kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 15, 2006 12:00:31 GMT -5
I don't think I have ever heard it discussed, but for those who seem intent on the idea of a police frame-up of Hauptman might consider rails 14, 15,& 17. They too have nail holes and show prior usage. It would have been just as easy, perhaps easier, to "find" their lost mating surface had the police wished. There was an entire garage to frame them up in.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2006 17:32:24 GMT -5
That's a good point Kevin - they were looking at the fence too.
Let me ask you this.... Do you believe they were candid about everything they said, wrote, and reported concerning its discovery, and the actual true situation?
The qualifier for why this applies to Rail 16 is because of the fabrication surrounding its discovery. Their reports and their statements don't jibe with the true situation. They did something wrong and when it comes to something of this nature most people usually believe the worst possible scenerio... Myself included.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 15, 2006 20:40:12 GMT -5
Not by a country mile. But not because I find it even remotely possible to fabricate the match between rail 16 and the floorboard. That could only have been done prior to 3/32.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 16, 2006 5:36:21 GMT -5
Kevin--I know you wont be thrilled but I have been thinking the exact same thing! What was going on before 1 March 32?
If there is a Talent to Deceive here then possibly the timeline we are working on is all off? eg CJ says "we have been planning this kidnap for one years, but Charlie Jr was too sick to steal"? During this year, everyone plans an airtight alibi for March 1st but Violet Sharpe and BRH? So its not so far fetched to try and figure out who knows who before the fateful snatch? Condon almost runs right into BRH over at Abe Samuelson's shoppe in February dropping off the wood plan. Hans Mueller lives around the corner from Condon? Now if we knew who CJ (Fisch?)was we could try and figure if BRH was pegged as the Patsy in 1931 without his knowledge? One thing is certain...Charlie Jr. was under wraps from June to October 1931? Cal and Anne only came back home for Papa Dwight's unexpected funeral--when were they coming back if he lived? Hard to say? Seen any photos of Dwight Sr. and Charlie Jr together in 1931?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 16, 2006 8:07:13 GMT -5
Theories really aren't my forte Rick. I can appreciate the creativity most incorporate, though. I only get disgusted when they ignore or dismiss facts without offering any counter evidence. Rail 16 and s-226 are perfect examples. It's easy enough to claim they are planted evidence. But without explaining in detail how that could be accomplished, without understanding what would be required to do so, and without providing some type of factual data to back it up, it is just blowing smoke. If your theory can be expounded to incorporate these issues and provide the answers they require, I say go for it.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 20, 2006 14:21:22 GMT -5
That is the key, isn't it?
Explanations for how 226 and 16 could be planted evidence.
A) It was decided long before 1/3/32 that BRH was to be the fall guy. But how could anyone know that the police could find where rail 16 came from?
B) Rail 16 was throw down evidence. The Buffalo photo proves otherwise, in the sense that 16 is the same in 1932 and 1934.
C) By chance rail 16 and the wood from BRH's attic are a match. Really? What are the odds of that?
D) Rail 16 and 226 don't really match. Well, one is going to have a devil of a time showing that.
E) 226 is the plant in the attic. It is an extra board and 16 just happens to match close enough. Police had 16 for a long time, and perhaps had found, somewhere, a board that is a close match. We do know that Bornmann became something of an "expert" on wood after trailing around with Koehler for weeks at a time, looking at wood and learning. Could the police have prepared that board for when an arrest was made? That seems to be the only possibility -- but what odds would you give me if I were willing to bet on it?
Those who insist upon denying the connection, what evidence do you have? It's a hard position to maintain.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 20, 2006 16:49:32 GMT -5
Yes, I would say impossible. And it's not just the match with S-226, there's more. But I am sure that won't keep some from trying. Perhaps a more reasonable (and realistic) approach is to accept the evidence and look at the possibilities involving an accomplice, perhaps one who may also be a carpenter or at least has some woodworking experience. It's not too farfetched, IMHO. There is some indication to that effect. Birds of a feather flock together.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2006 23:50:17 GMT -5
I think the whole notion, as pointed out originally by Scaduto in his book Scapegoat, of Hauptmann crawling into that attic and sawing that board from there is a complete farce. Then we have the back-dated & untruthful reports then likewise testimony by Bornmann, Keohler, et. al. The natural inference when combining these two items equals a "plant." www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=9622012&wauth=scaduto&ptit=Scapegoat%3A%20The%20Lonesome%20Death%20ofKoehler himself testified that a Carpenter would not saw the floorboard where it was sawn "hanging" over the joist. A Carpenter would have sawn it "flush." I will come back to this point below.... I've consulted many Experts, and read numerous information and/or reports on this subject. What I found was that pictures does not a conclusion make.... These photos, especially in Keraga's presentation (and report) are very convincing, but alas, Keraga is not an Expert and I personally do not trust him when it comes to information and/or possibilities he may have omitted. For example, I communicated with one of his cited Experts who told me they would never testify in Court until an 'in person' examination of this wood was made. That's one hell of an omission on Keraga's part, whether purposeful or by negligence, neither is acceptable. Tree stands were "cleared" and harvested depleting the Southeast's old growth yellow pine almost completely by the turn of the century. What grew back was second growth. Both S-226 and Rail 16 were young second growth.....that's not so amazing and almost predictable. It's the ring sequence and pattern that causes one to assume they match. Dr. Hoadley's original position after his examinations in March of '83 was that invasive studies were needed. Who among us would question the best wood Expert in the world? www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6915230&wauth=hoadley&matches=39&qsort=r&cm_re=worksI was told other variables could cause this pattern as well. Trees in the same stand could yield similar grain and ring patterns/sequences since they would be subjected to the same climatic conditions. One Expert even claimed it could be the same tree but a different board from that tree. Impossible? The odds seem high, yet, we are expected to believe Koehler traced rails 12 & 13 under worse odds. As indicated above, I contacted numerous Dendrochronologists. Most referred me to Dr. Schweingruber's book Tree Rings: Basics and Applications of Dendrochronology. www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?chunk=25&mtype=&wauth=Schweingruber&qwork=6807339&S=R&bid=8909913513&pbest=They all implied he was the best. So I contacted him myself and he was kind enough to reply back to me several times. He called Rail 16 the " corpus delicti" of the case and shared that he thought it matched S-226. However, he also informed me that to say so conclusively would take invasive study. That's (2) of the best in the world calling for invasive study. As most of us know, the NJSP conducted it own "review" of the Case in the 1970's. Most people don't know that Koehler had conducted invasive study of some of the ladder lumber. Wood was removed by the NJSP during this period and given to Dr. West, a Wood Expert from both Rutgers University and the FPL. The result? Determination couldn't even be made as to whether or not the pieces were ponderosa or southern yellow pine. (Dr. West wanted larger pieces). I also considered that Koehler was fooled and identified the Defense exhibits as being from the same tree when they weren't and years apart in actual age. Now, after reviewing the reports, Koski originally claimed the attic flooring was only a 4 or 5 feet wide consisting of far fewer then (27) boards. Later, he was somehow convinced he was mistaken. Dr. Gardner pointed out to me Codd's interview with Det. Leon where Leon called the floor when originally search a "cat-walk." Is (27) boards of 1 x 6 a "cat-walk?" I don't think so. So I pursued this angle and believed there isn't enough 1 x 6 purchased by Koski to have covered the attic with 27 lengths of 22' pieces of 1 x 6. I could be wrong here but I plan sharing this with Kevin when I see him personally again to see what he thinks. There were also (2) places on that floor where full length boards were not used but rather (2) pieces. I have been told by more then one person it could have been done because they were running out of lumber of that size to fit the length of the attic. Again, I want to see what Kevin thinks here. Next we have in Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, and the information regarding the cellar and the lumber Miller saw in the basement. Indeed, extra pieces and "left-overs" from the construction of the property did find their way there. 165.230.98.36/acatalog/__The_Case_That_Never_Dies_1350.html#1977Rab and Kevin both independently pointed out it was their belief (on another board) the Electrician probably removed part of S-226 in order to access the area required to run the line. Keraga, aka "Antlerbones" responded to Kevin's point by referring to Rauch's trial testimony which claimed the boards came "after" the electric wiring. Again, for me, it shows this is either purposeful or negligent act... These are the types of things a novice would want to verify before shrugging off. For example, a closer look at the testimony has Rauch also claiming he was the Contractor, something I had already researched myself because it seemed such an odd and unusual claim. I shared with Kevin already who the Contractor was, therefore, proving Rauch did not testify truthfully on this point. I also was able to find the sub-contracting of the electrician hadn't even begun when Koski was just about finished with the roof and shingles. Koski had told Police he laid the attic floor before the upstairs was plastered which makes sense because the floor was "rough" and the attic was a normal one. The normal flooring was not laid until the plastering was finished. And so the scenario of the the attic floor being laid prior to the Electrician accessing the attic makes perfect sense. It explains why this piece would be removed in the way in which it was. From the facts available to us it is also logical to assume this piece which was removed from the attic made its way into the basement. This new position now eliminates the notion that Hauptmann had crawled into his attic to cannibalize the floor, rather, he or someone else simply went into the basement and took it never knowing its origins. And so with this major problem both explained and erased, while I still say we can't say conclusively that S-226 and Rail 16 were once the same board, I do say - with all things considered - I'd put my money on that horse.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 21, 2006 7:30:48 GMT -5
Michael/ I bow to your genius and knight you with one of Kevin's new and improved multiple exhaults!
[It took me a long time just to concede the Springfield photo]
Although Arthur Koehler was essentially an Administrator/AD he had a bunch of competent wood techs working for him. eg EMDavis. There is no doubt he could interpret thier work, he just got it confused as his own when he asked for the Reward $$$?
Maybe, as you say, the key to the puzzle is that Rails 12 and 13 were also North Carolina or southern yellow pine. In the process of tracing this wood to the JJ Dorn Mill down south a board matching the grain of Rail 16 just turned up? Miracles seemed to occur with the machine markings on Rails 12 and 13 indicating that after a few years matching wood can be found! This possiblity cannot be eliminated. This scenario would then be to add the board and nail down Rail 16 where it fits with the 2" gap. Still a viable option given the 2-3 months of puzzling done up in the attic following the arrest of BRH. We might add that Dr. Hudson argued for only 1 nail hole? He had no reason to lie and could have just been mistaken?
There is very little comment about the matching of S-226 with the remaining wood up in the attic--and its still there? Theoretically, both S-226 and Rail 16 should match some of the remaining 25 boards? It is so frustrating that for some inexplicable reason both the toungue and grove of Rail 16 was removed along with its machining marks. Yikes/ its still hard to believe this happened by accident.
And how about Lewis J. Bornmann/ yet another anomaly. He finds the ladder at Highfields on March 1st as proven by his fingerprints/ he travels for 18 months searching for the ladder wood and ultimately finds it up in BRHs attic. Again as Koehler calculated: 10,000,000 to 1 chance. Then LJB moves on to arrest Ellis Parker? Yikes/
It is equally disconcerting that both Koehler and Wilintz denied any "fit or match" of Rail 16 to BRHs house through December 1934? Maybe even on into Jan/1935 and the Trial? Why deny rock solid evidence found by LJB on 26 October and omit it from the extradition to NJ?
Once you see the match/fit on 26 October then it should have been a slam dunk? Except for the oddity that Lewis Bornmann ripped up S-226 with his bare hands--nails plus T & G be damned? But the Milwaukee Sentinel on Dec 10th reported that a "ladder rung matched a ladder rung in the hall closet"....so they were really being coy about that? Or just hopeful that a match would turn up somehow which doesnt build our trust or confidence in the outcome. The "time-line" is everything here?
And lastly--taking the attic board down to the basement, or even out to the garage, creates a whole plethora of new problems to solve. Does this mean that BRH then took the board out of the basement and added it onto the rickety ladder by trimming off the T and G? Or does this suggest that someone else, after picking up the ladder wood from Abe Samuelsohn's shoppe on 27 February, quickly implicates BRH as the Patsy by substituting one of Abe's new rails with the wood of Rail 16? Who could possibly suspect this wood ever result in a conviction or execution for murder?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 21, 2006 8:49:29 GMT -5
Very good post Michael. Bottom line, though is that anyone attempting to prove the rail/ floorboard is a plant has a very long uphill battle. As I stated earlier, it would have been far easier for the police to pull this off with rails 14, 15.& 17. In fact the last species of wood I would attempt to match would be Sothern Yellow Pine. It's distinctive and prominent grain figure and resin canals make it a tough candidate for matching ( witness the Springfield photo). Also it takes on a tawny patina with age and exposure which will vary depending on the environment. All and all not a wood suited for a frame-up. Also the nailing pattern is key here. The face nailing of T &G wood is limited to certain boards and more importantly the pattern for doubled up joists is site specific. The mystery of why this attic board ended up in the kidnap ladder will probably never be solved. But it is important to look at the ladder in context. Rail 16 is not alone in having a past life and perhaps the best way to understand the inclusion of it in the ladder is to attempt to understand why Hauptmann & Co were fooling around with salvaged wood and re-working it.
27 boards should cover a width about 11'-4" if used full length.
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 21, 2006 12:46:16 GMT -5
In other words, in a world full of 1 x 4s why would anyone in their right frame of mind pick a 1 X 6 T & G board to saw and plane down to a 1 x 4 "if they didn't have to" or "unless there is some complex, dark, underlying ulterior motive" for doing so? and alot of work? - to make a duplicate of the olde Rail 16?
- remove the machine marks along the edges?
- align the end grain, as close as possible w/ S-226?
- to frame a German immigrant carpenter?
And why, knowing how much/many inexpensive 1 x 4s there are around, would someone, anyone go up into an attic, or down into a basement to find it? It just doesn't add up unless it was later on into 1934? Certainly, this wasn't done to fool anyone, unless its us? II. So one key to this mystery should be the two, or sometimes three, " ladder pickup men" who arrive at Abe Samuelson's shoppe on 27 February.......3 days before the snatch.....to pick up and assemble the ladder? Maybe they can help us? Did one of the new rails split or break trying out the ladder on Sunday afternoon in the Park? Please remember that BRH is not one of the ladder pick up men/ Abraham Samuelsohn comes forward with his declaration/affadavit about BRH coming into his store on or about 20 Feb 32, "soon after BRHs arrest"? So, wouldnt Bornmann and Koehler want to talk to Abe about his ladder? And Abe has saved some of the wood the ladder is made from to see if its a match? But surely Abe didnt make one of the Rails from a 1 x 6 T and G floorboard? He is a master cabinet maker/ not an instrument maker?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 21, 2006 14:23:49 GMT -5
Samuelsohn recognizes the ladder from a newspaper picture as being the wood or specs he sold(?) He didn't put the ladder together. Were newspaper photos that well defined back then(?) Two men had earlier, in Feb, come for the wood, say something about it isn't correct. Did they wait while it was corrected/ Or did they come back later? AS is afraid to say anything. (but did he by chance say something to his friend JFC and JFC told him it was dangerous to speak of it?) After BRH's arrest, he seems to think it safe to speak of it, even though two men are still on the loose.Somewhere in there someone tells him to be quiet He goes to see the ladder and says parts have been substituted. How do we put this together with recognizing it in a news photo? Why didn't JFC want AS as part of the story? Why wasn't AS a surer witness than AK? After all he actually does business with BRH?And is said to be able to ID the wood pick-up men I find this really hard to sort!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 21, 2006 15:21:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification?, Rick. Yes, why? But why the extensive re-sawing and planing of the rungs? I think it is a huge mistake to get too focused on rail 16. Yes it is important, but the ladder as a whole exhibits a pattern of odd assemblage. You know there is an advantage to using old wood or larger than necessary pieces and re-sawing and planing it. Although it it not discussed in relation to rail 16, that process is common to Joiners and Cabinetmakers. If I am in need of a 1" x 2" stile for a cabinet I will start with a larger board, perhaps 5/4" x 4". That's because I want a perfectly straight piece of wood without twists, bows, or cups. The larger size allows me to straighten out two sides before planing and sawing to the finished size.This is part of the art of Joinery and every cabinetmaker knows it well. So in effect, by choosing a 1" x 6" and ripping it down, Hauptmann ended up with a straight rail. Yes it is a lot of work, but it is very hard to find reasonably straight pieces of wood off the lumberyard rack. And you really need straight pieces to build this ladder properly. So it is very possible that we can look at the oversized 1"x6" used for rail 16 in an advantageous light.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 21, 2006 19:04:12 GMT -5
Holy Moly Kevin--no disrespect--but you should be running for political office/used-car; snake-oil salesperson?:
You are always accusing me of pipe dreams, but this takes the cake. First, there are at least six Rails on this ladder, maybe 3 are Douglas fir 1.x 4s, maybe 2 are NC Pine 1 x 4s, and Rail 16 is sposed to be a 1 x 6 T and G in spite of a whole bunch of it, not unlike the blackened skeleton on Mt Rose Hill, being missing? So now you are telling me that to make a rickety crude ladder all straight and tight you need to only saw and plane "one out of every six rails" and voila--its fixed? OK, you are the cabinet maker? And, on top of that, it proves to the World at large, since Bornmann says he found it fit up in the attic....it could only be BRH that sawed it? DYBT2? But werent Bornmanns fingerprints found on the LL and not BRHs by EMHudson?
Your amazing argument would be seriously strengthened if Abe Samuelsohn also sawed and planed wider boards down for the ladder picked up from his shop? I forget right now what kind of lumber he bought at the lumber yard ie Not National? And maybe he made even more that 6 rails, since there were too many pieces vis-a-vis the LL but didn't Abe have machines in his shoppe to do the cutting and planing? I dint know that?
No matter how you cut the mustard, Rail 16 is the odd man out? In fact, I think Charles DeBisschop said it was the lowest form of lumber you can buy...but we dint use the N word any more? So lets say roofing pine? Does sawing off the T & G actually raise the grade of the board? Well, I quess it was sposed to in this case/ So, you think BRH wanted to leave his singnature on the LL as well as the notes? That of a Master Carpenter? How Clever!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 21, 2006 19:59:04 GMT -5
Of course Rick. I am always amazed at how you find the practical absurd and the absurd practical. Yes of course it makes more sense that a carpenter would go to a cabinetmaker for some carpentry, uh huh. Reality Rick. Reality is that the builder of the ladder was`a mechanic and as such our only hope of understanding is to think like one. You may find the idea of sawing and planing wood as unnecessary, but the reality is that is what carpenters do. What do you think those tools are for, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2006 21:23:43 GMT -5
Here's an interesting tid-bit I've apparently missed (or didn't pay attention to): A thin shaving about the size of a 25-cent piece had been cut with a pocket knife or chisel from broad sides of two of the rungs near an edge. The cutting edge of that knife or chisel had nicks in it which have yielded valuable corroborating evidence if the maker of the ladder had been apprehended within a few weeks after the kidnapping. No reason was apparent for the removal of the shavings and the only purpose in so doing that presents itself is that an accidental injury in making the ladder might have resulted in a couple of blood spots on the wood which the maker thought best to remove. (Koehler) Apparently no tools in Hauptmann's garage yielded these same corresponding nicks and so the exact inverse of the argument made concerning his plane marks would have to apply - equally - here. I have a hard time with those who make an argument only when it assists their position but ignores the very same position when it doesn't. If true it would have to apply to both.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 23, 2006 6:47:54 GMT -5
Michael, that observation by Koehler was one of the reasons that caused me to think the ladder construction was partly a result of the builder's concern over leaving any trace of his identity. If I may borrow your method here, then what is applicable for a rung must also be so for the entire ladder.
And Rick, I was not implying that Hauptmann choose to work up rail 16 by choice, only that the re-working of a 1" x 6" does yield some advantages. Samuelsohn would have performed the very same process for all the rails.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2006 18:47:47 GMT -5
I don't know.... blood and wood are two different animals...especially back then...although I don't rule your theory out.
My biggest issue is exactly how do we reconcile the differences in the ladder construction as it applies different things especially to Rail 16? How do we explain that tools were used that Hauptmann did not have in his garage and/or if they were there weren't the tools used by evidence of their shape - yet - most believe he used his largest (and worst) plane....
Either this entire ladder was made in his garage or it wasn't, and I do not believe it was. So if it wasn't then why not? If it was made elsewhere the circumstantial evidence supports tools were available there that were not Hauptmann's. And if it had tools that weren't Hauptmann's then whose were they? Who is letting Hauptmann build this ladder without any knowledge what it will be used for?
And if they knew then its reasonable to conclude they helped.
So if Hauptmann made Rail 16 and the rungs in his garage then it appears he transported them to the rest of the ladder. Or, if he brought his plane with him then he used it only on these pieces THERE and brought his tools back with him when he was finished leaving those behind that weren't his in the first place.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 23, 2006 20:06:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand. My point is that if the ladder builder was possibly so concerned over a few drops of blood, he would be equally concerned with fingerprints. Hence the need for wood bereft of them (his anyway).
Why especially rail 16? I find the mortise vs non-mortise construction to be more relevant.
Yes bit if you remember I mentioned awhile back that I did not feel ( and still don't) that the tools recovered from Hauptmann's garage represented his total collection. How can we ever know what tools were in his possession at the time of the kidnapping? On the other hand, there is something very revealing about the cutting tools recovered. There is also a tool found which may not have been used on the ladder that one would have expected to have been.
If this is so, and I think it possible, my guess would be that it is someone with more skill than Hauptmann.
I would vote for that.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 23, 2006 22:16:55 GMT -5
Kevin:
"One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others By the time I finish singing this song.
"Did you guess which thing was not like the others? Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong? If you guessed Rail 16 is not like the others, Then you're absolutely...right! [Sesame Street]
2. From my vantage point the mortise plus and minuses reflect solely the superior nesting design? Light weight and compact for transport by car or on foot over heavy terrain at night.
3. Sheboygan Press/ Monday December 10,1934 page 6+:
WOOD AT HAUPTMANN'S HOME MATCHES LADDER
"Two pieces of wood, one a rung from the Lindbergh ladder and the other from BRHs home were joined (in holy matrimony) today by the States expert AND FOUND TO FIT PERFECTLY.
One ladder RUNG differed in every respect of grain and substance from every other piece of wood in the ladder, Koehler found. It is a flat piece of wood(?) one foot long, three inches wide, and less than one inch thick.
Investigators studying a trap door leading to the attic from the ceiling of a second story room, found another piece nailed against the side of the aperture apparently to support the end of a ladder.
Koehler matched this piece to the rung of the ladder and concluded they once were the same stick/,.He held the roughly sawn ends together and found that they fitted together perfectly."
Note: Lets see now-- October 26th to December 10th is 43 days or 6 weeks? Were the reports backdated from here on out?
Gizz/ Gardner summarizes his book on pages 408-410...Oops where's Wendel--pg 402? Kevin is only nominally lessdicxic?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 24, 2006 6:46:50 GMT -5
Captain Confusion, irreverent entertaining as usual.
Rail 16 stands out primarily because of it's role in the prosecution of Hauptmann. Remove that element and you have a Yellow Pine board retrieved from a prior use and re-worked. So were the rungs . Rails 14, 15, &17 are also second hand goods. So we can look at rails 12 &13 at oddities since they appear not to have been used prior and they do not receive the mortise treatment.
Really? Is that your expert opinion? And what exactly is superior nesting design?
How is that relevant to the mortise situation or vice a versa?
Stick to theorizing, it's more entertaining anyway.
Oh , and thanks for calling me nominally lessdicxic than Gismo.You can't possibly know what a compliment that is, especially coming from you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2006 18:59:13 GMT -5
I thought your point was the different species of wood. Now if the issue is fingerprints then I would have to point out the print found in a place unlikely to have been touched by someone post March 1st. Someone (I think Joe) had previously suggested the print could have been someone from the yard, or where ever the board was previous to it being used in the ladder.... While I don't say this is not possible it certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility of it being the builder's print.
It wasn't Hauptmann's to be sure but one has to remember neither the Highfields footprint nor the St. Raymond's footprint was his either.
Sure that's one point too...
But let's face it... I say Rail 16 because it appears to be connected to Hauptmann in (2) ways. His plane and his attic. If we use "if-then" logic we could say if Rail 16 is connected to Hauptmann then some of the rungs were too... However, using the same logic appears to exclude Hauptmann from the other pieces does it not? If he actually bought Rails 12 & 13 then why not another piece for Rails 16 & 17?
Now we have the benefit of knowing if Rail 16 does match S-226 then it came from his basement. Still, why is he using it?
Well the myth that's been spread is that Hauptmann stopped "working" after April 2nd. Therefore, it has been alleged he did not use his tools thereafter and wouldn't need them.
Problem is that he did use them. He built Manfred's furniture. He was in Schussler's apartment doing work for him, and we see he was buying chair seats apparently for some money making project similar to his display stand project in the Winter of '31/'32. We also must remember that Schussler told police that a couple of the tools were his... Why is Hauptmann borrowing Schussler's tools if he doesn't have all of his own? Why not retrieve them? Doesn't that large plan found in the garage prove Hauptmann wasn't the type to give away or discard his tools?
Me too. Keraga suggested Hauptmann built it in a "special place" - his attic. I think that "special place" exists only in Keraga's very own "special place" - his imagination.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 25, 2006 7:06:50 GMT -5
There very well may be the same connection with Hauptmann that rail 16 is known for. We just don't know it. It could be a job he worked at, a neighbor's home, temporary scaffold wood from the garage.
The primary point I am making and have been trying to make is simple; To think "outside of the box" we have to look at the ladder in a different way. I understand that those who want to keep BRH in the chair and those who want to pardon him will always focus on this single rail. But the ladder as a whole has much more to tell. Who, for example, has seen a detailed report on how the ladder was designed and lay ed out? Has anyone shown what might be required in that process? Has anyone considered that rail 16 might have been the first rail and not the last? Has anyone explained the the oddity of section 1? Why does the rung spacing change abruptly? Why does the mortising stop? How does the change in joint design work out with the rung spacing if it was an evolution? What would be required in addition to a saw to rip the Pine rungs and rail 16? What was the original size of rails 12 and 13? What was the method used to clean out the mortises?
You see what is lost by focusing on a single element? Let the fanatics do so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2006 5:57:15 GMT -5
Kevin,
If there was ever a single piece of evidence that applied to the rule of "the sum of the parts equals the whole" the ladder is it.
I agree each piece should be looked at under a microscope before trying to put them all together but that does include Rail 16 & S-226. Your skills have and will continue to give us insight where none had existed in the past. For me, my knowledge (most of the time) comes from researching someone else's point of view to see if it can hold up to all of the facts so I usually cannot start from scratch - I don't have the area of expertise you and certain others possess. I think I have personal limitations as to what arguments I can make until someone else makes one first....call it a glitch or whatever in my abilities. That's why I am bringing up this particular piece of evidence because its what I have researched the most for the reasons I list above.
All of these other points you make above seem extremely important and I am anxious to hear you attempt to answer these questions you pose to see whether or not I have anything I can find - to either support or disagree with your positions on them. I think if we continue on this path we'll get closer and closer to the truth as I think we already have in this short amount of time. Your knowledge has been priceless.....
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 26, 2006 15:21:28 GMT -5
Hear, hear! It is absolutely so that Kevin's special knowledge of carpentry has been essential to our progress. Like all of us, however, he must occasionally leave the bench and venture into the realm of speculation, viz., his argument that the ladder could be safely left behind (in the perp's mind because he knew about fingerprints, but not the ability of wood experts to trace the ladder to his attic or, as it must now seem, his basement). Michael, usually I have heard the rule expressed differently, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, meaning that if one were to take each element and tie it together that might be equal to the whole, but it is in the method of tying that makes it greater -- in the sense of more complete, not bigger or simply tighter.
Now Kevin throws some new stuff on the table -- the differences in the way the ladder is put together, i.e., mortised and non-mortised. Leave that for the moment. What about the idea that rail 16 was actually the first piece. There may be a hint here that when the board was ripped, it might not even have been intended for a ladder. Or is there? Then the idea grows as BRH's financial situation worsens and worsens. Why not go for the big score? And so the ladder emerges out of an idea not connected with any ordinary carpentry job -- hence it's several pecularities. Well, ok, but that is far more speculative, to my way of thinking, than the argument that it was put together on some signal by person or persons unknown. After all, let us go back (I can hear the groans!) to other things, such as the shutter, and the necessary steps for this to work. Like tumblers in a safe lock, each must fall precisely for this crime to work. Even if we say that good 'ol tobacco road Whited is right (more groans) how many times can Citizen X tramp around the neighboring territory without causing real suspicion? Whited has him there twice.
It seems to me that we have a crime that requires almost as many conditions as a satellite launch from Cape Kennedy. So if we are going to talk about the ladder in a larger context than rail 16, let's also talk about it in the largest context.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 26, 2006 16:14:44 GMT -5
Yes, WC I sometimes stray afield and venture into the mire of speculation. Of course in a case so polorized it is sometimes a matter of opinion as to what is speculation and what is not, witness the attic floorboard debate. There is not a doubt in my mind that even the results of invasive or DNA testing would end that issue. Anyway, I will try to stay at the bench.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 26, 2006 17:01:33 GMT -5
No, no, I wish you to speculate! Your speculations are well-grounded in evidence. I was simply amplfying Michael's point. The rest of us poor slobs have to build on the type of thing you do. IOW, we give you feedback to work on new ideas from the bench, or from the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2006 1:16:04 GMT -5
I've been trying to find a picture which would give a good perspective of how the window would appear as one would climb a ladder directly beneath it.... I think this is a good shot:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 2, 2007 8:03:54 GMT -5
I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier, but I think I may have a clue as to the origin of the ladder design. Extremely lightweight and easy to carry , not appropriate for working off of, compact, fits in a car. This is exactly what hunters use to get to a tree stand. I remember seeing such portable ladders in PA. when deer hunting as a kid. Since they were always home made, no two are exactly alike. Ir also might explain why no commercial ladder has ever been found that matches the kidnap ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2007 9:50:54 GMT -5
You could be on to something here Kevin. I have always thought and researched for a very long time (and continue to) the origins of the symbol. My conclusion is that its creation may have been influenced by seeing one or more others things - so - its not an exact copy but has certain elements from other ideas.
WWI, codes and ciphers, religion, and I never let go of the apparent connection to the sea, etc.
I feel the same about the ladder. It appears to have the influence of several ideas wrapped up into one then refined for a very specific purpose.
|
|