Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2021 10:06:21 GMT -5
Placed in the Archives by Admin For kelvin
[Originally Created on 1-4-21]
Rail 16
My own exploration of the case led to an education in history, photography, wood science, report writing, and other topics that went beyond the case itself. It was a wonderful experience. I think my focus of attempting to create a very carefully worded report on my LKC study of Rail 16 was excellent training for my subsequent work managing an energy efficiency program for the State of New York.
Currently I’ve a number of other projects going on, and so don’t have the time for extensive discussions on this subject—I like to carefully research before I respond, as below, and this takes time. But I’m glad to see the continued interest in this fascinating case, and offer the following.
Before I get into particulars, I want to make some general comments about how proof is considered in these discussions, and in books related to the case. I will focus on the Rail 16 issue, but I think this applies in other areas as well.
First of all, let me point out that this is not a subjective discussion. One can argue whether Picasso is a better painter than Van Gogh, and there is no right answer, because art is subjective, and either view point deserves respect. In the case of the LKC, such questions, as the origin of Rail 16, are objective questions. There is one truth, one reality, and we are all either closer or farther way from the truth of what happened. Not all viewpoints are valid, only the ones that bring us closer to the truth of the case.
Most often, those who challenge the evidence, as presented, take the stance that the question of whether Rail 16 and S-226 share a common origin as a yes-or-no question. If one decides that they don’t believe that the evidence is sufficient, they consider it to be not proven, and therefore other theories continue to be valid. “You haven’t proven it to me yet, therefore I can posit a theory that the wood came from elsewhere.”
This is lazy. The question of the relationship between Rail 16 and S-226, and the attic, is not a-yes or no question. It is multiple choice. What is the true relationship? What is the reality? Is it:
a. The boards are not alike at all
b. The boards are coincidentally alike
c. The boards were manipulated in such a way (presumably by the police) to create the appearance of a common origin
d. The boards share a common origin
As Conan Doyle said (and Spock repeated), 'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
My strategy in developing my report was to find as many points of comparison as possible and attempt to learn which multiple choice answer was correct. I did not set out to prove Rail 16 and S-226 were the same board; I rather tested the potential relationship in every way that I could think of: general characteristics, end grain, knot pattern, planing, and so on, to see what I would learn from them. For starters, it was quickly clear to me that we could eliminate answers a. and b. as there were too many correlations to be deemed as dissimilar or a coincidence. But could the relationship have been faked?
Identification of a relationship comes when a number of variables are combined to the point that other options are not valid. In the case of Rail 16, the fact that the combined pattern of knots is consistent with the growth pattern of a tree, for example, does not prove common origin. The combination of all the variables does because it eliminates the other choices.
My own revelation about Rail 16 came to me one day driving to work, towards the end of my project. I suddenly realized that the theory that the police faked the evidence is quite nonsensical. The concept that the police, having arrested a man for passing ransom money, were able to create all the points of correspondence—down to the micro-anatomical correspondence in the end grain, and its correspondence to the surface grain on both sides!—with boards from his attic is quite frankly ridiculous. I think I expanded on this at the end of my report.
This leaves the only rational explanation: Rail 16 and S-226 were once the same board. My further analysis discovered planing and other consistencies with the other attic boards as well, including the planing defects that I discovered on all of the attic boards I inspected, which to my knowledge had not been previously reported.
There has been continuous debate as to whether the police were correct in accusing Hauptmann of the crime, and (a separate question) whether the trial was fair—both by the standards of the day, and by the standard of today. All well and good, and I think we’ve all learned a great deal from these discussions. However, if we all feel strongly that the case against Hauptmann deserves scrutiny, so does the accusation that the police faked the evidence. This crime would be a terrible crime since it led to Hauptmann’s execution.
So I challenge anyone who wishes to accuse the police of this crime to come up with an explanation for how the police could have faked the relationship between Rail 16, S-226, and the rest of the attic, taking into account all of the data that has been accumulated in my report or elsewhere. It is easy to type “I don’t believe it”; it is a lot harder to do the research and complete a thorough evaluation. To accuse the police of faking this evidence, and to not comprehensively demonstrate how they could have done it, taking into account all of the evidence, is irresponsible. It is unfortunate that some have chosen to write books accusing the police of faking this evidence without going through such an exercise.
Here are a few comments on a couple of specific issues raised recently:
Relative thickness: The relative thickness of the boards was a point of contention during Governor Hoffman’s post-trial review of the case. At that time, a detective working with Governor Hoffman claimed that Rail 16 was of a different thickness than S-226. There are varying accounts of this claim of thickness variance, sometimes describe as Rail 16 thicker, sometimes thinner. This issue was hotly debated during a visit to the attic by Governor Hoffman, C. Lloyd Fisher, David Wilentz, Arthur Koehler, and others, on March 26, 1936. This visit was documented in a subsequent report by Koehler, and in a chapter of Fulton Oursler’s autobiography, “Behold This Dreamer!” Oursler stated in his book (p.335) that he was invited along by the Governor as a representative of the press.
Here is how Oursler describes the thickness evaluation conducted in the attic that day:
“With the rail sixteen in position over the nail holes, he then had Howage try to prove that by the very size and nature of rai sixteen it should be evident that the board from which it was made was a quarter inch less than S-226, of which it was supposed once to have been a part.
Over this point there was an argument that lasted nearly an hour.
Loney and Koehler both measured the dimensions while the court reporter, Donnegan, took down everything that was said and done.
The end of this was that Koehler—a mild-mannered little man, appalled at the aura of antagonism surrounding him—and Loney, a bulldozing man who called Koehler an ignorant four-flushing son-of-a-bitch to me, disagreed. Koehler maintained that it was still part of the original floorboard and that the dimensions did not differ.”
After the attic visit Howage sent a telegram to Governor Hoffman, dated March 27, 1936, (actually the sender was spelled “Leon Hodge” not Leon Howage) which stated, “My figures show board from which Rail 16 was made three sixteenths wider than S 226.” This claim was also stated in a report by Lloyd Fisher (undated but apparently prior to the attic visit). I find this confusing. Is he talking about width or thickness? If he is talking about width, I see no way that he could have determined how wide Rail 16 would have been (absent it’s inclusion as a previous attic board) since it has been narrowed on both edges. If he is talking about thickness, he is making the claim that Rail 16 was actually 3/16 thicker than S-226, which would give it a thickness just under an inch.
Koehler’s report (dated March 28, 1936, Page 2) describes this part of the attic visit this way:
“Mr. Loney then measured the thickness of the ladder rail and the floor board from which it was cut, first with a ruler, then with a pair of calipers. He pointed out that the floorboard was thinner in places, which was correct, but the difference was not great and not anywhere near 1/16 inch as reported in a release from the Governor’s office that night. I suggested that the thickness of the two boards be measured not at the edges, because both edges of the board from which the ladder rail was cut were trimmed off, but more nearly between the two edges and preferably near the adjoining ends of the boards. When measured there the rail was just a shade thinner. All of these differences are insignificant when it is considered that the lumber was low grade and therefore poorly dressed and not dry when dressed because it obviously had shrunk considerably after it was nailed down in the attic. Consequently slight variations in thickness would be expected due to uneven shrinkage.”
Koehler’s description is consistent with my own evaluation. It would have been helpful if my report had included my table of measurements and perhaps a bit more precision in my description. I am attaching them here now. At any rate, if you study the table carefully and compare it to the boards, you can see that I found S-226 to be slightly thicker at the gap end, in the area of the knot that intrudes into that area. The knot represents wood that is growing at an angle, as a branch; it is denser. The wood is growing at a different angle, and with such knots, shrinkage typically occurs more noticeably in a roughly horizontal direction, meaning the knot often shrinks in circumference, which is why you sometimes find knotholes, since the knots have shrunk out of their surroundings and dropped out. In this instance the lateral shrinkage of the knot wood (i.e., the board thickness direction) appears to be less than the rest of the board shrinkage, or shrinkage of rail 16. Which is why it is important to measure all the way around the boards, as I did.
It has been speculated that the current similarity in thickness, as I reported, could have been due to changes in thickness over time. This is a fair comment, and it allows for the hypothesis that Rail 16 was originally thinner than S-226, but has overtime—due to some incidence of swelling that effected Rail 16 but not S-226—Rail 16 expanded in thickness. Or—to follow Howage’s comment—that Rail 16 was thicker at the time but somehow shrunk down by about 3/16 of an inch. In either direction, such a hypothesis must include the result that Rail 16 in its current state is coincidentally to the point of having an average measured variance of only 5 thousands of an inch.
So all this begs the question: what are the recorded measurements of Rail 16 thickness prior to the identification of Hauptmann as a potential suspect?
Koehler wrote a summary report based on initial inspections of the ladder, dated March 4, 1933. In that report he gives the thickness as 24/32” or ¾”, or .75”. My measurements averaged .74”, although some single measures were .75”.
The FBI Summary Report, dated February 16, 1934, includes are report of the Bureau’s inspection of the ladder, dated, June 1, 1932, by W.D. Brush and H.S. Betts “in the office of Mr. Knight of the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils in the presence of Mr. Bradley of the Department of Justice and Mr. Kelly of the New Jersey Police.” This report gives Rail 16 a measurement of “3/4 inches thick”.
Detective Bornmann, who accompanied Koehler during much of his work, and during his attic discovery, was interviewed by Governor Hoffman and others, including “Mr. Hoge” (I can relate to the constant misspelling of a name!) on March 24, 1936, a few days before the attic visit. The transcript indicates that “Mr. Hoge” measured the boards during the interview:
MR. HOGE: Governor, will you check this? Rail 16, exactly 3/4. Yes. (p.7)
Photographs of the ladder taken before and after the arrest show the rails to all be approximately the same thickness. So accusation that Rail 16 was thicker but shrunk should include an accusation that all the boards shrank.
There is also Johnson’s 1932 description of the rail wood being 1 x 4”. This at first glance appears to suggest that the wood was one inch thick. However, consider the width of the rails: none of them are 4” wide. Koehler reported them as 3 9/16” (Rails 13 and 15) 3 5/8” (Rails 14 and 17) 3 11/16” (Rail 12) and 3 17/32” (Rail 16), This indicates that Johnson was using the nominal description of 1 x 4s, not the actual measurement. Measure a 2 x 4 sometime and you will see the difference between nominal descriptions and actual measurement. 1 x 4s are typically around ¾” in thickness once planed for sale, although there is variation now, and certainly was then.
In terms of minor variances it is important to consider that wood does not “dry out” completely. It reaches a point where the moisture in the wood is consistent with the relative humidity in its environment. This is called “equilibrium moisture content.” It is not constant; depending on treatment of the wood, species and other factors, the wood will expand and contract slightly according to conditions. This is why panel doors, for example, are built to allow for some expansion and contraction of the wood as the humidity in their environment changes. So minor expansion and contraction will occur with changes in environment, if humidity levels vary.
Fortunately, Rail 16 and S-226 have been in the same environment for many years, with the same relative humidity, and so in their current state (as when I measured them) variations of moisture content due to variations in environment are not a factor in comparing them.
There is, however, another simple way to make the comparison. There is a photograph extant in which Koehler has laid Rail 16 on top of S-226, with a ruler in the picture. I tried to upload it here but the site said the file was too large so you'll have to search it out.Table 1 Rail 16 S-226 thickness comparison....xls (34 KB)
Simple test: measure the boards in the picture. Or cut one out with scissors and lay it over the other. You will find that they are, as I reported, very close in thickness with minor variations throughout. Any differences are in the range of the irregularity of shrinkage found in both boards.
Crating: It has also been brought to my attention that someone has alleged that they had determined that the ladder rails are consistent with the metric measurements for crating. That may be, but they are also consistent with American dimensional “1 x 4” stock lumber, which in reality is typically around ¾” by 3½” or so (variations occur). So the size of the wood does not prove a previous use for crating.
In a report dated March 10, 1932, Squire Johnson expressed the opinion that the ladder wood had been used for crating—"with the exception of one runner piece which bears indications of having been sawn by a rip saw and then planed.” The only runner (rail) that fits this description is Rail 16. So Johnson does not appear to be claiming that Rail 16 was part of a crate.
1 x 4s are used for many, many, many purposes. How does the theory of that the other rails were used for crating hold up? What kind of evidence to the other rails provide that this might be true?
Johnson points out that there is a daub of red lead paint on one of the “broken runners”, which he stated was “exclusively used by plumbers, steamfitters and other persons engaged in mechanical work or the installation of machinery”. Having a red barn myself, and living in an area with a number of red barns, I can’t agree with his use of the word “exclusively”—there are many used for red paint. There are a few nail holes. I didn’t study them carefully, so I’ve no idea whether there is something in their pattern that suggests crating versus other uses. Are there labels? manufacturer information, or other such notes one might see on a crate board? I’m not aware of any. Possibly the ends of the boards with nails/bolts were cut off after use as a crate. At any rate, while some of them may have been used for crates, I know of no real evidence in the boards that determines conclusively that they were used for crates, and there are many other uses for such wood, as the staff at National Lumber demonstrated when they build storage cribs with out of 1 x 4s. Many, many alternatives.
Another note: someone asked me if I had talked to other wood experts who disagreed with the findings of the other scientists, (that Rail 16 and S226 were part of the same board) but were left out of my report. The answer is no, none that disagreed.
Hope you all find this helpful.
Kelvin Keraga