|
Post by Michael on Nov 8, 2006 18:46:54 GMT -5
Well I'd be lying if I said my biases don't sometimes interfere with my line of thought. I usually try to divorce myself from them if someone else presents an issue but if something is originating from me then I realize it could be a different story. That's why I think these boards are so valuable.....
Now with my thinking above - I can't help remembering Hauptmann admitting the gun was his but refusing to say where it came from (Hans Mueller). Hauptmann does exhibit trust in certain people and seems to return the favor. So with that in mind, as it relates to the borrowed tools, I wonder how many people besides Schussler may have entered this garage when Hauptmann was not around.
Obviously Mueller would be one candidate to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 16, 2006 6:48:34 GMT -5
On the original question posed as to how Koehler 'missed' the fact that a 3/4" chisel was used on the mortises during his 3-33 examination.... Here is something in a report written by C.A. Appel of the FBI lab in '32: Dr. Souder stated that no conclusion that the chisel was used in building the ladder is warranted. In fact, no significance used in finding the chisel could be attached. Marks on the ladder or tools are practically useless. The heads of the nails might possibly bear the imprint of the hammer used and therefore show slight irregularities but I consider this so remote that a mircroscopic examination is useless at this time because since the ladder has been in possession of the police, the rungs have been pried off and replaced, nails being driven in by the Troopers so that any marks may have been left would now be defaced. This report is footnoted in Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, which is the first time it was ever referenced in any book on the case. In fact, I had to ask Dr. Gardner for it or I wouldn't have it myself. It's this type of information that has those jealous people on the LindyTruth board so upset....they apparently wish Dr. Gardner was not as meticulous as he was when he researched and left "well enough" alone. (Kind of puts into proper perspective where their heads are).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 16, 2006 9:27:24 GMT -5
West Trenton, N.J March 4. 1933
REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF LADDER FOR THE NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE
BY
ARTHUR KOEHLER, U.S. FORREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY, MADISON, WISCONSON
"The chisel used in making the mortises for the cleats evidently was a sharp chisel, since it cut the wood smoothly across along the grain and left no scratches. It is not even possible to determine the width of the chisel used.
The spacing of the old nails holes in the Douglas fir rails and in rail #16 gives no suggestion as to what the lumber might have been used for. "
Arthur Koehler
Are we still playing Bingo?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2006 6:55:42 GMT -5
Bingo..... What I see going on is the old trick of "revolving arguments" (e.g. they demand you answer point "A" which you do...then they say where's the answer to point "B" so you answer that - then they say well you didn't answer point "C"...) The trick is to never admit anything was answered the first time so they keep injecting new questions as if they existed prior to answering their first issue. If it keeps going they usually run out and return to the original point "A" (as if it wasn't answered) and start all over again. I am also seeing the usual "spin" of downplaying points by insinuating they're meaningless as if to give a reader something to point to in order to disqualify the point. Additionally, people who engage in these tactics forget that everything they say applies to their arguments as well. You can't point to something to neutralize someone's point only to then 'forget' that same point when it applies to something you assert - but "they" do. Anyway back to the chisel..... Below is a quote of Captain Snook's Supplemental Wood Evidence Report: Chisel:- A visible cut in one of the recesses for rungs indicated the use of a 3/4" chisel. Below is/are section(s) of the response to his report entitled Captain Snook On Ladder, a rebuttal that is both undated and unsigned, however, I am certain it was typed by Leon Ho-age concerning an examination of the ladder by Squire Johnson (and maybe Dr. Hudson as well) and must have been done after April '37 when Snook's report was made: S-210 We wonder if the other chisels were sharpened with he same experienced hand as was this one -- according to the experts.
Also if there was putty on the handles of the other tools as was found on the handle. S-241 Why did the maker of the ladder leave only one chisel mark in twenty-four recesses?
The other recesses were smoothed off as well. Did he want to leave his card?
Maybe he took along the chisel which he never used on the window to show the finders what chisel made that mark.
Perhaps if the cut had been properly examined by a disinterested observer -- at the time -- he would have noted that it was brighter then the rest of the recess.
It would be interesting to learn when it was first noted.
|
|
|
Post by rtcahilljr on Feb 25, 2007 15:50:04 GMT -5
Your arguments ring of desperation. Scientifically, the police lacked the ability to "create" a Rail 16 duplicate. Pictures were taken of the Rail long before Hauptmann was ever heard of. Consequently, the police could not just throw away the original Rail 16 and create another. They would have had to have found the same wood, identical grain pattern, same coloration, etc. That's just not possible for feasible.
You can try and dig anything you want on Arthur Koehler. But, his findings have been verified by modern scientists. Moreover, the police may have wanted to frame Hauptmann, but lacked the skill necessary to create a phony Rail 16. Even Lloyd Gardner notes in his book that noone has ever been able to explain away Rail 16. It remains the strongest evidence of BRH's guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2007 16:53:13 GMT -5
I am assuming that you mean my arguments.... Not sure which you are referring to especially since these next points do not apply to my position. Anyway, glad to see you posting and hopefully I can make my points more lucid. No one can "create" duplicate regardless of whether it was the Police then or now. I don't believe I have ever said Rail 16 switched but you seem to be insinuating this. Can you show me where I've said this? I've always accepted the Springfield photo. Again, what have I said above which would lead you to this conclusion? As for the rest, well, I have seen alternative explanations from Experts who have all said, bar none, that in person examination would be required to draw any rock solid conclusions. Concerning what exactly? Which Experts verified this? Which of them made in person examination and if not would they testify in Court without doing so? Some of what Koehler did: - He lied about tracing Rails 12 & 13.
- He participated in a fake episode in Court to misrepresent the chisel evidence.
- He fudged his attic floor diagram which was entered into evidence.
Do you mean these things or something else? If you mean Rail 16 those Experts who did make in-person examinations did not. Dr. Hoadley certainly didn't and claimed invasive study was needed. During the NJSP re-examination their Expert couldn't even do this with samples removed from the ladder. Talking odds is one thing but talking in absolutes is completely another - which is what you seem to be doing here. They didn't lack the skill to misrepresent and/or fabricate evidence - which is what they did. Kevin's & Rab's theory makes the most sense and its what I lean toward. This nonsense about Hauptmann going into his attic is just that. Anyway, there may be those who post here that do feel Rail 16 was replaced but if your post was directed to me then now hopefully you can see my position more clearly.
|
|
|
Post by john76 on Apr 25, 2007 21:00:35 GMT -5
Lloyd C. Gardner in "The Case that never Dies" suggests that people other than BRH had access to the attic floor boards. He reports that Gustave Miller, a plumer for landlady Pauline Rauch, suggested to her son Max that he build some shelves to clean up the mess in the cellar. Max replied "Well I can get some boards from the attic floor. The tenants up there don't use the attic." A short time later Mr. Miller came back to fix another plumbing problem. He noticed rough flooring boards in the cellar. They had nail holes as if torn up from something. However no shelves had been built. Later David Wilentz questioned Mr. Millar about the boards but there is no indication he changed his story. This information appears on page 342 of Gardner's book.
Clearly both Gustave Miller and Max Rauch had access to the floor boards. However other people may also have had access. There is no information about what happened to the boards after they arrived in the cellar nor do we know if Max Rauch ever took any other floor boards out of the attic although her certainly could have.
I can only wonder if Trooper Bornhmann or any other police officer ever searched the Rauch cellar.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2007 5:45:27 GMT -5
Hi John.
Yes they did search the basement.... Even found a supposed ladder down there which generated some interest then - suddenly didn't. (It didn't look like a ladder to me so maybe that's why).
We have to remember the intent of the searches... First and foremost - ransom money. Next they were searching for the symbol maker. The wood seems to me to be an after-thought.
I believe the left-over material from the house all went into the basement and its why the Klein-Purdy Theory is so possible. It stands up to the challenges and all parts seem to "fit."
I wouldn't doubt that Hauptmann was using different materials from that basement ever since he moved in.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2007 13:04:25 GMT -5
That may be a bit of a jump. Is there any evidence to suggest Hauptmann even had access to the Rauch basement? The relationship between both parties doesn't seem to have been a cordial one.
The theory that the attic board was removed by an electrician is a good one and seems to be supported by Kevin's observed lack if outline dirt/soot which would build up over the years. Can this be positively verified in comparison to S-226, in light of the silver nitrate bath given Rail 16?
Do we know if Rauch was ever questioned in a way which might suggest he knew where it originated? As I recall, he claimed to have seen the attic floor in a complete state prior to the Hauptmanns moving in.
As an aside, it's interesting that the possibility of the board having been previously removed suddenly seems to legitimize the collective claims to 37 investigators over the course of nine attic searches that they didn't notice the floorboard gap.
We're on an unstable wireless connection down here at Central Nuclear Embalse, so I don't get a chance to log on too often and the hours are long. I'm enjoying the threads when I can and look forward to catching up on return to Canada.
Fall Greetings to All from sunny Argentina! Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2007 19:47:37 GMT -5
Yes. Both Schussler and Hauptmann had items stored in the basement and both had access to it.
It wasn't a bad relationship at all until Rauch had to take Hauptmann to Court for the rent. According to the reports that was 3 months before Hauptmann was arrested. It should be recalled that shortly after Hauptmann moved in Rauch bought the lumber for the garage and Hauptmann built it. Do you think for a minute scrap wood from the basement didn't fall into Hauptmann's hands if not later then at least then?
This is in Bornmann's report. I think we have to evaluate that in relation to everything else Rauch said.
Rauch said just after March 1st Hauptmann was limping so bad he needed a cane. However, Kassens said Hauptmann wasn't limping at the job and many others were witness to him playing Soccer on Hunter's Island.
Rauch testified in Court he was the Contractor. He wasn't.
Rauch testified that he saw an 8-foot section of board missing in his attic....after the date Bornmann claimed to have pulled up S-226....which would have left no board at all on that date.
Miller testified that after March 1st there wasn't a missing piece.
Rauch wouldn't let the Defense into the apartment and immediately notified the Prosecution. Then the Prosecution made sure the Defense would never be able to access the apartment. Why did Rauch care?
Rauch claimed the attic floor was an extra having been laid after the house was built. This isn't true because I have a list of all the extras and the floor ain't one of them.
This is a question I can't answer. Consider the "x" marks that Samuelsohn saw so obviously the Silver Nitrate didn't "erase" marks just probably made them darker.
Kevin may know.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 28, 2007 22:03:31 GMT -5
Hey Joe I think it can be reasonably verified. There may be still another way to differentiate rail 16 from S-226 in terms of time spent as an attic floorboard. The real problem is the limit of testing which would be allowed by NJSP.
|
|