kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 18, 2012 14:39:57 GMT -5
This is what happens when the ladder actually breaks under a load s925.photobucket.com/albums/ad94/kevkon11/If you look closely at the photo of the tree you will see collateral damage from the ladder hitting it as it would for the side of a house.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 18, 2012 15:23:44 GMT -5
whats your point?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 18, 2012 17:11:31 GMT -5
I am not trying to make any point. I am merely showing to anyone interested what happens when the ladder fails while under a load such as having a climber inboard so as to show the result. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions or make whatever point they wish.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 18, 2012 17:40:51 GMT -5
Wow, Kevkon, WOW! My gosh, how helpful it is to see these pictures! It really enhances my perspective about the ladder and how it broke. Hope you weren't on it when it broke. Or that you were primed for the grand leap off! Thank you. Thank you for the great ladder project. ..................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................Hi Joe, Glad to see you back. Where in the world have you been so long? Surely you haven't found a mystery to equal the LKC?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2012 18:51:36 GMT -5
Great work Kevin. I agree with Mairi - thank you for sharing.
Now let's talk turkey.....
Since this proves what would happen if the ladder failed, and that isn't the case with the actual Kidnap Ladder... what caused the cracks in that ladder and why didn't it fail once these cracks formed? (If you can't say because of your project I'll understand).
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 18, 2012 19:23:49 GMT -5
but if you are working on a project, why dont you and put it against the house in hopewell like we did? kels ladder cracked in the same spot when he first climbed it that was on the original ladder. talking to him i feel that a design flaw cracked the ladder more then the weight. the dowel pin hole connecting the bottom piece to the second piece, was to close to the edge of the rail. thats my opinion. dosnt make me right on this
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 18, 2012 20:04:33 GMT -5
but if you are working on a project, why dont you and put it against the house in hopewell like we did? kels ladder cracked in the same spot when he first climbed it that was on the original ladder. talking to him i feel that a design flaw cracked the ladder more then the weight. the dowel pin hole connecting the bottom piece to the second piece, was to close to the edge of the rail. thats my opinion. dosnt make me right on this I should drive down to Hopewell for what reason??? Are the walls at Highfields unique in some way? I have to be honest, I really don't see what the point regarding Kelvin's ladder is all about. Is it to learn or is it to re-affirm? Do you realize what secrets the ladder holds? Do you realize how completely pointless it is to put it against a wall at Highfields and not climb into a window? Did you all doubt that it could be climbed partially?Sorry Steve, I just don't get what that was all about, but I do respect your opinion. I don't want to shoot the messenger. Thanks Mairi and Michael. This was only a preliminary test that was done to see how best to break the ladder and show the result. Mairi, there is no way I would be on that ladder when it breaks. Not for fear of falling, the greater fear is getting impaled by the lower section. As you can see, this is not a gentile event. It happens fast and the result is obvious. Michael, I, nor anyone can say what caused the splits. They can actually start with the boring of the holes for the dowels. They can also be caused by allowing the ladder sections to abruptly slam together or go over center. And, of course, they could develop during use. The degree in which they propagate is a result of many variables, not least of which is the grain of the wood.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 18, 2012 20:31:33 GMT -5
fair enough
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 22, 2012 20:16:29 GMT -5
i went on ap images, and i saw a picture of the footprint under the window with a stake hammered into the ground next to it. ive never seen this picture before
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 10:04:36 GMT -5
As well as disguising his writing, are we supposed to believe he disguised his carpentry skills as well? This is shocking woodwork. He couldn't cut a square joint?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 26, 2012 13:42:56 GMT -5
You are really on tear here, JD. Nothing wrong with questioning evidence as long as it's done with an open mind. I am sure a modern defense team would go to work on much of the evidence, but that has a flip side as well. Today's modern forensics might make a stronger case for the prosecution. I'm not sure what you are claiming is bad carpentry, the floor or the ladder rail? JD, there's nothing that says Hauptmann was a good carpenter and if you are referring to the rail then I would say that any carpenter making a ladder for a crime is certainly going to dumb down his skill, otherwise he just as well leave a business card. Still, ripping and straightening those boards to make them suitable for the ladder is not something the average Joe is going to do. And then there is the uniqueness to the design, flawed as it may be. Also, most people have only seen this ladder or it's components after it was repeated taken apart and treated for fingerprints. It looked a lot different prior to this. Finally to answer your question about planing the rail. I am assuming you mean crosscutting and not ripping. There's no way to tell for certain. I would rip it , plane it, and then crosscut to the finished length.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 15:15:37 GMT -5
You are really on tear here, JD. Nothing wrong with questioning evidence as long as it's done with an open mind. Doesn't that cut both ways? The rail. It's terrible. Except he made a living from it - for years, so cutting the most basic of all joints would not be a problem. Really? Carpenters joints are like fingerprints? If he did cut it straight this would be a big clue how exactly? Speaking of straight, the rail isn't. The edge where the tongue alledgedly was in anything but straight. But I suppose he was apparantly disguising his ability then as well. Not enough for you obviously because you can see right through it. Somehow. So Hauptmann was not so clever.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 26, 2012 19:12:54 GMT -5
Hey, johndoe. I want to commend you—you’re brand new to the board, but I think you’re asking excellent questions, and you’re already contributing uploaded images.
Pardon my asking, but are you an attorney by any chance? I ask because you answer tough questions very swiftly, you know about chain of custody—I realize these easily could apply to lots of non-attorneys, but I’m just curious.
Personally, I’ve been laying off posting in the ladder/wood section, because things like tree rings are too far out of my element. However, I do get a general impression—not only in this case, but in other criminal cases as well—that forensic science, such as DNA analysis, has a tendency to overwhelm other valid considerations—and so things such as motive, means, alibi and so forth can end up unduly taking a back seat.
There is a tendency among some to view “experts” with awe. But experts are fallible (as Lindbergh handwriting expert Albert D. Osborn demonstrated when he later validated Clifford Irving’s forgery as genuine). Experts can, in fact, be subject to their own biases (especially when it comes to who’s paying their fee), which is why we get these guys contradicting each other on opposite sides in a criminal case.
So I’d like to go over this ladder business a bit more. If wood experts are convinced that rail 16 is irrefutably from Hauptmann’s attic, I’m not to argue about that from a science standpoint, because I don’t know wood science. But if the evidence was a such a slam-dunk, I like to know why the prosecution refused to allow the defense access to the attic. Surely they weren’t afraid the defense attorneys were going to tamper with the boards? I’m sure the police would have been breathing down their necks—just as they were when the defense finally got to look at the ransom notes. So leaving aside esoterics like dendrochronology, I’d like to point out that this secrecy on the part of the prosecution suggests something was fishy about the attic business.
I think the majority of analysts today agree that it’s absurd to argue—as the prosecution did—that Hauptmann went up to his attic because he wanted to rip out a board to use as a rail for his ladder. Would any of us do that? Of course not—we’d get a suitable piece of wood from a lumber yard.
Now I suppose one could argue that Hauptmann wouldn’t go to the lumber yard, because he’d be afraid the salesman would remember selling him that piece—but would that really risk incrimination more than using lumber that could be directly tied to his house?
Michael, you made this statement:
I gather that—since most people agree BRH wouldn’t rip a board from his attic—the idea was hit upon that the board from the attic must have been removed earlier—perhaps by workmen—and Hauptmann found it in his basement, and used it as part of the ladder, never realizing it had originated in his attic? Michael, is that a correct summary of the position?
If that is the case, then, I would like to ask this:
Do we have actual evidence that the attic floor board was removed by workmen prior to Bornmann’s discovery? The landlord Max Rauch testified that the board was originally there. The plumber, Gustave Miller, who repaired the Hauptmanns’ leak more than two years after the kidnapping, testified that no board was missing in the attic. And it was not noticed in nine documented searches of the attic by 37 law enforcement agents. Remember, these law enforcements agents were looking for ransom money—so their eyes were wide open, they were looking hard. Now granted, they were looking for money, not wood evidence, and maybe some of them weren’t such good observers. But do we have any actual EVIDENCE that the board was missing before Bornmann said it was? Do we have EVIDENCE that the attic board was previously removed and set aside by workmen? Or is this an idea that somebody came up with because it seemed to resolve a dilemma?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 27, 2012 3:36:48 GMT -5
Thanks bookrefuge.
No I'm not an attorney. But my profession does involve having a forensic mind and playing devil's advocate.
Good question about what evidence is there that the board was not there before Bornmann discovered it was missing.
The house was searched from top to bottom for money many times, surely someone took some pictures?
There is no question this is tainted evidence.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 18, 2014 19:40:59 GMT -5
To All:
I'm nearly finished reading Lloyd Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies," which seems to be the "textbook" for this class here - not that I haven't been informed in reading it.
One ladder issue that didn't seem to be a heated subject for discussion at the trial was the extraordinary distance between the ladder's rungs and its implications. Depending on the information source, the rungs were spaced 19, 20, or 21 inches apart, compared to the standard twelve inches. That would render it practically impossible to use, especially considering time restrictions, for anyone but an extremely long-legged, i.e., very tall, individual. Hauptmann was about 5' 10", so he most likely would have been severely handicapped in using a ladder with this rung spacing. If a very tall man was using this ladder for abducting the child, chances are the ladder would be carrying more weight than it could bear.
This leads one to believe that NO ONE actually used that ladder for the abduction of CAL Jr., and that the appearance of the ladder on the property was merely a ruse intended to fool investigators. Moreover, the lack of Hauptmann's prints on the ladder, as testified to by Dr. Hudson at the trial, would seem to eliminate Hauptmann as its builder or its user.
If the child was actually abducted at approximately the date and time alleged, the MO seemingly would seemingly have been without the use of this strange ladder.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 18, 2014 20:14:38 GMT -5
I disagree, I think the ladder was used. mud in the room, they found the ladder markings on the house, ladder imprints on the ground. as far as the fingerprints on the ladder, it would have helped Hauptman if he didn't take a piece of wood from his attic and put it on the ladder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 20:29:33 GMT -5
To All:
I'm nearly finished reading Lloyd Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies," which seems to be the "textbook" for this class here - not that I haven't been informed in reading it.
One ladder issue that didn't seem to be a heated subject for discussion at the trial was the extraordinary distance between the ladder's rungs and its implications. Depending on the information source, the rungs were spaced 19, 20, or 21 inches apart, compared to the standard twelve inches. That would render it practically impossible to use, especially considering time restrictions, for anyone but an extremely long-legged, i.e., very tall, individual. Hauptmann was about 5' 10", so he most likely would have been severely handicapped in using a ladder with this rung spacing. If a very tall man was using this ladder for abducting the child, chances are the ladder would be carrying more weight than it could bear.
This leads one to believe that NO ONE actually used that ladder for the abduction of CAL Jr., and that the appearance of the ladder on the property was merely a ruse intended to fool investigators. Moreover, the lack of Hauptmann's prints on the ladder, as testified to by Dr. Hudson at the trial, would seem to eliminate Hauptmann as its builder or its user.
If the child was actually abducted at approximately the date and time alleged, the MO seemingly would seemingly have been without the use of this strange ladder. If you don't think the ladder was used then how was Charlie kidnapped? Are you thinking the front door was used? What is your theory?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 18, 2014 21:39:48 GMT -5
There are basically two theories consistent with NO ladder being used.
1. Entry and exit of an abductor through the front door (probably unlocked, as was not uncommon, especially in rural areas), with or without a handoff of the baby from Betty Gow and/or the Whateleys.
2. As per Behn and a few other authors, there was no kidnapping at all. The baby had died from an accident or homicide earlier, and the kidnapping was staged to protect the guilty party, probably a member of the Lindbergh family (Elisabeth?) or a Lindbergh or Morrow servant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 22:24:05 GMT -5
There are basically two theories consistent with NO ladder being used.
1. Entry and exit of an abductor through the front door (probably unlocked, as was not uncommon, especially in rural areas), with or without a handoff of the baby from Betty Gow and/or the Whateleys.
2. As per Behn and a few other authors, there was no kidnapping at all. The baby had died from an accident or homicide earlier, and the kidnapping was staged to protect the guilty party, probably a member of the Lindbergh family (Elisabeth?) or a Lindbergh or Morrow servant.
1) I have heard of this theory. It is one I have condsidered also. 2) This one I have given thought to. The kidnapping is staged to cover up how Charlie really went missing or to protect someone. Where I have ended up getting stuck with this Elizabeth did it or some other family member did who needs to be protected is this: How does Charlie end up dumped in the woods? I cannot see Charles and Anne allowing there son's body to end up that way.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 19, 2014 13:14:23 GMT -5
The answer to that question might be that the body found in the woods (BTW, there is a police photograph of it in the centerpiece of Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies") was NOT that of CAL Jr., but another child. Gardner devotes a measly paragraph to the ID of the body - perhaps because it was not an issue at trial. But others, like Ellis Parker, Sr., considered a master detective of the time, have suggested that the ID of another child's body as that of Charlie could have been part of a kidnapping hoax. Note that the principal identifier of the body was Betty Gow (who may have had reason to engage in a cover-up) with CAL Sr. arriving more than 24 hours later to give his assent to that determination. According to Behn, Charlie's well-respected pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen, was unable to identify the badly decomposed body in the morgue.
One thing I kind of find strange. There was a fragment of a flannel nightshirt remaining on the torso of the body, which Betty Gow identified as Charlie's. Wouldn't the wild animals who apparently feasted on the corpse have ripped the nightshirt to shreds in order to get at the torso? And if kidnappers had dumped the body at or near where it was found, why wouldn't they take both the nightshirt and the sleeping suit, rather than dump the body with only the night shirt on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 21:45:39 GMT -5
If someone does not believe that the body found in the woods was Charlie then it makes it easier to embrace the cover-up theory. Lindbergh identified his son positively because of certain physical characteristics present and known to have been common to Charlie. VanIngen did the same thing. He made his identification based on the last physical examination of Charlie. The child's height, the open fontanel, the overlapping toes, the teeth, all are consistent with Charlie. How could this not be him? Someone would have had to find another child recently dead, with the same physical characteristics, including the open fontanel, dress it in Charlie's undershirts and dump him in the woods. Plus there is the hair confirmation. The hair found with the body matched Charlie's hair that Mrs. Morrow had in her possession. This is something that could not be duplicated if the body in the woods was a child other than Charlie. Perhaps Behn was not aware of the lab report matching the corpse hair with Charlie's hair.
I don't believe that Charlie was lying in the woods for 72 days. I believe he was well hidden until after the ransom was paid and then he was deposited in the woods to be discovered eventually. Because the amount of time the body spent in the Mt. Rose woods was much shorter there was less damage to the clothing. Since the kidnapper said he would send the sleeping suit as proof of having the child, there was really no reason to remove any of the undershirts. They were left on the body. It is odd that the diapers and rubber pants Charlie had on were not found somewhere in the area. Animals would not eat those.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 12, 2015 8:29:45 GMT -5
Sorry if this has been covered earlier - lots to read on here.
Is the sketch of a ladder from BRH's notebook published somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jan 12, 2015 10:38:51 GMT -5
but amy who in there right mind is going back to that area to dump a body in the woods? I never believed that. the body was there the whole time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 11:44:07 GMT -5
Sorry if this has been covered earlier - lots to read on here. Is the sketch of a ladder from BRH's notebook published somewhere? Here is a link to the picture of the sketch of a ladder from BRH's notebook: jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos/ldr_draw.jpgHere are a few pictures of rail 16 and the attic floorboard. I am posting them because you seem to have concerns about whether they are the same board. There is a one inch piece missing that would have connected S226(attic floor board) with rail 16 from the kidnap ladder. You need to mentally create the grain flow from one to the other in order to connect the two boards together since that piece was never recovered from the attic, the basement or Hauptmann's garage. jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos/attic.jpgjimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos/wood3.jpg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 12:10:39 GMT -5
but amy who in there right mind is going back to that area to dump a body in the woods? I never believed that. the body was there the whole time Lets put that shoe on the other foot. Who in their right mind would negotiate a ransom payment for a month when the very object of the negotiations is lying in the woods where it could be found at any time? That does not make any sense to me. If you are Hauptmann, negotiating alone in the Bronx, you would have no way to be sure that the body was not found. It would be necessary to make repeated trips to New Jersey to make sure the body is secure, unless you have an accomplice who is doing this for you. Otherwise, I don't see this March 1 deposit of the body in the woods working. In fact, the ransom notes are clear that the child was being kept in a very safe place. There was no concern about someone stumbling onto the body. The kidnappers were even willing to negotiate past April 8th if it was necessary, in order to get their money. You don't do this unless you know the child is very securely concealed. Once the ransom was paid, all the focus changed to New York and depositing the child's body in the Mount Rose woods to be found could have been done by someone who was very familar with the area. The deal was complete with the return of Charlie's body. This return insured that the Lindberghs would not be subjected to further monetary demands by the kidnappers or any other persons or groups claiming to have the child.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jan 12, 2015 12:49:05 GMT -5
auptmann wasn't right in the head. don't forget he was gassed in world war 1. I think he dodged a bullet collecting the money. I feel he knew the baby was dead. he asked condon would I burn if the baby was dead?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jan 12, 2015 12:50:07 GMT -5
m sorry amy I don't think he was gassed but shellshocked. he claims that in the huddleson report
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 12, 2015 15:21:16 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. Amy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:06:28 GMT -5
Michael,
I have read that after the kidnapping happened that both Schwarzkopf(NJSP) and Mulrooney (NYPD police commissioner)believed that the kidnap ladder was a prop. How prevalent was this position among all the LE forces and for how long was the ladder looked at this way?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2015 17:16:11 GMT -5
Michael, I have read that after the kidnapping happened that both Schwarzkopf(NJSP) and Mulrooney (NYPD police commissioner)believed that the kidnap ladder was a prop. How prevalent was this position among all the LE forces and for how long was the ladder looked at this way? I think it's safe to say that it was the original position of most, if not all the LE Officers. I know that on March 8th Schwarzkopf was saying it was possible the front door was used. As time went on, day by day, they developed a theory that (2) people were involved and that one used the ladder while the other used the front door. As far as an exact time-line goes...while I may have known what it was a one time I don't have it committed to memory so without diving into the documentation I hesitate to present one to you.
|
|