|
Post by Michael on Oct 2, 2021 13:14:45 GMT -5
Going to try this again...
Bear with me, I have a new Chromebook which I hate because there is no mouse and everything I do deletes or jumps me around in ways I've never experienced before. I've already lost two replies so here goes nothing....
First thing to mention is this was a rough attic floor. Next, according to the documentation, the floor was laid before the electricians were contracted. P. A. Loving of the Loving Electrical Shop secured the contract but I have no idea if he was involved in the actual job. Regardless, I think the idea that whoever cut Board 27 put it back doesn't "work." Why? Because S-226 had shadowing but Rail 16 did not. Also, it could have been anyone who threw it out the window. Once the job was finished and Rauch reviewed and okay'd it, he wanted all of the leftovers because he paid for everything. We know this stuff made it into the basement based on Miller's observation that it looked more like a junkyard down there than anything else. He also specifically noticed at least one similar board. Suffice to say, that board got down there somehow along with everything else so I think its safe to assume the cut piece of Board 27 would have been down there too. Hauptmann was given a months free rent as well as access to any material Rauch had when building his garage. There's no doubt in my mind that's when he came into contact with what would eventually be Rail 16.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 2, 2021 16:47:34 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I can well appreciate your frustration with a new computer. My Mac is 10 years old and I’m still getting the hang of it. I hope your learning curve is steeper than mine has been. “Bon courage!”
You address two points in your reply: the shadowing on the rails and whether the 8 foot length of board was replaced by the electrician.
1. The shadowing In virtually all the accounts I have read the shadowing on S-226 is qualified as “faint.” However I do accept that it was real and caused by this plank lying on the joists. The Trial Rail 16 had none of this faint shadowing and this has been seen as evidence that it was taken up in 1932 by Hauptmann before the shadowing developed on the under-side of S-226 during the following 30 months. My point is that whether the 8 foot length removed by the electrician had faint shadowing or not, it was inadvertently sandpapered off during the fabrication of the counterfeit Rail 16.
2.Was the plank replaced? A professional tradesman wants to do a good job and above all to satisfy the customer who pays him. Mr Rauch seems to have been a demanding customer, sometimes withholding payment until a job was completed to his satisfaction. And who can blame him?
Against this background let us imagine the following:
Electrician: “Hello Mr Rauch. I’ve finished the electrics. Just to say that I had to remove an eight foot length of your attic floor board leaving a gap in the flooring..The board is quite undamaged. It would only take a few minutes for me to put it back in place as good as new, or would you rather I threw it out and put it in your cellar with the other scrap timber”
I don’t need to give Mr Rauch’s reply.
Putting this aside, there is simply NO REASON for the electrician to choose Rauch’s cellar instead of easily replacing the board. Replacement also explains why early visitors to the attic didn’t spot the missing board. It wasn’t missing.
You suggest Michael that “someone else” may have thrown the board through the attic window onto the lawn. This makes the electrician look like a real “cowboy.” He just leaves the board lying on the attic floor, packs up, and goes home! Imagine Mr Rauch’s language when he peers through the access port and sees that!
I appreciate that you have absolutely no doubt in your mind that the board was not replaced but was retreived by Hauptmann from the basement. I respectfully disagree for the above reasons.
Personally, I have never been able to achieve complete absence of doubt on any aspect of this case.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 2, 2021 17:30:39 GMT -5
Hi Michael, I can well appreciate your frustration with a new computer. My Mac is 10 years old and I’m still getting the hang of it. I hope your learning curve is steeper than mine has been. “Bon courage!” You address two points in your reply: the shadowing on the rails and whether the 8 foot length of board was replaced by the electrician. 1. The shadowing In virtually all the accounts I have read the shadowing on S-226 is qualified as “faint.” However I do accept that it was real and caused by this plank lying on the joists. The Trial Rail 16 had none of this faint shadowing and this has been seen as evidence that it was taken up in 1932 by Hauptmann before the shadowing developed on the under-side of S-226 during the following 30 months. My point is that whether the 8 foot length removed by the electrician had faint shadowing or not, it was inadvertently sandpapered off during the fabrication of the counterfeit Rail 16. 2.Was the plank replaced? A professional tradesman wants to do a good job and above all to satisfy the customer who pays him. Mr Rauch seems to have been a demanding customer, sometimes withholding payment until a job was completed to his satisfaction. And who can blame him? Against this background let us imagine the following: Electrician: “Hello Mr Rauch. I’ve finished the electrics. Just to say that I had to remove an eight foot length of your attic floor board leaving a gap in the flooring..The board is quite undamaged. It would only take a few minutes for me to put it back in place as good as new, or would you rather I threw it out and put it in your cellar with the other scrap timber” I don’t need to give Mr Rauch’s reply. Putting this aside, there is simply NO REASON for the electrician to choose Rauch’s cellar instead of easily replacing the board. Replacement also explains why early visitors to the attic didn’t spot the missing board. It wasn’t missing. You suggest Michael that “someone else” may have thrown the board through the attic window onto the lawn. This makes the electrician look like a real “cowboy.” He just leaves the board lying on the attic floor, packs up, and goes home! Imagine Mr Rauch’s language when he peers through the access port and sees that! I appreciate that you have absolutely no doubt in your mind that the board was not replaced but was retreived by Hauptmann from the basement. I respectfully disagree for the above reasons. Personally, I have never been able to achieve complete absence of doubt on any aspect of this case. Best regards, Sherlock The electricians only job was to run the wiring and hook up the plugs, doorbell, and switches. They had the low ball offer which Rauch took. It wasn’t their job to worry about the floor. It was in the way, it was removed, then cast aside so they could perform their obligation. My guess is when they were finished it was tossed out the window. Is it really relevant by whom? Could have been the electrician or perhaps later by someone who noticed it laying up there. Maybe the plasterers, or perhaps even Graves himself: “Quick, get rid of that before Rauch sees it and holds up the job.” Next, Rauch didn’t deal with them direct with issues but through Graves. If Rauch saw a problem he told Graces about it and he made sure whatever it was got done. Just look at how this board was cut. It was left hanging over the joist. And you think whoever did it cared about that floor? By the way, what is your source for Rail 16 being sanded down? I’d like to look that up.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 3, 2021 7:08:41 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
You raise several good points. My response:
1. You suggest that the electrician removed the board, cast it aside, then threw it out of the window. I cannot agree. This was an 8 foot long plank, a section of the attic floor, it was undamaged. It was not an unwanted offcut which might have ended up in the basement with other scrap timber. My key point is that it was so easy to put it back where it belonged giving back the attic floor its original appearance with no gaps. I agree that it is irrelevant who may have thrown the board out of the window.
2. My imaginary conversation between Mr Rauch and the electrician was just to picture Rauch’s likely reaction to throwing away a piece of his attic floor instead of putting it back in place. He, as you say, dealt with Graves, but he would surely have checked on the electrician’s work before paying him. I just don’t see him accepting an avoidable 8 foot untidy gap in his floor with the hanging plank over the joist making matters worse.
3. Reference this last point. I agree that if the plank was thrown away and the hanging board left exposed it was as you say done by someone who didn’t care about the floor. And this is why I think the plank was re-placed by someone who did care and wanted to leave a neat job behind him - the electrician. As I have posted previously the saw cut was determined by the position of the electrics beneath. There was no intention in my view to leave an untidy hanging board. All along, the board was going to be re-placed leaving only the saw cut visible.
4. Sorry, I cannot give the reference to where I read that the ladder rails were smooth and had been sanded. If I come across it again in my re-reading I will certainly let you know. In fact I recall that it was mentioned in support of Hauptmann’s guilt. It was said that all the rails had been sanded smooth which was characteristic of Hauptmann. Although how the writer knew this, I don’t know. The 3 inch wide rail was cut from the 6 inch wide plank using most likely a coarse-toothed rip saw. This, as the name implies, literally rips quickly through the timber along the grain leaving a very rough edge. I have done it myself. Nobody would use this sawn strip directly for a ladder rail without sanding away the splinters left by the saw and those on the rough 3 inch wide surface as well . The rail is narrow enough to be gripped completely by the ladder- climber’s hand so all surfaces have to be splinter-free. I’m not saying it was sanded to a mirror finish just enough to get rid of these surface imperfections. In this way the slight shadowing was unwittingly removed.
The one thing I am missing in this debate, and I appeal to any other Forum members reading this, is a believable logical reason for the undamaged 8 foot board being rejected as scrap and ending up in Rauch’s basement. Re-placing it was easy, logical, and professional leaving behind an attic (almost) in its original condition and explaining why early visitors to it saw nothing amiss because nothing was missing.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 3, 2021 19:03:31 GMT -5
Sherlock, I think that Michael has covered this issue, but I thought I would just add a couple comments. To me, the issue here in regards to the ladder evidence is not whether the electrician would or would not replace the pulled-up piece of flooring boarding. That's all speculation that could be debated forever. For me there is just two issues here that is germaine to the evidence: 1. Did rail 16 of the ladder come from the floor board in Hauptmann's attic? 2. Did the NJSP take that floor board out of the attic after Hauptmann's arrest in 1934 and fabricate evidence by replacing rail 16 of 1932 with that piece of floor board? For me, question number one has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the work and testimony of Koehler, the outstanding analysis of the ladder by Keraga, and the absolute solid research by Michael. As I'm sure you know, our criminal justice system requires proof in a criminal trial to be beyond all reasonable doubt, not all doubt. I see this level of proof as having been met in regards to question number one and thus for me this issue has been settled. That board came from Hauptmann's attic. As to question number two above, the numerous photos of the ladder, including Rail 16, that were taken by the NJSP and the press right after the kidnapping show the exact grain patterns, etc. on Rail 16 that exist even today on Rail 16 in the NJSP Museum. The one photo below shows the comparison of Rail 16 in the Springfield photo of 3/2/32 and a current photo of Rail 16 at the Museum--an exact match. The Springfield photo was obviously taken on the wall that surrounds the flagstone porch at Highfields. The second photo shows all the press that was allowed to see and examine the ladder at the same location. Unless one alleges that the Springfield photo of Rail 16 was somehow fabricated by the NJSP and not taken until after Hauptmann's arrest and a "new" Rail 16 was made, this photo on its own provides evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that Rail 16 NEVER changed in appearance between March 2, 1932 and the time of the trial. As far as I am concerned, this negates any allegations of police corruption on Rail 16. I feel that to speculate that Bormann somehow conspired with other NJSP Officers to fabricate Rail 16 requires employing the Johnny Cochran school of criminal defense. When the evidence against your client is so overwhelming, just throw that strand of spaghetti called police corruption against the wall and hope like hell that it sticks---"yeah, my client's blood is all over the murder scene but the Police put it there". I now may need to borrow that flak vest from you prior to your response! Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 4, 2021 4:51:03 GMT -5
Hi Lurp,
Ha! Ha! Yes, I sometimes think that flak vests should be issued to Forum contributors, resting on the back of the computer chair and donned when needed.
I do appreciate the points you raise. Regarding No 1 I have no problem in accepting Koehler’s trial testimony that the Trial Rail 16 came from Hauptmann’s attic. It is still an open question for me as to when the board was removed, who removed it and who fabricated Rail 16 from it.
I think the electrician did re-place that board for reasons I have given previously. It also explains why early visitors to the attic after Hauptmann’s arrest noticed an intact floor with nothing missing.
The case for police dishonesty and chicanery is not advanced lightly. But against the fevered background of press and public demanding a conviction and the other examples of witness coercion, the turnaround in the handwriting testimony, and Bornmann/Koehler being economical with the truth I think it is a real possibility that the Trial Rail 16 was a forgery created to seal the murder conviction. Such things are not unknown here in the UK either, especially in high profile cases.
As I have said elsewhere I do not share the absolute certainty enjoyed by some students of this case and that includes the idea that the Trial Rail 16 was bogus.
I am sceptical of photos of the rail “taken in 1932” presented at trial by the NJSP. But if there are still newspapers available dated March 1932 which show clear pictures of Rail 16 and which correspond exactly with the trial photos and with the rail currently in the NJSP archive I will gladly admit I was barking up the wrong tree.
I have always seen the “Bogus Rail 16” as an option to be eliminated if possible and so far I cannot do this. The newspaper photos would effectively do this and ironically, nobody would be more pleased than myself.
Thanks for your measured response. You see, no flak vest was needed!
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 4, 2021 12:53:06 GMT -5
4. Sorry, I cannot give the reference to where I read that the ladder rails were smooth and had been sanded. If I come across it again in my re-reading I will certainly let you know. In fact I recall that it was mentioned in support of Hauptmann’s guilt. It was said that all the rails had been sanded smooth which was characteristic of Hauptmann. Although how the writer knew this, I don’t know. I'm not sure what the source you are referring to is either. I have just about everything and nothing I have says any face of Rail 16 was sanded. Since this includes many of the detailed reports mentioning holes, planer marks, quality, size, tool marks, etc., I think its safe for me to conclude that it never happened. Next, as I relayed in V3, I went to the Archive with Kevin Klein who is a Master Carpenter. He had both S-226 and Rail 16 in hand when he showed me the shadowing on S-226 and none on Rail 16. Suffice to say, I believe he wouldn't have made this observation if Rail 16 had been sanded down. So for me, I have both sides of this covered. I'm certainly not questioning you about what you may have read but it seems odd that you would reject Koehler but embrace something that you don't even know the source for. See my point? Koehler of course wasn't exactly truthful in several places, as I've already proven, but one must consider that before anyone knew who Hauptmann was he could not be framed at that point. In short, all reports prior must be neutralized for another reason. And of course there's the fact that Leon told Codd ( V3 page 349) that he did see the missing section during his attic search. One could of course allege he was lying but upon considering that he admitted it wasn't until October 9 that Koehler discovered it, then its hard to pin this argument to him because it harms the September 26 narrative (lie). The 3 inch wide rail was cut from the 6 inch wide plank using most likely a coarse-toothed rip saw. This, as the name implies, literally rips quickly through the timber along the grain leaving a very rough edge. I have done it myself. Nobody would use this sawn strip directly for a ladder rail without sanding away the splinters left by the saw and those on the rough 3 inch wide surface as well . The rail is narrow enough to be gripped completely by the ladder- climber’s hand so all surfaces have to be splinter-free. I’m not saying it was sanded to a mirror finish just enough to get rid of these surface imperfections. In this way the slight shadowing was unwittingly removed. I agree that you would probably have done this, but there's no evidence whatsoever that the shadowing was sanded out in this instance. Quite the contrary as I've written about above. The one thing I am missing in this debate, and I appeal to any other Forum members reading this, is a believable logical reason for the undamaged 8 foot board being rejected as scrap and ending up in Rauch’s basement. Re-placing it was easy, logical, and professional leaving behind an attic (almost) in its original condition and explaining why early visitors to it saw nothing amiss because nothing was missing. I've been where you are now. Something never felt right about it so I was never willing to let those feelings go until such time that I didn't have them anymore. One of the things I used to tell new guys at work was that if you walk into a room and something doesn't seem right don't ignore it because you feel that way for a reason. And that's how things can get by you. Even if you can't figure it out or find out why at first keep looking and don't shrug it off. As anyone can see in Chapter 5, I lived by this and decided to share all that I've discovered. I do believe I left no stone unturned. Some new stuff, some old stuff, some lies, and some truth. It's all there. No one side is happy but it is what it is. Despite this, I don't want to talk you out of your skepticism if you are not ready to accept what I've found. That would go against my own advice.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 4, 2021 20:50:25 GMT -5
I have little knowledge concerning ladders but have a question that has been troubling me for some time, and now seems to be a good time to ask those more expert in the subject. The question concerns the nail holes in one of the boards found in the ladder. Nail holes in a board would weaken the structure. A carpenter with any sense would not use a board with nail holes already made in it. So it would seem that the ladder was not constructed by a professional carpenter, or the ladder was not intended for climbing purposes but for some other use. Could the presence of the nail holes have sufficiently weakened the ladder and led to its breaking and fall at the scene of the kidnapping? Or could the nail holes have been drilled following the kidnapping and after the arrest of Hauptmann? Thanks for any information you can offer.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 4, 2021 21:15:31 GMT -5
An observation here: There was a large US boat building shipyard in Manhattan very close to the area where the early ransom letters were mailed. Someone could have made the ladder in the shipyard. The ladder may have been intended for use in the factory or on a boat. Or it is possible that one of the kidnappers or a rep. worked in the shipyard. It does require some area to build a ladder such as this, and I question whether Hauptmann's garage had enough space for him to work on it and house his car at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 4, 2021 23:57:59 GMT -5
An observation here: There was a large US boat building shipyard in Manhattan very close to the area where the early ransom letters were mailed. Someone could have made the ladder in the shipyard. The ladder may have been intended for use in the factory or on a boat. Or it is possible that one of the kidnappers or a rep. worked in the shipyard. It does require some area to build a ladder such as this, and I question whether Hauptmann's garage had enough space for him to work on it and house his car at the same time. There was some speculation that the ladder was originally intended for use as a gangway for a boat or aircraft.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 5, 2021 5:29:56 GMT -5
Interesting. Perhaps we could take a closer look at this possibility. The child's sleeping suit was sent from Connecticut, and the Brooklyn shipyard is not that far from the Connecticut border. Consider that the kidnappers would not, in all probability, travel from the Bronx down to Brooklyn to mail ransom letters and then cross into Connecticut to mail the sleeping suit. As for building the ladder, yellow Southern pine was common enough and a favorite for building a ladder. If Hauptmann built the ladder in his garage, the landlord and the neighbors would have had some knowledge of the noise and activity caused by the construction, and he would need room enough to construct this three sections of ladder; this was not a little step-ladder, and he would need to use some machinery in its construction. Were there electrical outlets in the garage? Did he park his car outside the garage when he was working on the ladder? Again, the landlord and landlady would have been aware since they also lived on the property.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 6, 2021 15:10:52 GMT -5
Hi Metje,
Although I can't see four nail holes well apart greatly weakening a 3 inch by 1 inch rail, I agree with your point that the "ladder" may not "have been constructed for climbing purposes but for some other use." This could be on a boat, in horticulture or as a roof ladder in house construction. In fact any use which didn't involve climbing up it! I think its use as a gangway to reach a boat is unlikely. At least you'd never get me to set foot on it.
The carpentry of the ladder is poor, reminding me of my early attempts at mortice joints in pine wood. I was 11 years old at the time. But even professional carpenters working under pressure or instruction can produce "careless" work. Hauptmann's garage was certainly big enough for ladder construction and its assembly in 3 sections. The finishing touches were still being made to the garage when Hauptmann was arrested so he had good reasons for being busy in there at that time as well as it being his legitimate workshop with tools, a vice, bench etc.
Some interesting points. Keep 'em coming!
Regards,
Sherlock
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 6, 2021 20:39:33 GMT -5
Thank you so much your response, Sherlock! Hauptmann was not the only carpenter connected with the kidnapping case. Hans Kloppenberg was a carpenter, bur a professional and not likely to have built the ladder we are considering. Charles Schippell ,who lived near the area where the child was found, did some carpentry work and stated that his chisel was missing--the chisel that matched the one found on the Lindbergh property following the kidnapping. John Mohrdieck, a friend of Isidor Fisch, reported on his citizenship papers that he was a "shipbuilder." Mohrdieck lived in Brooklyn and probably worked at the Brooklyn shipyard. (He had worked as a piano maker in Germany before emigrating to the US.) Hauptmann's garage appears small in the photos, so I am surprised that it could serve as a workshop as well as a garage for the car. Would Hauptmann need electricity to work his tools? Did the garage have electrical outlets? If he did build the ladder, he must have been in a hurry to get it done; perhaps he spent most of his time on Monday, Feb. 29 trying to get the ladder finished--if he built it.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 6, 2021 20:50:30 GMT -5
The shipyard I mentioned in an earlier post is located in Brooklyn, not Manhattan. Sorry for the error. It is a US shipyard, not privately owned and located very near to the mailing station where the early ransom letters were mailed.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 10, 2021 16:26:33 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I just re-read the accounts of Koehler’s work and trial testimony in “The Sixteenth Rail” (A Schrager) and “The case that never dies” (L C Gardner) There is no mention here of the rail being sandpapered so my search for where I read it continues. I should add that I do not, as you put it, “embrace the sandpaper evidence while not even being able to produce the reference.” I just reported what I have read i.e. that the rail was sanded. It sounded reasonable to me. The source if/when I find it may be unreliable and if so we can disregard it. I cannot be expected to put my finger immediately on the reference to everything I recall from my reading on this case; few people can.
However Kelvin Kerega and yourself have examined Rail 16 and S-226 at the NJSP archive. I accept that Mr Kerega did not mention that Rail 16 had the appearance of having been sanded down. My question is when you examined Rail 16, did it have a smooth surface or was the surface rough like that of S-226? If, in your opinion, the surface of Rail 16 was just like S-226 then the matter is settled and I will agree that it was not sanded.
Surprisingly there is also no mention in Koehler’s testimony reported in these books of the shadowing either on S-226 or Rail 16. Obviously it was there on S-226 and not on Rail 16. By bringing it up he would of course invite Defence allegations that Rail 16 had never been part of the attic floor. But he could anticipate or counter this by using the argument which you advanced: that the shadowing on Board 27 had not developed in the six years between the house being built and 1932; it only appeared gradually in the 30 months prior to Hauptmann’s arrest. Koehler had little to fear from the Defence of course because they had restricted access to the evidence and were allowed access to the attic only after the trial. So I am surprised that it isn’t mentioned especially as by using the above reasoning he could say “This absence of shadowing proves that the section of Board 27 which became Rail 16 was taken up in 1932.”
Or does it? My understanding of shadowing is that it is produced by two timber surfaces in close contact, under pressure, over time. If they are firmly nailed together the effect is enhanced; inter-facial dirt, loose wood fibres, migration of wood resins, and especially the restricted access of air and light will all contribute to shadowing.
Michael, you have shown convincingly in the Gardner book cited above (page 465, Footnote 78) that the section of Board 27 which yielded Rail 16 was nailed down more lightly than its neighbour S-226. Five of the 9 joists beneath S-226 have two nail holes; beneath the removed board there only two out of 7 joists with two nail holes. This may indicate that this section has been treated differently after installation. I suggest that this “odd match” (Gardner) is caused by the board being removed by the electrician and then being re-placed for cosmetic reasons to restore the attic to its original appearance. It is no longer the toe-board so fewer nails, as indicated by your figures, are needed. The inter-facial pressure between board and joist is reduced and this would reduce the prospect of shadowing development on this section of Board 27 removed and re-placed by the electrician. Also to quote Koehler “this wood is prone to shrinkage when nailed down.” This may also create a slight lifting of the board from the joist. We should recall that the shadowing on the undisturbed S-226 was anyway always described as “faint” and that, if we can believe it, Bornmann tore this board up with his bare hands. So in spite of it being nailed down firmly as the toe board originally the board/joist contact on S-226 eight years after installation was weak enough for Bornmann to do this. With less nails in it the adhesion of the Rail 16 board to the joist would be even weaker.
Your evidence of a lower nail trace on the joist under the re-placed board also suggests that the electrician made use of the existing nail holes for speed and convenience, lightly tapping them into place and using only the few needed to anchor the board. This would result in a weaker adhesion of the board to the joist and a reduced prospect of shadowing formation.
The other attic boards were never examined in detail so we don’t know whether this shadowing was a uniform effect under all these undisturbed boards or whether it was an irregular effect and there were parts free from it.
Koehler I don’t as you say “reject” Koehler but he is to me an enigma. He is portrayed in the Schrager book as a mild-mannered objective scientist going wherever the evidence leads but we know that he fudged evidence under oath and even lied. His remark that he felt a “shudder of horror” when picking up the Hopewell chisel is not one that a cool dispassionate examiner of potential evidence would make. I consider it likely that he was influenced by his “siamese twin” Bornmann and in the febrile atmosphere following Hauptmann’s arrest he joined the NJSP groupthink that the carpenter was guilty of murder and deserved to die. Koehler had a child of similar age to young Charlie at this time. And he did apply, but unsuccessfully, for part of the reward money.
The re-placed board My brother is a fully qualified electrician, now retired, with 40 years experience behind him. He has wired and re-wired houses old and new during his long career. I asked him: “You have done electrical work under an attic floor. To do so you removed a floorboard. Once the electrics are finished what is your next step?” He answered: “Put it back.”
I wish you a pleasant evening,
Regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2021 12:24:39 GMT -5
I just re-read the accounts of Koehler’s work and trial testimony in “The Sixteenth Rail” (A Schrager) and “The case that never dies” (L C Gardner) There is no mention here of the rail being sandpapered so my search for where I read it continues. I should add that I do not, as you put it, “embrace the sandpaper evidence while not even being able to produce the reference.” I just reported what I have read i.e. that the rail was sanded. It sounded reasonable to me. The source if/when I find it may be unreliable and if so we can disregard it. I cannot be expected to put my finger immediately on the reference to everything I recall from my reading on this case; few people can. This is a hard discussion for me to have since I addressed everything about it in V3 so that I wouldn't have to rehash everything. Once I began V4, I kind of had to focus totally on those subjects because, unfortunately, there isn't enough room in my brain for all the information I must process in order to write. With that said, I can tell you once again that there is no legitimate source for Rail 16 having been sanded down in order to remove the shadowing. So your options for explaining it away can only be that its there but that Kevin (Klein) missed it and I didn't see it when he showed it to me, or that it hadn't laid on the joist for the proper amount of time which supports the scenario I've outlined in the book. Kelvin Kerega and yourself have examined Rail 16 and S-226 at the NJSP archive. I accept that Mr Kerega did not mention that Rail 16 had the appearance of having been sanded down. My question is when you examined Rail 16, did it have a smooth surface or was the surface rough like that of S-226? If, in your opinion, the surface of Rail 16 was just like S-226 then the matter is settled and I will agree that it was not sanded. Just want to make sure that you aren't confusing Kevin Klein and Kelvin Keraga. Both men did hands on examination/research concerning S-226/Rail 16. However, I went to the archives with Kevin Klein. I was never there when Kelvin Keraga was. I discussed the case with Kelvin via online, email, and briefly at his presentation in Flemington. If he ever has another presentation I would encourage everyone to attend if possible. In short, I have been in the unique position of interacting with many sources and have considered them all resulting in what I've written in V3. I personally didn't see a board that looked sanded down or I would have brought it up. Certainly a Master Carpenter would have noticed and I've never seen any mention of the sort in the treasure trove of source documentation that I have. Next, the last time I personally saw Rail 16 (still in the ladder) and S-226 next to one another was years and years ago. There's nothing in my notes to indicate the difference you are asking about. I vaguely recall Rail 16 being slightly darker but its been so long I could be imagining it based on the documentation that indicates it was darker due to the silver nitrate application for fingerprints. I did have S-226 in front of me a year or two before V3 for study in preparation for it. You see, what you are doing is asking me questions I've already settled myself before writing anything. So I can say with conviction I covered it because these are the types of things that would have jumped up and bit me in the ass - but just can't prove it to you because its not in my notes so there's nothing to me to refer to. For me to say I specifically and unconditionally I exactly remember doing something specific all these years later would be impossible. All I can do is recommend that if you reject my conclusions or don't trust the research that a trip to the NJSP Archive to see this evidence for yourself might be in order. In fact, I recommend it because its exactly what got me started in the first place and just look at all the mistakes I've exposed because of it. Anyway, all I can say is that nothing you've raised has me questioning anything if that helps. Because if you were to strike onto a cord that I hadn't considered I wouldn't have been able to sleep. there is also no mention in Koehler’s testimony reported in these books of the shadowing either on S-226 or Rail 16. Obviously it was there on S-226 and not on Rail 16. By bringing it up he would of course invite Defence allegations that Rail 16 had never been part of the attic floor. But he could anticipate or counter this by using the argument which you advanced: that the shadowing on Board 27 had not developed in the six years between the house being built and 1932; it only appeared gradually in the 30 months prior to Hauptmann’s arrest. Koehler had little to fear from the Defence of course because they had restricted access to the evidence and were allowed access to the attic only after the trial. So I am surprised that it isn’t mentioned especially as by using the above reasoning he could say “This absence of shadowing proves that the section of Board 27 which became Rail 16 was taken up in 1932.” Most people who have written books spent very little time at the archives, if any, before putting pen to paper. Upon considering this, its not such a mystery why so much in my books did not make it into the others. This issue is mentioned in documents but people need to actually go through the material in order to know this. I think I've said enough about this point, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse with my criticisms about that. Board 27 was in the floor in 1926 before the electrical contractors were even selected. What would later become Rail 16 was removed very shortly after that probably in late August / early September. S-226 laid there until it was removed on October 9, 1934. Kevin pointed out the shadowing on S-226 to me and while it wasn't a prominent feature I could see it was there. If he hadn't shown it to me I probably wouldn't have noticed. other attic boards were never examined in detail so we don’t know whether this shadowing was a uniform effect under all these undisturbed boards or whether it was an irregular effect and there were parts free from it. Board 26 is at the archives. I seem to remember that Kevin took a look at that too. It's been too long for me to remember the specifics but if he found anything to upset this theory I would have known about it and the theory would have never made it into my book. I don’t as you say “reject” Koehler but he is to me an enigma. He is portrayed in the Schrager book as a mild-mannered objective scientist going wherever the evidence leads but we know that he fudged evidence under oath and even lied. His remark that he felt a “shudder of horror” when picking up the Hopewell chisel is not one that a cool dispassionate examiner of potential evidence would make. He's actually doing the same as everyone else was doing. We'd like to think that a Scientist would not engage in this behavior but he did. But again, he wasn't doing this before Hauptmann in order to sew up a case against him. So there's certain evidence that is reliable as opposed to being questionable. That game he played with Hauptmann's tool chest in court was despicable, but the exact reason I can show what the true situation actually was is based on his October 1 - 4 report which spells out what was in that tool box. Right? I cannot prove it if he's lying about it in his report. Same with Rails 12 & 13. His reports/letters tell the true story. So that's how I know he lied in Court. re-placed board My brother is a fully qualified electrician, now retired, with 40 years experience behind him. He has wired and re-wired houses old and new during his long career. I asked him: “You have done electrical work under an attic floor. To do so you removed a floorboard. Once the electrics are finished what is your next step?” He answered: “Put it back.” I have no doubt. Had he been working for P. A. Loving in 1926 in Rauch's attic then Rail 16 as we know it wouldn't exist.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Oct 18, 2021 10:23:58 GMT -5
In regad to the evidence of the ladder which was presented in court at the trial of BRH: An article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette dated Thursday, Feb. 7n 1935, an expert on "pattern making on wood" testified on the use of the plane. This testimony follows that of Henry Uhlig. The testimony is that of Stanley Seal of Flemington, identified as an expert with 10-12 years of experience in the planing of wood. Seal testified that a plane leaves marks on wood but the marks will differ if the plane is held at different angles during planing. He demonstrated this for the benefit of court. He used two different planes in the demonstration, one of them being Hauptmann's. This seems to be a significant point, given that it's claimed that it was Hauptmann's plane that was used in the smoothing of the wood in the ladder used in the kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 19, 2021 8:40:55 GMT -5
In regad to the evidence of the ladder which was presented in court at the trial of BRH: An article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette dated Thursday, Feb. 7n 1935, an expert on "pattern making on wood" testified on the use of the plane. This testimony follows that of Henry Uhlig. The testimony is that of Stanley Seal of Flemington, identified as an expert with 10-12 years of experience in the planing of wood. Seal testified that a plane leaves marks on wood but the marks will differ if the plane is held at different angles during planing. He demonstrated this for the benefit of court. He used two different planes in the demonstration, one of them being Hauptmann's. This seems to be a significant point, given that it's claimed that it was Hauptmann's plane that was used in the smoothing of the wood in the ladder used in the kidnapping. Carpenters use their planes in a continuous forward and backwards motion, essentially very close to 90 degrees along the length of the item being planed. This actual angles of motion and the plane itself in the hands of the carpenter, might vary within a degree or two. Any verifiable differences between the pattern of "hills and valleys" seen on the original planing of the side rails as created by the ladder builder, and the pattern demonstrated by Koehler in his judge's bench demonstration through any operational differences within the above two exercises, would be (and are) so negligible as to be insignificant. The demonstrated alignment of these two patterns, essentially the equivalent of two random bar codes formed by the profile of nicks in the blade itself and so convincingly aligned with each other, was extremely damning towards Hauptmann. The defense strategy was very weak and counsel Frederick Pope, an amateur carpenter, should have known better; I'd venture the defense was just trying to muddy the waters here. Richard would have been advised to sharpen all of his tools after he built the ladder, but having basically given up professional carpentry immediately following the ransom payment, he obviously had other things on his mind.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 12, 2022 14:37:33 GMT -5
Dr Koehler’s examination of Rail 16 and its matching to S-226 has been studied by timber specialists down the years. The general opinion after extensive study of his documents, laboratory notes, slides etc is that his reasoning is sound and his conclusions valid. His ‘bridge” diagram is particularly convincing.
But to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong, nobody has attempted to replicate what Koehler actually did using “control” samples. He matched one single 3 inch wide strip of wood (Rail 16) allegedly taken from any point on a six inch wide board to another single board (S-226) using a diagram of grain patterns to bridge a 1.25 inch gap between the two. I have seen no evidence that he tried to match rail 16, via a bridge, to randomly-selected Southern pine from other sources.
For the moment I am ignoring nail holes which are in any case controversial in this argument.
Koehler is saying piece A and piece B were once part of the same board. Thus, it is implied that matching piece B to any other board via a 1.25 inch bridge is impossible. If it can, Kohler’s central conclusion is questionable.
Test 1: Where there is a true match, can it be picked out using a bridge?
Take 10 six inch wide boards of Southern pine. Saw them in half laterally. Carefully label each piece as to its origin using code. Remove 1.25 inches from each of the piece B pile and rip saw a 3 inch wide “rail” from each of the piece B’s. Preserve the bridges. Provide all 20 pieces of timber for examination by experts. How successful would they be in matching the pieces using their bridges ? Timber thickness, growth rings, grain pattern etc would be the basis of judgement.
Test 2: Where there is no true match, would a false match be found using the bridge?
Same procedure as Test 1 except that the pieces A have no relation to the pieces B.
Timber of similar age/maturity/ thickness to be used throughout.
These tests follow standard procedure in analysis; the test is first calibrated with known samples. This is exactly what I am missing in Koehler’s methodology.
I have no axe to grind one way or the other on Koehler’s conclusion but as the provenance of Rail 16 is the principle link between Hauptmann and the”kidnap”/murder it deserves the most rigorous examination.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2022 19:35:57 GMT -5
Dr Koehler’s examination of Rail 16 and its matching to S-226 has been studied by timber specialists down the years. The general opinion after extensive study of his documents, laboratory notes, slides etc is that his reasoning is sound and his conclusions valid. His ‘bridge” diagram is particularly convincing. But to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong, nobody has attempted to replicate what Koehler actually did using “control” samples. He matched one single 3 inch wide strip of wood (Rail 16) allegedly taken from any point on a six inch wide board to another single board (S-226) using a diagram of grain patterns to bridge a 1.25 inch gap between the two. I have seen no evidence that he tried to match rail 16, via a bridge, to randomly-selected Southern pine from other sources. For the moment I am ignoring nail holes which are in any case controversial in this argument. Koehler is saying piece A and piece B were once part of the same board. Thus, it is implied that matching piece B to any other board via a 1.25 inch bridge is impossible. If it can, Kohler’s central conclusion is questionable. Test 1: Where there is a true match, can it be picked out using a bridge? Take 10 six inch wide boards of Southern pine. Saw them in half laterally. Carefully label each piece as to its origin using code. Remove 1.25 inches from each of the piece B pile and rip saw a 3 inch wide “rail” from each of the piece B’s. Preserve the bridges. Provide all 20 pieces of timber for examination by experts. How successful would they be in matching the pieces using their bridges ? Timber thickness, growth rings, grain pattern etc would be the basis of judgement. Test 2: Where there is no true match, would a false match be found using the bridge? Same procedure as Test 1 except that the pieces A have no relation to the pieces B. Timber of similar age/maturity/ thickness to be used throughout. These tests follow standard procedure in analysis; the test is first calibrated with known samples. This is exactly what I am missing in Koehler’s methodology. I have no axe to grind one way or the other on Koehler’s conclusion but as the provenance of Rail 16 is the principle link between Hauptmann and the”kidnap”/murder it deserves the most rigorous examination. I'd safely venture you'd be looking interminably until you found a piece of yellow pine sapwood that matched the exact face, reverse and two-side grain characteristics of both the critical ends of Rail 16 and Exhibit S-226, as well as the specific wood mill planer marks on each, in spite of the 1-5/16" missing piece and the precise cut nail hole location and angle relationship between Rail 16 and its original joists within Hauptmann's attic. You might have as much luck tearing a sheet of paper in half and then trying to match one of the torn halves precisely with another half from an almost infinite supply of different sheets of paper. And let's not forget whose handwriting so closely matched that of the ransom note writer, that Hauptmann himself exclaimed to the effect, "Anni, if I didn't know better, I would swear this is my handwriting," not to mention the $14,600 in Lindbergh ransom money found in his garage. When it came to the ladder and attic wood evidence, it was all over for Hauptmann at Flemington in 1935. Nothing has changed in that regard in the ensuing 87 years. For those who may have not read it previously, Kelvin Keraga's excellent research report, "Testimony in Wood," is freely available on the internet. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/keraga.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 15, 2022 13:56:25 GMT -5
Hi Joe, As I say, I have no preference one way or the other as to whether Dr Koehler’s conclusion is sound. But as a retired analytical chemist I am missing the evidence from control (i.e. known) samples to back up his results. This is not his fault; the ideal control samples would be boards produced on the same machine as S 226 from the same type of timber, at the same time. Clearly, these were not available to him. The key thing is the 1.25 inch bridge which allows for imagination to be used in creating a credible link between the 10 (approx) growth rings on the 3 inch wide rail and those on the attic board. If it was an end to end contact joint which he demonstrated I would have no problem with it. Dr Koehler concludes, with implied DNA/fingerprint certainty, that Rail 16 matches the known attic board S 226 to the exclusion of all other boards, even those produced on the same machine at the same time. Boards which he never tested because he couldn’t. Boards which may well be in attics etc throughout New Jersey and elsewhere to this day. Yes, the other evidence ties Hauptmann to the ransom phase of the crime but it is only Bornmann’s testimony and Dr Koehler’s work which tie him to the ladder and therefore the “kidnap”/murder phase. I wish I could share your certainty that these are sound Joe but at present, and with great respect, I cannot. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -5
As I say, I have no preference one way or the other as to whether Dr Koehler’s conclusion is sound. But as a retired analytical chemist I am missing the evidence from control (i.e. known) samples to back up his results. This is not his fault; the ideal control samples would be boards produced on the same machine as S 226 from the same type of timber, at the same time. Clearly, these were not available to him. The key thing is the 1.25 inch bridge which allows for imagination to be used in creating a credible link between the 10 (approx) growth rings on the 3 inch wide rail and those on the attic board. If it was an end to end contact joint which he demonstrated I would have no problem with it. Dr Koehler concludes, with implied DNA/fingerprint certainty, that Rail 16 matches the known attic board S 226 to the exclusion of all other boards, even those produced on the same machine at the same time. Boards which he never tested because he couldn’t. Boards which may well be in attics etc throughout New Jersey and elsewhere to this day. Yes, the other evidence ties Hauptmann to the ransom phase of the crime but it is only Bornmann’s testimony and Dr Koehler’s work which tie him to the ladder and therefore the “kidnap”/murder phase. I wish I could share your certainty that these are sound Joe but at present, and with great respect, I cannot. A lot of what you've written above reminds me of what I was told when I contacted several professionals seeking information about this subject. So - I agree that we will never be able to say with 100% certainty that both Rail 16 and S-226 were once the same board. This is further complicated by the numerous lies that Bornmann and Koehler told as it concerned the wood evidence (and chisel focusing just on Koehler) all of which I've proven in V3. However, if we consider DNA, for example, even that isn't 100%. So what we must do is use and evaluate all of the evidence we do have to draw a reasonable conclusion. My biggest struggle was the lies combined with the almost impossible scenario they were pushing. Once it became clear how Hauptmann would have come into possession of this piece, it made everything else much easier to accept - almost irresistible - because it was all explainable without making up anything outrages to fill in the gaps. The idea that other boards could have been found to replace this "match" of the rings meant a board from the same tree or from the same stand of trees had to have been discovered. Not only that, S-226 had the joist shadowing meaning it was there for quite some time. So the replacement would have to be Rail 16. Next, we have documentation years before Hauptmann was ever known to police that puts the four nail holes in that rail. The pictures of that rail from the day after the crime put the ones we can see in the same place as were on Rail 16 as it exists now. That means with everything that could possibly be known to date, the odds are extremely high they matched.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 16, 2022 15:41:42 GMT -5
Hi Michael, I was pleased to read that my points reminded you of your conversations with wood experts. Presumably they raised similar issues.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear: I am not suggesting that S 226 was replaced in order to provide the match. As you say, all the evidence, shadowing etc, confirms that S 226 had been undisturbed since the attic boards were installed. My point was that in an ideal world where we had access to boards produced from trees of the same type and maturity as S 226 we would find samples where an equally credible bridge could be drawn between these samples and Rail 16.
As a non-expert I cannot believe that one would have to find a board made from the same tree or stand of trees in order to create a credible 1.25 inch hand-drawn bridge between the two pieces. Surely Southern pine of the same maturity with similar growth rings would yield some samples with grain sufficiently similar to Rail 16 to enable credible bridges to be drawn joining the 10 or so growth rings on each side. But that is just my gut feeling and if the experts disagree I am barking up the wrong tree.
Yes, the evidence taken in its entirety including nail holes, shadowing etc while not 100% convincing, is pretty close. Juries are charged to reach their verdict “beyond a reasonable doubt” and Koehler’s presentation together with Linbergh’s ID of Cemetery John ensured Hauptmann’s conviction. And yet…you have shown that Koehler and Bornmann were liars. And Lindbergh’s ID of CJ was based on two words heard 3 years previously. Yet they were believed. How ironic therefore that Wilentz trashed the bakery alibi of Hauptmann because one witness got his dates mixed up and another had issued a bad cheque some years previously so these witnesses were not believed.
Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2022 8:21:56 GMT -5
I was pleased to read that my points reminded you of your conversations with wood experts. Presumably they raised similar issues. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear: I am not suggesting that S 226 was replaced in order to provide the match. As you say, all the evidence, shadowing etc, confirms that S 226 had been undisturbed since the attic boards were installed. My point was that in an ideal world where we had access to boards produced from trees of the same type and maturity as S 226 we would find samples where an equally credible bridge could be drawn between these samples and Rail 16. As a non-expert I cannot believe that one would have to find a board made from the same tree or stand of trees in order to create a credible 1.25 inch hand-drawn bridge between the two pieces. Surely Southern pine of the same maturity with similar growth rings would yield some samples with grain sufficiently similar to Rail 16 to enable credible bridges to be drawn joining the 10 or so growth rings on each side. But that is just my gut feeling and if the experts disagree I am barking up the wrong tree. Yes, the evidence taken in its entirety including nail holes, shadowing etc while not 100% convincing, is pretty close. Juries are charged to reach their verdict “beyond a reasonable doubt” and Koehler’s presentation together with Linbergh’s ID of Cemetery John ensured Hauptmann’s conviction. And yet…you have shown that Koehler and Bornmann were liars. And Lindbergh’s ID of CJ was based on two words heard 3 years previously. Yet they were believed. How ironic therefore that Wilentz trashed the bakery alibi of Hauptmann because one witness got his dates mixed up and another had issued a bad cheque some years previously so these witnesses were not believed. Forgive me. I wasn't addressing S-226 in that way because I believed that's what you thought. It was just the process of elimination that involved the topic. When it comes to this subject, I spent about a solid year on it myself. I didn't even know what Dendrochronology was until I started researching this case. And so, back in 2002 I began reading everything I could on the subject and emailing various experts as well - many of whom replied and were very helpful. Obviously, I don't remember as much now so unless I go back and re-read everything I have to go by memory at this point. Most especially since V3 has been written because I tend to make room in my brain once I'm satisfied with a certain issue. With that said, I remember that tree rings are affected by numerous things such as age and terrain. They are also very sensitive to local weather. The amount of rain and temperatures as examples. So we could have trees in the same county that have differences in their rings, however slight, just based on even minor variables and circumstances. The experts could see these differences and explain why they exist. Meanwhile, "we" may see these rings and think they are exactly the same, or dismiss them as being "close enough" even if we think they are. The link that Joe posted to Kelvin's research is a good place to look at those rings and the sequence. He came down from NY to the archives and spent considerable time on this project. He also, as one can see, consulted with a really good expert from the FPL. What I do not like is the narrative about Hauptmann crawling into the attic to cannibalize that floor. To me that never made sense. In the end, if one studies his report and combines it with the conclusions I've made in V3, it all "works" and seems to place this matter into the "solved" category. When I say "solved" I mean only that S-226 and Rail 16 were indeed once the same board. Where the missing tools went that were needed for constructing the ladder, that Squire Johnson concluded two people were involved in its construction, and Koehler always publicly announcing that he didn't believe Hauptmann was alone in this is a whole separate issue. To continue, it's a good thing to challenge what one is not comfortable with. If I had not questioned this, I would have never searched for and found the documentation. I wouldn't have read the books or consulted with the experts. I would have never brainstormed with other researchers. And I wouldn't have considered other theories. All of these things combined, in my opinion, is what led directly to the absolute truth of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on May 31, 2023 21:19:33 GMT -5
I was just reading about Squire Johnson in newspaper archives today. He only figured in the case about the first ten days - until about March 10th 1932. Then I could find nothing else regarding Squire Johnson and specifically the LKC again. At least not in the archives I’m subscribing too.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2023 11:06:08 GMT -5
I was just reading about Squire Johnson in newspaper archives today. He only figured in the case about the first ten days - until about March 10th 1932. Then I could find nothing else regarding Squire Johnson and specifically the LKC again. At least not in the archives I’m subscribing too. Hi Dena! Good to see you posting again... Although Johnson was replaced by Koehler in the wood expert role, Governor Moore directed him to continue on other angles. He was teamed up with an investigative reporter and their findings included in reports dated in the summer of '32 (see V1, Page 218). Later, during Hoffman's re-investigation, Johnson was again involved by helping him out as well (see V3, Page 369).
|
|
|
Post by Miakat on Aug 1, 2023 16:16:17 GMT -5
For anyone who's interested, I managed to track down a copy of what appears to be the "Springfield photo" which was published in the NY World Telegram on 3 March 1932 ( Ladder link). The quality is obviously not the best but it does appear to similar to the segment of the photo Keraga published in his report. However, I haven't seen the original photo in the archives so the photos may be different.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 5, 2023 9:26:48 GMT -5
Hi Miakat,
Congratulations on tracking down the "Springfield Photo" as published in the NY World Telegram newspaper. Due to the poor quality of the printed image it is difficult to compare grain patterns with Keraga's high definition photo. However both photos show the hand of Edwin Marshall holding a magnifying glass as he stands behind the ladder section. I am convinced that this is Rail 16 and the publication of the photo in the NYWT should dispel any doubt (especially my own I admit) that the 1934 rail 16 is the same as the 1932 rail 16. There was no substitution of rail 16. Well done!
Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 5, 2023 20:21:04 GMT -5
Hi Miakat, Congratulations on tracking down the "Springfield Photo" as published in the NY World Telegram newspaper. Due to the poor quality of the printed image it is difficult to compare grain patterns with Keraga's high definition photo. However both photos show the hand of Edwin Marshall holding a magnifying glass as he stands behind the ladder section. I am convinced that this is Rail 16 and the publication of the photo in the NYWT should dispel any doubt (especially my own I admit) that the 1934 rail 16 is the same as the 1932 rail 16. There was no substitution of rail 16. Well done! Sherlock Bravo.. let the enlightenment be uncontained here! Hope does appear to spring eternal here that universal recognition of a direct, logical and linear approach to this case, primarily in the form of its relevant evidence, first recognized about 90 years ago, might well assist in leading us all to its truthful answer.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 6, 2023 8:49:33 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Yes, a cherished suspicion goes out of the nursery window. I had considered the possibility of Bornmann, finding the attic floor intact, had sawn off an 8 foot length of board leaving S-226 in place. He then made a new “rail 16” for the trial using Hauptmann’s tools. This matched S-226 because it had been part of the same board. Michael’s remarks on shadowing and the Springfield photo almost convinced me that this had not occurred but until this excellent posting by Miakat It was still a niggling stone in my shoe. In fact I was about to suggest this - a search of newspaper archives - as a potential topic for Michael’s new book. It can now be removed from my long list of unanswered questions which continue to plague this case.
Probably irrelevant, but while I’m on: I noticed while re-reading Kelvin Keraga’s report that Koehler’s diagram of Rail 16 (Fig 19) shows four morticed recesses to accommodate the rungs. However in the photo showing the three ladder sections leaning against a wall (Fig 1: presumably the ladder “as found”) there are only three rungs on the section built with Rail 16. The top rung is missing. Why?
Sherlock
|
|