|
Post by rick3 on Oct 3, 2006 2:59:55 GMT -5
Frank Lloyd Wright was an icon of the 20th Century spanning three generations. FLW designed Falling Waters, Taliesan, the Guggenheim (NYC), Monona Terrace Convention Center (Madison) and the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo (1922) as well as all the furniture contained in each building. FLW pushed design envelopes and likely thought there was no problem he could not solve.
Ironically, all of FLWs designs contained a fatal flaw when it came to practical use. They all represented constructs of the artists mind, but the furniture was uncomfortable, the cantilevers were too long for their own weight and the roofs leaked when it rained.
The fatal design flaw in the Lindbergh ladder was that it "snapped |ike an orange crate"?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 3, 2006 6:57:52 GMT -5
That's a good one Rick. Now we have a Taliesin conspiracy. Maybe you see an organic quality to the "singature"?
BTW, not that you would really care about facts, but the statement " all of FLWs designs contained a fatal flaw" is incorrect. The majority of his work was designed and constructed using accepted building standards. I would be happy to send you a complete list of FLW's executed and designed projects if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 3, 2006 16:46:46 GMT -5
kevin: thank you so very much for your support and compliments!I just knew that a "hands on" kind of guy like yourself would appreciate the logic of my "safety first" comments: www.ladders.com/ver2/index.asp?refcode=LPGHS1. When I was in college I worked summers at a farm and slaughterhouse in Washington Crossing PA, right crossed the river from the NJSP Archives. Lester, Howard, Horace and Bill taught me to always overbuilt anything sos that it wouldnt fall down! [Maybe they must have been an early version of OSHA?] If a 2x4 will do, use a 2x6; if 2 nails will hold then use extra nails and bracing. After all you wouldnt want to fall over and kill yourself? 2. I got a partial answer on your gunshot inquiry from a while back. Det. Hicks suggested in his Ballistics study of Dec 1934 to Schwartkopf and Wilintz that its SOP for a shooter to put a hankerchief behind Charlies ear to catch up the gun powder blast when the Liliputt goes off. I never thought of that? Good idea/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 3, 2006 17:11:50 GMT -5
Logic? You know despite your claims of objectivity it seems you are extremely prejudiced when it comes to the ladder ( I wonder why?). Of course this is not a overbuilt work-a-day ladder. It is designed for one purpose. It achieved that purpose. It did not fail. If you have proof or evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. PS; I think the icicle bullet theory fits the facts better.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 3, 2006 18:26:44 GMT -5
Kevin...this is a one-time only, one-use only, throw-away ladder designed over an entire year, to kidnap the the most famous baby in the World?|
Using your words, it is "staggering" to even approach an estimate of the hours of design and planning that went into the ladder? [Does the staggering come before or after the snatch?]
Trouble is |"the ladder broke"....either on the way up/ way down or just the look see,....and as a consequence the Prosecution claims that Charlies skull fractures, and holes, presumably or maybe occurred during or immediately following the fall>
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
But none of this adds up? You can try to finesse or minimize the level of disaster caused by the ladder breaking on its maiden voyage...but I would hardly call this a great success? Was the ladder infact designed to "break like the sound of an orange crate" right in the middle of the snatch? Wow...thats some precise planning? And weight calculations to boot?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 3, 2006 18:37:31 GMT -5
This is the sole basis of your assertion that the ladder failed, the tired old tale of the prosecutor? I thought you might have something more substantial to offer up other than Wilentz's line.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2006 20:28:36 GMT -5
Rick,
Do you have an example of such a design? Are you suggesting this was his work or that it was copied by someone familiar with it? I must confess I have no idea who this guy is.
Kevin,
I think I asked you this before but let me ask again if you don't mind.... Do you think this design was indeed unique or that someone may have copied it? I know there were several assertions during the investigations that people had seen versions of this ladder but the police were never able to find an actual ladder.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 4, 2006 1:53:12 GMT -5
Michael...not exactly. I was just trying to make the point that maybe the ladder was "over-designed" by someone who had no real concept of building something out of wood or appreciation of how critical the practical nature of climbing up to a second floor window at nite might be? It would likely be even more dangerous, unstable and life threatening with three sections erected all at once? An unsafe ladder might represent a poor design or crappy workmanship? [Stage props are often slapped together at the last moment but should look convincing to the audience] As the worlds preeminent architect, FLW was occasionally preoccupied with how something appeared, rather than how it performed.
In addition, in 1933 when Arthur Koehler first saw the ladder he said something like:
"its crudely constructed and shows no love of wood".
PS| I own the Alan Hynd True Detective/ can I FAX it to you?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 4, 2006 7:03:11 GMT -5
So it is "over-designed" now??? You use America's greatest architect as an example ? I think it was a little of both. While I have looked everywhere for a match, I have only found ladders with some similarities such as the "nesting" ability. Since we are talking about a device with only several components to begin with, details become important. In that regard I have never seen a hinging design such as the one Hauptmann employed. It is pretty ingenious, although it is too weak for repeated usage. Of course a small modification at that joint would change that.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 5, 2006 2:51:22 GMT -5
Kevin--well, maybe over-designed and "under-built" or "under-constructed". The ladder would not hold the weight of the climber? Maybe it was designed primarily for transport and a much lighter person to climb? [eg Fisch vs. Wendel?] Some early estimates of its load capacity were only 125-135 pounds?
There are a few direct and some astounding connections between the wooden ransom box and the ladder:
1. Both are mixed or multi-specied woods?
2. Both split out or broke during first use by someone?
3. Both are constructed in the Bronx? One is left at Highfields and one is left at St. Raymonds?
4. Jafsie Condon states that the plans for the box were made by his son-in-law Ralph Hacker the architect?
5. Jafsie Condon states that the cabinet maker Frank Perimi makes the box for #$3.50 cents, but later we learn that Abraham Samuelsohn makes the box (and a replica) for $3.00?
6. Later on we learn that Abraham Samuelsohn cuts the ladder wood for BRH & 2 others for $14.00? Con-clusion....AS is directly connected to the ladder and the box? AS also makes a replica of the ladder?
7. Later on we learn that Jafsie Condon is an olde friend and violin aficionado of Abraham Samuelsohn? And..."Jafsie Condon is the DH or go-between" selected by CAL to negotiate for Charlie Jrs release and rescue||?
8. Later on we learn that when Samuelsohn sees the ladder over at the |NJSP Training Center some of the wood is his and some other wood is changed out? AS says "significant alterations".
9. Since there is a clear and abiding connection between Condon, Sameulsohn, |Hacker and the wood evidence, is it possible that Ralph Hacker also made the plans for the Lindbergh ladder that BRH dropped off at Samuelsohns Shoppe in Feb 1932?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 5, 2006 6:37:02 GMT -5
Rick, when are you going to learn to never underestimate a German carpenter? BTW, the 1/2 scale ladder I recently made using the exact same wood held 100 lbs
In Condon's dreams
Yes after excessive force was applied. But more importantly, they both completed the task designed for.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Oct 5, 2006 8:51:47 GMT -5
Kevin....whose German? Im pretty certain Abraham Samuelsohn was Polish?
Anyways, did I forget to mention that in Abe's police interview of September 26th 1934 at West Trenton he stated:
" No 1 {pickup} man was a skinny fellow , about 5'6", about 125 to 130lbs, white, fair complexion, black hair, wearing a blue serge suit, a dark overcoat and a soft felt hat, had a chain with some college emblem hanging on it, spoke very good English and had a very good knowledge of drawing and according to my knowledge he worked for an architect or a draftsman" end quote
Maybe he was sposed to be the climber too?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 5, 2006 15:15:18 GMT -5
Anyone but Bruno. eh Well I guess I can see why a skilled drsftsman would be required to draw such a complicated order. BTW, did you know BRH was schooled in mechanical drawing?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 5, 2006 17:17:12 GMT -5
Ooooh....schooled in mechanical drawing? Well it sure dont show in them kiddie drawlings of his....like the fridge n' ladder?
You can set my truck on fire and roll it down a hill And I still wouldn't trade it for a Coupe de Ville I've got an eight-foot bed that never has to be made You know if it weren't for trucks we wouldn't have tailgates I met all my wives in traffic jams There's just something women like about a pickup man!
Joe Diffie
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 5, 2006 18:49:02 GMT -5
Pity your so prejudiced.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 6, 2006 9:56:11 GMT -5
Right Kev: and you are campaining for Mr. Fully Openminded? Please spare me your opinion and the details of your opinion about my views because you don't know me at all!/ Thanks "I Pity the Fool" <<Mr T. www.mrtandme.com/mrt/main/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 12:10:40 GMT -5
I honestly don't know if anyone can claim to be completely open minded Rick, I certainly haven't. Everyone of us has some prejudice. But your constant negativity with regard to the ladder and Haupmann's ability to design and construct it without ever offering a reasonable explanation shows all to clearly that you don't "let the chips fall where they may" despite your claim. Your latest remark about Hauptmann's drawing shows how limiting that type of approach can be. Look a little closer and without a filter and you may see quite a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 6, 2006 14:33:25 GMT -5
I believe the police pursued the design of the ladder down various paths. There were some reports that it looked like a ladder used in fruit trees, especially apple trees. There were also comments that the way certain sections looked, it resembled the sort of ladder used at the end of docks or decks and that extended into the water. So there was an effort, however fruitless, to see if it resembled anything else. Koehler et al. noted the hinges and nesting capabilities, and contrasted that careful design with the crudeness of the construction itself.
Kevin offers a good explanation. The design was good for what it was designed for, and the construction was good in preventing an identification of where it came from (given faulty assumptions about forensics at the time.) I don't think it was designed to fail, but it at least cracked. What seems a little odd to me here are your comments about gathering the wood from various places so as not to be noticeable, then taking rail 16 from your house? Am I overstating your hypothesis here that the wood was gathered from various sources so it could be left without traceability (assumed at least), but then one piece added from your home. Why not just buy all pieces if you are going to break your self-imposed "rule" of picking up odds and ends? I know we keep coming back to this point, but it is perhaps one of the most significant issues.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 16:19:24 GMT -5
It's a good question to keep coming back to WC and the answer may never be truly known to us, though it may also reveal much. I don't know if I believe BRH went on a cross town scavenger hunt for this wood. What I do believe is that it was picked primarily not on the basis of appropriateness of structural need , but rather for its' inability to reveal the maker. That would include any direct purchase or prior handling. I was thinking about this again the other day when I asked Michael about completely eradicating fingerprints. Truth is, I don't know for sure how to accomplish that. And that is with all of the LKC reading, criminal investigation shows and INTERNET information that I have been exposed to. So is it hard to believe that someone in 1932 would be unsure of how to accomplish this? The safe bet is obvious; just don't touch anything ( at least without gloves). But then how does one get the materials needed? Now you ask about taking a piece of wood from one's own house. That would be a real problem for me, a shop filled with wood, but all containing my prints. Hauptmann, on the other hand , didn't take wood from his house. He was a tenant and as such was not responsible for all of the contents of the entire house. So I believe he felt safe in taking wood from the basement, or attic if you prefer, as long as it had no prior connection with him. The penalty for this restriction is that unlike going to a lumberyard where you may selectively cull the most appropriate boards, less than desirable wood and a mix of species had to be included in the construction of the ladder. It may not sound like a big trade-off, but believe me it makes the entire construction much more difficult and the finished product suffers. Of course who would believe that someone could trace the wood back to the builder by planer marks? I doubt anyone reading this without benefit of the knowledge of this case would even think of that.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 6, 2006 16:46:02 GMT -5
As far as the source of inspiration for the kidnap ladder, I can see high potential within an observation pointed out by Allen K. a few years ago at LindyKidnap.
Hauptmann's boyhood home at 64 Bautzenerstrausse, Kamenz, Germany had an attic which he often played in. From what I recall, his unpublished autobiography contains a reference to fond memories of retreating into the attic during play adventures, using a pulldown style folding ladder which retracted into the ceiling when not in use. I'm not sure if this particular ladder actually nested together when in its folded position, but reasonably, it would have had a hinged assembly for practical and spacesaving efficiency. IMHO, Hauptmann's diagram of the recessed rung design in one of his memorandum books, might well have been an attempt to "reconstruct" certain elements of this original design from memory towards a working diagram, which could be modified to achieve the specifications for the final kidnap ladder.
Kevin, what are your experiences with this type of ladder and do you think it might have provided some inspiration for the design?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 16:59:31 GMT -5
Joe, an attic pull down stair is quite common but it really doesn't bear much resemblence to the kidnap ladder. There are several or more varieties that I know of. The most common hinges and folds up after use. The second is a sliding affair. Both types are attatched to a spring balanced hatch. Now, I have no way of knowing what type of attic stair was employed in the childhood home of BRH. Perhaps a visit to Germany is in order.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 6, 2006 18:13:30 GMT -5
Kevin, I can understand that the full design and mechanics of the kidnap ladder would in no way be encompassed by the design of a common hinged attic pull down ladder.
But if this was the type of attic ladder in Hauptmann's boyhood home, I think there could well have been some conscious recollection of certain elements from it that were ultimately adapted towards the kidnap ladder design, ie. the hinged assembly.
Hauptmann's autobiography is full of detailed references to childhood memories of happier times and I believe if we could uncover much more of this man's life and work outwards, we would ultimately touch onto this topic as well as those who had direct involvement in this case along with him.
Were there other types of ladders of the day which utilized such an articulated design?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 19:19:02 GMT -5
Joe, as I posted several times, we are talking about a rather simple device. It would be hard to imagine any ladder that didn't resemble the kidnap ladder in some fashion. However, it would be interesting to see how the hinging mechanism on Hauptmann's attic stair was configured. A further thought on your idea, it seems pretty clear to me that the joint on section 2-3 of the ladder was an evolution born of the necessity to erect the entire ladder without it folding up. So it would also seem likely that the original design was the same joint as section 1-2. That would allow the entire ladder to fold up. It wouldn't "nestle" in the same way or as compactly as it does when all three sections are unconnected and orientated the same way, but it would fold together. That can't happen with the joint on section 2-3 because it restricts rotation due to its locking nature. Now interestingly, the modern attic pull down stairs (hinged type) consist of three sections.
I agree about a Hauptmann bio.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2006 19:32:03 GMT -5
For me - the notion has all been disproven that Hauptmann climbed into his attic, or anyone else's for that matter, to cannibalize a piece of flooring to insert into this ladder. I am convinced that if S-226 is original to the flooring that it was removed by the Electrician. I realize it makes Keraga look somewhat negligent in his conclusions but lets call a spade a spade where it applies.....
Now Kevin's position concerning why Hauptmann would use this piece after discovering it in the basement may make sense - IF the idea is to avoid fingerprints knowing he didn't touch it may have made it worthy. However, it wasn't a desirable piece for the purposes of the ladder and it may have had Rauch's prints on it for all Hauptmann knew.... Avoiding fingerprints makes sense to me but mixing wood from various sources as a method of disguise doesn't. If, for example, the ladder contained all rough 2nd growth NC yellow pine how does that assist in keeping people from finding the source? For me the exact inverse is true and by employing various pieces of differing species it gives multiple avenues to pursue as opposed to just one.
Rick made an interesting point concerning the ransom box and Condon's false claim that it was made with differing species of wood....just like the ladder. Coincidence? Maybe....
The only reason I am open to Kevin's suggestion concerning the various species of wood in the ladder is because, quite frankly, he continues to be right once we thoroughly explore all avenues of his suggestions surrounding the ladder. With that track record only a fool would dismiss his idea here - I just need something more I can sink my teeth into.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 19:48:22 GMT -5
I don't know about the "multiple avenues to explore" afforded by the different species. In all honesty I wouldn't have thought of that without historical hindsight. Of course there are other possibilites. He may have simply been a frugal Dutchman like my Father. It was a different time and the depression was not limited to the thirties for Germans from the Fatherland.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2006 20:08:13 GMT -5
If you believe there were multiple parties involved, as I do, then I think it could be a mistake to assign every task and/or duty required to commit this crime to Hauptmann alone (if you believe he was involved). Aside from Rails 12 & 13, I don't see Hauptmann making the selection of the other pieces.
Perhaps another person assigned to gather the lumber was the one who was frugal?
If you believe Rails 12 & 13 were successfully traced to National then how can one explain Hauptmann was willing to buy this piece but not (2) more? It doesn't make any sense.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 20:24:59 GMT -5
Does the fact that the wood was traced to National mean that Hauptmann bought it? In fact would it be unusual to find wood from National, a large local yard, in many places around where Hauptmann lived?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2006 20:53:18 GMT -5
Personally, I don't think it was successfully traced at all as my post in the Archive Section proves, however, if you do then I would think the odds are he did.
Why?
Well if you believe he built the ladder then one would have to consider this shipment came into National during the time-frame when Hauptmann was working for them AND it was only from a lot of about 2600 board-feet. The yard may have been big but the particular source of this lot wasn't.
What are the odds he found this new 2X4 elsewhere if it originated from National and this specific lot - Yet - hadn't been used yet?
Also consider when this board did come to National. Was it purchased for the purposes of this ladder then and if not how does one reconcile the fingerprint issue then explain why it laid around un-used until the matter of the ladder construction came up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2006 21:05:39 GMT -5
I don't know how it made its way to BRH and the ladder, although 2600 BF equals approximately 7800 Linear Ft of 1x4 which depending on Nationals volume might hang around a bit.
That is using nominal dimensions not actual (1" x 4" vs 13/16" x 3 5/8"). If the 2600 Board feet were based on the actual size it would amount to approx 10612 linear feet or 1326 boards 8 ft long. Also it is important to understand the stocking process at a lumberyard. Boards are not sold out before replenishment. New stock is mixed with old and it would not be unusual for wood from a previous shipment to be mixed in for quite some time. The best wood is usually picked out first and the less desirable pieces are left . This culling process keeps repeating itself and the worst pieces are essentially at the bottom of the barrel where they may remain until picked either by the yard for delivery or by an undiscriminating buyer. Anyway the point is that a single shipment can not be accurately dated to purchase unless the entire order was sent to a single customer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2006 10:50:48 GMT -5
Was this sold in 8' sections or larger? I thought Rails 12 & 13 were once the same piece of lumber....am I right or mistaken? And if so, does this mean it was cut at the yard?
|
|