kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 7, 2006 11:01:14 GMT -5
I would expect it to be shipped in 14' to 16' lengths. Upon arrival at the yard they might be stocked in these lengths or cut. Some yards cut down some of the boards, some don't. It depends on their customer demand and storage. Anyway I think the important point is that it would be difficult, if not impossible to determine the exact time this board was sold. Individual boards are not tracked and the shipment date is not an accurate means to determine the purchase time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2006 8:01:09 GMT -5
Kevin, thinking some more about the 2600 Board Feet load which was further cut down and included the lumber that ultimately made up the Rail 12 and 13 - 1 X 4's.
Is it possible that during the cutting process from board feet to linear feet, a mark may have been made in the wood which Koehler mistakenly assumed had been made during the original planing of the rough wood at the Dorn Mill?
Could this explain the slight discrepancy within the machine planing pattern Koehler expected to see in Rails 12 and 13 and which for a while, gave him some doubts?
Failing this, is there a reasonable explanation within the normal machine planing process and the course of processing the 2800 BF, which might explain this anomoly?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 9, 2006 9:26:26 GMT -5
Joe, a board foot is a unit used in woodworking denoting a piece of lumber 1" x 12" x 12". It is the standard unit for lumber sales in the US. When you purchase a board, say a 1" x 4" x 8' long, you are paying for the board footage of that size even though you are actually getting a 13/16" x 3 5/8" x 8'. That is because you are essentially paying for the wood that was removed in the planing process. What you are asking me, I think, is whether an additional cutting process took place after it left the mill. Several things can occur at the lumberyard. Some yards re-cut wood, an example wood be ripping a 1" x 12" down into 6" or 4 " boards. Or a lumberyard may even plane the wood. That is pretty unusual if the mill is supplying them with S4S ( surfaced 4 sides) lumber. Normally the only cutting a lumberyard will perform on S4S wood is cross cutting, making two 8' boards from a 16' length , for example. So I would say that in terms of planer marks, a lumberyard would not impart anything to the existing pattern.
That is a good question, though I am not sure you will like my answer. There are a multitude of events which can change the surface marks on a planed surface of wood. More so back in the thirties when power supply was highly irregular, planer knives where not of the quality available today, and the entire wood processing industry not as advanced. There can be many events which occur in the course of a run of rough lumber through a machine planer. Surface defects , such as knots and mineral deposits will almost certainly take their toll on a set of planer knives. In essence the profile edge of these knives will change as they become nicked and worn. At the same time feed rates may fluctuate or may be controlled by the operator. A jam may occur in the chip extractor causing chips to accumulate at the cutter head. In some cases the chips will then essentially create the opposite situation found on a nicked blade and cause negative impressions on the wood surface. The machine may " bog down" and the effective feed rate will slow. Rough cut stock may vary considerably in thickness depending on the sawing process. The planer will not always be powerful enough to handle these size variations without slowing up. An inexperienced or just a different operator may be more or less aggressive in his operation of the machining. Hardness of the wood surface ( case hardening) can occur through improper drying. Conversely wood with too much moisture content due to improper drying or storage will cause all sorts of anomalies to occur. So on and so forth. In short I am not of the opinion that planer mark identification from a production facility is a bullet proof science. The "anomaly" that you refer to could be the result of many things and the product of many mills, IMHO.
PS: You will be glad to know that those balls and traps are still a fly'n
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2006 17:37:10 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin, for the detail and great information. Do you think Koehler could have been wrong in his conclusion that Rails 12 and 13 came from lumber shipped from the JJ Dorn Company? Considering the kidnapper was writing notes from NYC, it does stand to reason that the ladder was built there too, but for Koehler to track identifying marks virtually right into Hauptmann's favorite lumberyard sounds like he had some pretty powerful ammunition and was "tuned into" what he was looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2006 18:38:48 GMT -5
The wood in the bin had what Koehler called an "additional" defect. Now from what I have learned by researching this angle - it would mean if this wood originated from the same planer then it was milled after 12 & 13. Koehler seemed to think this ruined his theory which made him look to other shipments as the possible source....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 9, 2006 18:39:33 GMT -5
Yes, absolutely. But in a case where no one seemed to be getting anywhere, I think making some assumptions and taking a chance would be wise. It is only when the switch from an investigative proceedure to a judicial one is made that I find major problems with his method.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 10, 2006 16:14:29 GMT -5
Wood Technology and the Lindbergh Kidnap Case: Donna Christensen May 1971
I. Homemade Aspects
The kidnap ladder was one of a kind, crudely made but with some degree of carpentry competence. Koehler describes it in these words:
"It showed poor design and workmanship, indicated that the man who made the ladder was not a high-grade mechanic" ."(AK Technique Used in Tracing the Lindbergh Ladder American Journal of Police Science July 1937)
In addition there were no signs of wear thereby indicating that it may have been especially made for only one purpose. Consequently, it was easier to study and investigate than an older, used and mass-produced model. Koehler's ability to analyze this particular aspect of the ladder came from both his professional research and his hobby of carpentry:
"......he (Koehler) saw glaring evidence of a slapdash job. For the steps, the builder had used cleats: boards turned on edge and flimsily set into shallow recesses, rather than rungs or flat crosspieces snugly anchored in the side rails; his chisel had gouged unevenly and too deeply into the wood, and he had applied a dull hand plane carelessly and inconsistently" (Waller p. 208)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 10, 2006 16:43:27 GMT -5
Well that would eliminate it as a prop. It may not be a work of art, but you can climb the thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2006 17:33:00 GMT -5
Kevin,
What's your position on Rail 16? Was it a "replacement" piece and even so why choose a board which requires all the unnecessary work on it just to place it in the ladder?
Rick, do you think Koehler was qualified to make this comment? I remember Kevin calling his comments more like they were coming from a "wood-snob" and less from someone like a Carpenter. Kevin pointed out the 8-Penny nails showing skill and ability. You are probably the most familiar with Koehler - so what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 10, 2006 22:06:41 GMT -5
Yikes? I am? I was surprised that Donna Christenson knew about Koehler as a wood hobbyist? Well, I'm not certain, but Arthur Koehler is accepted as the Worlds Preeminent Wood Expert so I quess that carries a huge weight and responsibility. He better know what he is talking about/ But wait, Regis Miller told me today that AK is more like an administrator in the 1930s taking credit for all the craftsmen under him like EM Davis the machinist. So, in part we all have to use our own best judgment as well. For me the design of the ladder is rather clever in terms of nesting and transport inside a car.....BUT the actual craftsmanship seems a much lower standard than BRHs knowledge of carpentry and splits out on its one and only try at the Kidnap of the Century. For me, the ladder does not have the singnature of BRH on it? AKs opinion of that point may be different? Anna once said that like Samuelsohn, BRH was capable of intricate inlays. Craftsman like that dont normally hack together a bunch of random boards to make a suicide ladder easily traced back to its owner.
Its also interesting to note, that an olde commercial ladder would have been practically impossible to trace? So why was a slapdash rickety ladder with 19" spaced rungs that was both too tall and too short hacked together on a moments notice after one year of planning? Something here doesnt add up/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 11, 2006 6:57:12 GMT -5
I guess ( and that's all anyone can do) it was a "replacement" since that would answer the mismatching of wood and mortise cuts. I wouldn't say, however, that it is a slam dunk. If it was a replacement piece the obvious question is; why was a "replacement" needed? The answer I hear most often is that the original rail 16 was damaged during the assembly (nailing). That seems highly doubtful to me, though not impossible. I am more inclined to believe a "replacement" was required prior to assembly or post-assembly. Why did BRH use a wider piece of yellow pine flooring? I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. For me it is an issue of fingerprints and ID, as ironic as that may be. Remember he also went through the same process and labor when making the rungs.
How many craftsmen need to build a ladder to be used in a major crime? Your analogy would make perfect sense if it were applied to a normal project where the builder is simply constructing an object without prejudice. But would anyone in their right mind expect BRH or any woodworker to employ his full skill and craftsmanship on a ladder to be used once in the commission of a major crime? He might as well sign it and leave a business card if he did that.
Would you say the kidnap ladder was not "practically impossible to trace" ? If your pre-disposition is that the ladder was a prop, why wouldn't the kidnapper simply do as you suggest above? It would completely satisfy everyone that the ladder was used. Think about it and it must be obvious that the kidnap ladder was constructed with certain criteria unavailable in a commercial ladder, criteria important enough to make the extra work ( and danger) worthwhile.
Way too many assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 11, 2006 16:37:39 GMT -5
I dont really know? How many 2nd storey kidnappings have ever been solved with or by the ladder wood? And where in the construction of the LL is the true craftsman revealed? Did BRH sign it with the attic board link as the true symbol of the entire crime? Would any so-called craftsman build a ladder that would split and collapse in just one use? I dont think so because craftsmen pay attention to loading and falling onto cement at nite out in the boonies? A desk-bound architech maybe not so much?
I cant for the life of me wonder why, after one years planning, the ladder was built at all? it was the wrong height for the Nursery window and right out in front of the Library w/ Cal and loaded rifle? All it represents is easily transported in a car? But Benjamin Lupica or Luther Harding sees the car, the ladder and the perp anyways at 6pm? So what? Its the wrong car and not BRH? The third section containing Rail 16 was never used or maybe never used or not said to be used at the time? After all there is only one set of leg holes? It would have been far far easier to just "cut and paste" a store boughten extention ladder and leave that there? Isnt there something Fischy about all this centrifuge?
This makes all this a super high risk "TTT" kidnap? 5+ adults are home and UP way out in the middle of nowheres; there are one or two dogs; there is a National alpha hero with a rifle, the baby screams when picked up and the dogs might bark? Its rainy colde and windy and the ladder wont even support the weight of the "craftsman" that built it? DYBT? What mental patient might attempt this feat? King Kong?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 11, 2006 19:02:18 GMT -5
Sorry Rick, I guess you must believe that if you repeat the story of the ladder failing enough times it will become reality.
Here's my reality;
The ladder height is perfect in three sections with a rung almost even with the sill.
The ladder is constructed using tools and techniques consistant with a carpenter.
The quality of construction is consistant with a single purpose ladder.
The ladder is structurally sound providing it is deployed properly.
The ladder design supports a climb. My replicas used the same wood species and size and supported me without problem (185 lbs)
Oh yeah, the final reality;
While there is evidence of the ladders deployment at the house, there is absolutely no evidence what so ever of a breakage or failure occuring at that location. No splinters, no distortion of the holes , no damage on the house or surrounding area, and not atrace of a climbers fall.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 12, 2006 10:02:25 GMT -5
We are going in circles -- not unusual in this case, obviously -- but there are a few interesting things to note. At one point Kevin has suggested that BRH was a frugal man like his father both with German backgrounds. But if we add meticulous like many Germans as well, does that say anything about the ladder? Of course there is Dr Sheonfeld's portrait of the perp as a disturbed personality, which might explain crude construction, or it might even be said to explain it as a disguise of the true skills of the carpenter. Kevin suggests at various points in the discussion that it was to make sure it was not traced --- ok, I buy that rationale, it is a strong one. But why then, if meticulous and frugal, they often go together as traits, use a rail from your house? Kevin will answer, probably, that he did not think of wood id as a possible trip up. But he also adds in this latest post that it was a replacement -- not part of the original idea -- but an after thought. That brings us back to the question of time. It would suggest a hurried decision, would it not? Yet he is careful about fingerprints, has built a ladder that the rung fits exactly where it needs to fit for entrance. Care, care, care -- but suddenly no care about the rail 16! I think there is too much of a burden placed on the one reason, he did not think about wood id.
But we will never know for sure, alas.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 12, 2006 11:38:50 GMT -5
wcollins~How about if BRH wasn't the ladder builder at all? And the "attic" board the work of Bornmann and Co.? As we know the police were frantic to pin it on someone-anyone- after all that time without a clue. They were looking plenty bad, weren't they? I wouldn't put too much stock in Dr Sheonfeld, since those interpretations usually tailor fit whichever side needed, and are without merit unless a good while has been spent with the subject. What is your thought about the possibility that the ladder may have been built for use at the house at Englewood? I would agree, we'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 12, 2006 12:01:03 GMT -5
Well, the problem has been that the Springfield photo taken almost immediately after the crime, tallies with all the details of Rail 16. Hence Bornmann and Co could not have faked the rail. Analysis of the wood itself compared to the other piece taken from the attic pretty well establishes that they were part of the same board. The question is why was it put into the ladder. Is it at all possible somebody else got into that attic or the basement and deliberately put it in there?
Could BRH not have known that his confederates were using wood from his residence?
Until someone overturns (which I do not think will happen) the wood analysis, I think we have to conclude that the wood in that crucial rail came from BRH's home.
Englewood, I think not. I think that the plan was a long time hatching, and that it was specifically meant for Hopewell. While, as Rick says, there were five adults present, at Englewood there could be up to 25 at any given time with all the servants. etc. Getting away from Hopewell was much easier, if -- and here is the question of questions -- if, you knew the way in and out. Only Millard Whited supposedly ever saw BRH near the place -- and you would have to be quite near to figure out the back roads, quite near indeed. So, who coached him?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 12, 2006 12:22:50 GMT -5
And a later rail replacement wouldn't have been doctored to match an earlier photo ?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 12, 2006 14:23:16 GMT -5
I would say going in circles is a bit of an understatement. It seems at times more like full speed astern.
WC, I am glad to see that the Teutonic legacy is alive and well ;D Actually Germans can be careless. But more to the point with regard to the ladder I would add this. One, the construction isn't "sloppy". I think this is a vestige of Koehler. Not that it is an example of fine woodworking, but then it had no reason to be, did it? The mortises aren't perfect, but they are acceptable and don't compromise the strength. The wood used is low grade stuff and somewhat difficult to work, so I would make an allowance accordingly. The design, particularly the joints, is ingenious but shows a lack of formal structural training. That's not uncommon in the trades. Another point, if you look at the photos of the ladder taken the day after the kidnapping you will see that the ladder appears fairly neat. I think it is important to remember that after that it received quite a bit of handling, inspection, and disassembly. Softwoods don't survive that type of handling without showing the worse for it. Mortises will become elongated, wood will split, and the entire construction will loosen up. As for rail 16, I didn't say it was a replacement, just that it would seem likely especially in the absence of more information. There could certainly be other reasons for the inclusion of the famous floorboard and I see no evidence of it being a "hurried" decision.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 12, 2006 14:28:00 GMT -5
How could you do that in terms of replicating the knots and all the rest? The photo did not even come up at the trial, and was a much later discovery by a researcher at the NJSP. There is no, absolutely no, evidence that the prosecution intended to produce the photo. If that photo did not exist, there would be some grounds for suggesting that rail 16 was lthrow-down (in this case, nail down)evidence. But it does exist.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 13, 2006 11:33:20 GMT -5
wcollins: here is expert testimony that Rail 16 and S-226 "are not the same board"....NYTimes February 8, 1935.
LUMBER MAN DENIES RAIL IS FROM HAUPTMANN ATTIC; DEFENSE WILL REST TODAY; LINK TO LADDER DISPUTED
By RUSSELL B. PORTER.
FLEMINGTON, N.J., Feb. 7. -- Edward J. Reilly, chief defense counsel, announced in court at the end of today's session of Bruno Richard Hauptmann's trial for the murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr., that the defense had only a few more witnesses to call.
Charles J.De Bisschop , a building contractor and nursery man from Waterbury, Conn. who failed to qualify as a wood expert (eg by Trenchard) but was allowed to give his opinion as a practical lumber man, testified " that in his opinion, Rail 16 of the kidnappers ladder and an attic board from Hauptmann's Bronx home, which has been introduced into evidence, were entirely separate boards and had never been part of the same piece of lumber" end quote.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 13, 2006 12:09:39 GMT -5
Photo a much later discovery at NJSP? What does that say of it's provenance, dating, etc?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 13, 2006 15:02:44 GMT -5
Rick, Damn the torpedoes and full speed astern! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Oct 13, 2006 16:12:55 GMT -5
Mairi, I think there was a letter or affidavit attached to the photo. Regardless, Kevin Kerriga was able to find a print of the photo in a newspaper dated March 4th, 1932. It was part of his presentation in Flemington.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2006 17:28:54 GMT -5
Here is a copy of the affidavit Gismo is referring to. I have a signed copy as well so its legit.... I think we would have to assume all newspaper of said date were rounded up then replaced in order to suggest Rail 16 isn't the same as the one found in the ladder on March 1st. There was another issue and that is the nail holes. Dr. Hudson testified that he only remembered (1) and I believe the Kennedy book has the reference to Gov. Hoffman having a picture that supposedly had no holes. Captain Snook's report, which explained exhibits S-302 & 303 showed there were at least (3) nail holes in Rail 16, attempted to rebut Dr. Hudson. Of course Reilly insinuated these photos were faked, however, the issue is raised as to where a photo existed showing (4) holes. We do know that the Betts report written 6-1-32 recorded there were (4) holes in Rail 16 and Betts testified to this fact. The Police didn't know about Hauptmann in order to alter Rail 16 to fit his attic joists in June of '32.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 14, 2006 17:45:28 GMT -5
Arthur Koehler also observed and documented the presence of 4 cut nail holes in Rail 16 in his report of March, 1933, a full 18 months prior to September, 1934. Cut nail holes themselves are not always overly obvious as they appear more like slits or torn out areas of the wood, as opposed to typical round nail holes.
From the overall evidence, it appears pretty clear Dr. Hudson was simply mistaken and had not thoroughly investigated Rail 16 for a trait which only became critical to the investigation following Hauptmann's arrest and Bornmann's recognition of the attic connection.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 14, 2006 17:47:11 GMT -5
Thanx Gizmo and Michael~ Guess I' m right untrusting of the police and Wilenz what with all the dirty tricks, change of testimony, evidence suppression, threats to witnesses, etc. I expect my suspicions have become too all encompassing in that respect.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 15, 2006 6:18:44 GMT -5
Gizmo/ Where are all the photos of the famous Rail 16 of the Lindbergh Ladder? Are they all missing? Were they stolen like the 3 sets of Charlies fingerprints? Sometime after the kidnap the NJSP were said to have photographed every square inch of the ladder? Following March 12th and Dr. Hudson's silver nitrate treatment of the ladder...."all 400 latent fingerprints, partials or complete" were photographed as well? Maybe none of these prints showed the grain nor the holes? www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/ladderprints.jpgBut during Dr. Hudson's testimony, there was even some dispute as to the date or provenance of the photo of the 4 holes? How strange, since there should have been literally 1000s of photos showing every mark/blemish and knot? And the coup disgrace is that Keven Keruga, son of Koehler, had to rely on a Newspaper photo to show the grain of Rail 16? Why does this not build our confidence in this air-tight evidence and chain of custody? Do You Believe That? These important discrepancies should in fact have been non-starters at best?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2006 7:12:53 GMT -5
Rick, I just wanted to add that Trooper George Wilton testified he took the photos of Rail 16 on March 8, 1932, five days before Dr. Hudson processing of the kidnap ladder with silver nitrate on March 13. Therefore the copies of Wilton's original photographs, produced at the trial as S302 and S303, should show a Rail 16 which appears to be unstained.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 15, 2006 8:23:24 GMT -5
Rick. given that you had the opportunity to view the ladder and s-226 up close and your FPL experience am I to understand that you are actually of the opinion that they are not one? Would you state that for all of us and the basis for such a conclusion?
Are you also suggesting that the FPL icon A Koehler somehow backdated or revised his 3/33 report noting the famous nail holes? Or is the report correct and S-226 just laying around waiting for a suitable attic and carpenter?
I can't begin to say how much time and energy seems to go into the attic floorboard black hole. It must be obvious that no matter what proof is offered, what report written, what analysis performed, it is not going to satisfy some. Too bad more of this wasted energy doesn't get channeled into the real ladder mysteries. We all might actually get somewhere. Then of course , I suspect a few people actually don't want to get anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2006 8:31:26 GMT -5
You're right Joe. These are the photos I mention above which Snook references in his report. They don't show all (4) holes.
Rick's point should be made. Rail 16 really seems to be the "odd man out" in more ways then one. We know the Police engaged in shady tactics and the chain of custody of the ladder was lost on more then one occasion - then we seem to have this controversy regarding the holes.....
However, I do believe we have enough to show Rail 16 wasn't replaced in the ladder. One could argue that perhaps holes were added to Rail 16 but that would have to be prior to it being delivered to Washington DC but since the Authorities (and Koehler) didn't know about Hauptmann or pursue their line of investigation as it concerned this ladder yet - then the odds this happened and matched the attic joists aren't good and quite frankly doesn't make much sense.
If that did happen then it was a complete accident which of course isn't in line with the Police framing evidence debate.
|
|