. Why not lose 25 lbs and add 5lbs for added performance? The additional 2" in depth does add considerable strength to the ladder especially since every fraction of an inch around those dowel holes equates into more resistance to shear. I don't think Hauptmann was particularly well versed in structure, but I do think he would have realized the advantage of a 1"x6" over a 1"x 4. As for the added depth making it more unwieldy, I am not sure I agree. In any case that would be something only found out after the fact, not in the design and construction stage. Unless he had built a previous ladder, I doubt he would have known about the ladder's pitfalls during transport. If he had, he probably would have done something about the loose dowels. As for fitting in the Dodge, the description of "inches to spare" is remarkably vague. Is that front to back, diagonally or what? Are we sure the Dodge was in fact the vehicle used? How would an extra couple of inches in depth effect fitting the ladder in the car? It seems to me that width and length are the primary factors here. My point is primarily addressed to the design and construction of the ladder without any hindsight. You are bringing up good points, but they are definitely weighted with the advantage of hindsight. Did Hauptmann determine the overall dimensions of this ladder after walking the Featherbed to Highfields route? Was he able to determine the weight differential between 6" rails and 4"? Why does he not mortise the rungs on section 1? Why does he bother with the third section? Where does he start on this ladder? Is it started with materials on hand? Is it started and dictated by the interior dimensions of his Dodge? Considering what's at stake here I would not take any unnecessary risks with that ladder. If that meant carrying an extra 5 lbs or sticking the ladder out the window of the car, so be it. And then there is the issue of concealment prior to the crime. This ladder is unique and hence a like a fingerprint. There's no way Hauptmann could risk allowing anyone to see it prior to the crime. So where was it stored? That's what makes me wonder if there might be a connection to the "packet" dimensions.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2008 10:01:09 GMT -5
Kevin, I think you'd agree that your point about the 1 X 6 rails is then also something that Hauptmann might have considered in hindsight. Actually, I tend to look at the construction of the ladder strictly from Hauptmann's personally-inspired perspective, as I believe that no one else had a hand in it. I've never seen anythng to suggest another individual was involved in its direct construction. I think Hauptmann's perspective here was as unique as the finished product, a one-of-a-kind amalgam of creativity, function and to a smaller but very important degree, stupidity. The questions you're asking are all valid as well. To me the one that's always struck the most resonant chord is why wouldn't he have thought to reinforce the ladder in a way that strength would have been more ensured without expense of excessive weight. I think it was mentioned recently on LindyKidnap that the reason to abandon the ladder might well have been due to the first and second rails having jammed and the kidnapper realizing the contraption wouldn't fit back in the car as it had come to Hopewell. Or was he simply flummoxed by this time and said to hell with it, I don't need this? Hindsight or not though, those dowel holes so close to the ends of the rails just scream out "Dummy!"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 21, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -5
I do think there is a method to his madness, Joe. At one point I thought my background would help me get into his head, but I just can't. I know he is comfortable and adept with numbers and figures, so I do tend to focus on that. I do believe that there is some significance to the ladder's dimensions other than relating to the Dodge and Highfields. I am sure he had to secret this ladder for a time and so I think some relation to the "packet" might be very possible. Hauptmann was certainly not well versed in structure, so the inherent weakness of the ladder is no real surprise. Still I wonder if the choice of 1" x 4" for the rails wasn't dictated by some criteria we are unaware of.
I have heard this before and quite frankly it's just silly. I have broken 2 ladders and believe me the thing is so weak there is no possibility of the dowels jamming and prohibiting the disassembly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2008 5:57:29 GMT -5
It was evident that the kidnapers had planned a hiding place for the money because of a request in the letter that the bills be placed in a box, 6 by 7 by 14 inches in size. Such a box was obtained by Dr. Condon and the money was kept in it at the Corn Exchange Bank [/until two days before the final negotiations.]
The Colonel was warned that he would be "responsible for the consequences" that would result from any delay in making the ransom available. he was admonished that he had "no cause to worry" as the baby was "well and safe" and was being cared for by a woman, who was feeding him according to the published diet.
Immediately upon receipt of this letter, Dr. Condon communicated by telephone with Col. Lindbergh at Hopewell, N.J. and informed him of its contents. The Doctor did not attempt to give the impression that the genuineness of the letter was certain. [Written by Coleman date unknown] I place this in the ladder thread because of Kevin's previous theory concerning the ladder's size and a possible hiding place for both the ladder and the box. Personally, since I believe Condon knew a lot more then he told Authorities and occasionally leaked some real intel out, I believe this bolsters Kevin's position.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 21, 2008 9:11:50 GMT -5
Michael--i recently read a common sense account of the "ransom box issue", maybe by Barrett (thanks to Sue75):
The issue raised was that no kidnapper/extortionist would ever take the risk/chance of being caught with this box leaving St. Raymonds. Right there is a death sentence akin to being caught with Charlies body in the back of your car on March 1st? So, although I agree that the gang 'never asked for any box", this creation of Jafsies mind ends up going to St. Raymonds anyhow? What purpose was served? Giving up the money around the corner, and then coming back with the empty box? Like the Three card monte trick. This is a working of the well known street con card trick oft called Find the Lady?
But you have said many times, and Bernie Uebel's observations seem to confirm, that Condon came back to St. Raymonds and recovered the box a day or two later? So what pray tell was this box thing all about if noone wanted it like a "hot potato"? Was there really an 1826 voting box up in Jafsies study? Did Condon lie?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2008 10:14:29 GMT -5
Common sense? What about getting caught with the money, forget about the damn box. The whole point here is why does Hauptmann specify a specific size "packet" regardless of how that was interpreted. the ballot box is just another Condon rabbit hole in this regard. Why does BRH go to the trouble of drawing a "packet"? What do these dimensions relate to? Why is he more concerned with the outside dimensions if his primary objective is what it contains within? BRH has a known and proven track record with concealing items within spaces. It's a part of his nature. Should we assume that the "packet" dimensions are a deviation from this? I would say the odds are against that assumption. He didn't just dream up those dimensions and as for the allowable space for the money, he could have specified any combination of dimensions which would equal the proper volume. So is the combination specified by him just one of the many possible permutations picked at random? I doubt it.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 21, 2008 10:38:14 GMT -5
Rick~~The common sense description regarding money "packet" strikes me as,...well.... common sense. No box was intended......just more of Condon's foolishness. Reviewing the specs for the packet, as I had mentioned before, I still think of a brown paper grocery bag (or paper cut to wrap up a bundle/bundle like sleeping suit came in). Anyone have one of those on hand? (I don't and not enough money to try it for size . A grocery bag would not have looked out of place, when CJ left the cem with it. Even if upper surplus of bag cut off and tied/taped, easy enough to slip up under one's coat. "Packet" just does not say box, to me. Why draw specs to begin with? Oh well, the polite writer of ransom notes just being mo' polite and helpful(?)
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 21, 2008 11:02:19 GMT -5
Hi Mairi--Yes, I agree....there is nothing especially evil about designating the size of the package or parcel of money? Other than the fact that like everything in the LKH its way "over-thought" just like Ellis Parker predicted for a hoax. A real kidnapper/extortionist would have never written all the phoney notes and met Jafsie at Woodlawn.
As for the now famous BOX--how can we forget the BOX? Condon has Abe Samuelson make the box but tells the cops its Perini who is dead. Whats that all about? Myra tells reporters--dont mention Samuelsohn? Jafsie says Ralph Hacker designed the box=but what for? So Jafsie could play detective and catch the crooks. As for the money--it got laundered for 30 months and noone at all got caught except by accident? Button, button, whos got the button?
kevy--Dont kill the messenger!
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 21, 2008 11:42:50 GMT -5
"Packet":
OR a cardboard "shoebox", as (was it?) Kloppy was not allowed to utter in court?
Who (and how) would have known that $50/70 thou would fit into "about" those dimensions?
Antique Ballot Box: Starting from 1932 back, how long would it have taken a ballot box to be classified as "antique"? Lo-o-ng time back, I'd say. Some things have to be 100yrs old to become antique. Anyone here ever seen one? Shape, etc? Would like to see how one looked.
("Don't kill the messenger". Ditto, that.)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2008 12:03:34 GMT -5
It all depends on what news the messenger brings. Bad news, kill em!
Who said there was? So you think it was drawn and specified by Hauptmann for no particular reason? Maybe so his drawing could fit on the note? What's the club verdict on this?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 21, 2008 12:22:47 GMT -5
Is that the plan----kill off those who don't agree with the "Lone Wolf" theory? Oh my --I would miss the forum, so much.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2008 14:08:08 GMT -5
Wow, do you really think there is a conspiracy here? Where does that come from? Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing worth conspiring against, and I mean nothing.
Did I say that? Or is that what you would like to believe? ( I can just see the pms) I said bad news, as in worthless and shoddy. Don't use me to to propagate the silly notion of the "lone wolf/vd'ers versus the righteous seekers of Hauptmann's defense. I'm really not interested. It's just a waste of time.
Michael made an interesting post regarding the "packet" dimensions. It's an interesting piece of evidence. It might even reveal something. Might, that is, if it were actually looked at closely. Was it? What type of drawing was it? Does it look familiar in any way? Anything strike a chord?
On second thought, forget it. It's just evidence and who needs that when speculation is so much more rewarding.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2008 15:44:04 GMT -5
I should also mention that Condon would listen to Police talking then use what they said later on as a way to sound legit. So that's also another possibility here too.
The fact Condon actually built a box tells me thats what the Criminals wanted. He knew what was up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2008 17:15:49 GMT -5
Michael, Condon's interpretation of the "packet" is a whole other thread in itself, and a legitimate one at that. I know the first time I saw the note, a wooden box didn't come to mind. But then again if someone specifies a size and it doesn't correspond to something readily available, I don't know how else to provide this. I suppose you could simply bundle the money up in brown paper, but the dimensions do imply that this specific size is required and that might be tough with paper. So, while I don't necessarily see the request indicating a wooden box, it somewhat implies it by virtue of the dimensions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2008 7:43:23 GMT -5
Any connection to the "shoebox" Hauptmann claimed was left behind by Fisch? (What in the small box?) "All wet, and the paper coming off, and the yellow coming through; I knew it for money. (When?) About 3 to 4 weeks before I got arrested. (What do?) Describes taking it to garage, hiding it, counting it, finding about $15,000. Ten's and twenty's, this was mixed. (How long the shoebox?) "About 1 foot." (How deep?) "I don't know." (5 in. deep?) "I can't give measurements." [/blockquote] [James H. Huddleson Report]
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 3, 2008 8:32:39 GMT -5
Kloppenburg's Flemington testimony included his estimate of the measurements of the Fisch shoebox and they correspond almost exactly with those specified by the writer of the ransom notes. I've always wondered why more was not made of this by the Prosecution. Perhaps another means of distancing all other potential participants from Hauptmann's primary role? I believe a shoebox was the image Hauptmann had in mind from the beginning when he directed Lindbergh on how to package the ransom money.
It's interesting here in the Huddleson Report how Hauptmann claims he can't give the measurements of the shoebox he supposedly re-discovered in his kitchen cupboard. He was very familiar with the use of measurements through his trade. Would he reasonably have had any difficulty in estimating the size of a box that carried so much significance, or is he just covering his anatomy here? Perhaps doing a little forward thinking here to avoid another "boad" incident and the prospect of being directly connected, at least by numbers, to the writer of the ransom notes?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2008 8:46:17 GMT -5
I agree Joe, regarding Hauptmann's inability to give the shoe box dimensions. It's another example of his selective memory and ability at work. I'll never figure out how anyone can feel sorry for a guy that plays these games.
As for the shoe box and "packet dimensions, you might be right. The only problems I have here are that I am not sure $70k would fit and how would he know it would fit as it depends on how the money is bundled. Also he must be pretty trusting since stuffing all that money in a cardboard shoe box makes it pretty awkward to count or verify. Also, why draw it? All you have to say is place it in a shoe box. What's that all about?
Michael, the ladder nestled is about 5 1/8" deep.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 3, 2008 9:44:09 GMT -5
Kevin, from his allocation of the dimensions, I have to think Hauptmann was aware of what size of container it would take to accomodate the $70,000. The depth of the container accounts for the length of a bill and the width of the container then dictates that the bill stacks can then be placed in a five-across arrangement with a little head room either way. The exercise to determine minimum overall required volume of the container wouldn't be anything more complicated than taking 100 X $1 well- circulated bills, banding them, measuring their bulked height and extrapolating the requirement for 5150 individual bills wrapped in the requested bundles. Whether he actually did this is kind of moot - he may not even have considered the "bulking" effect of used bills when stacked - which might well explain the reason Lindbergh had to almost sit on the box to try and close it before the lid snapped. Regardless of how the money was packaged and in what container, there would still have to be a large element of trust on the part of the collector as he would previously know the bills would be coming to him banded together. If I were Hauptmann I would have simply added that whatever container was used, make sure a perfunctory count of the bills could be done at the point of handoff. But I also think that by this time, Hauptmann knew Lindbergh wasn't going to play games and risk his son's health for the sake of phony or insufficient funds. As for the drawing and why he didn't just request a shoebox, again, I think it's more the image he had in his mind at the time, in terms of shape and dimension. Perhaps the dimensions of a shoebox which he had in his possession at the time? What easier and more efficient way is there to pass that image along if you have the box you desire, you're familiar with drafting and diagrams and knowing that shoeboxes come in different sizes?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 3, 2008 10:51:51 GMT -5
Considering the "Fisch" shoebox: How deep? A:"I can't give measurement." A water-logged, coming apart shoebox might not impress one with how deep it was(?)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2008 12:44:21 GMT -5
Well the guy's supposedly a carpenter and I'd say he has handled this box and looked at it enough prior to the water damage to give a rough estimate of it's size. It's just Hauptmann playing dumb once again. I know if I found 15k in a shoe box soaked or dry, I'd remember it's physical description for the rest of my life!
Joe, I still think if you want a shoe box, you ask for one. You don't draw diagrams and you don't call it a "packet".
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 3, 2008 12:46:49 GMT -5
Your point is a good one Mairi, if, and it's a big if, you believe Hauptmann's story. As it relates to the mid-August rainy day discovery of a long forgotten shoebox, and as he had previously the presence of mind to dissect everything else in his life that was Fisch-related after his death, I don't believe a word of Hauptmann's story. This sudden lack of ability to even estimate dimensions is just more CYA on his part.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2008 13:17:02 GMT -5
But is it CYA because he's making the box up? And if so, how do we account for Kloppenberg's testimony? HK was actually threatened by Wilentz with arrest if he testified to what he actually saw AND HK was known as being an honest person.
And so if box existed, why not give the dimensions? Hauptmann should have been able to quickly spit out a size which could have accommodated this money regardless if the box HK saw was for something else.
So I scratch my head wondering why he doesn't offer up the dimensions to Huddleson....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2008 15:27:03 GMT -5
I'd say it's extremely doubtful that Hauptmann would have this box and not look in it. I think we are in agreement on this point. Now if you believe Anna was completely out of the loop, then there is absolutely no way that he is going to leave the alleged shoe box on a kitchen shelf for her to discover. It's known that he went to some extreme measures to hide money. It is possible though, that he had transferred some or all of the money from the wood ransom box to a shoe box initially and disposed of the incriminating Samuelsohn "packet".
I would still say that the "packet" dimensions had some relationship to something other than a common shoe box. Also remember the text of the note; make one packet. the size will bee about; Now one could read that as a demand for one package or a demand for a package to be made of a specific size. I know my interpretation is to construct a box. I wish I could be sure about what is written after the 14.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2008 17:20:04 GMT -5
I am comfortable with "inches" although I see what you mean. It's ashame we couldn't rely on an Expert who has actually looked at it under glass. I don't think "Script" ever has and if he did he'd probably say it says "pox." Nevertheless, I think its important to note it is almost impossible to read. So why did it's Author think whoever was reading it would know what they wanted? Is it or is it not important to get right?
|
|