|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2006 19:44:26 GMT -5
Colonel Lindbergh expressed the opinion that the crime had been committed by hardened, experienced criminals, and that the death of the child was "accidental" and most likely caused by the partial collapse of the ladder while carrying the child from the nursery to the ground/ that the collapse undoubtedly caused the kidnapper to lose his balance and possibly strike the child's head again the side of the house or cause the kidnapper to fall to the ground and on top of the child. But in spite of the seemingly immediate death of the child, the kidnappers pursued their program of extortion. In his opinion more amateur persons would have been defeated by the death of the child. (Agent Larimer, 3-4-33)
|
|
|
Post by Leah on Dec 1, 2006 6:38:28 GMT -5
I've wondered why the ransom note was so quickly handed over to the mob. it certainly was the quickest why to disseminate it wherever. was it CAL's idea solely to do this. why didn't breckenrigde caution him or did anyone dare to speak up?
|
|
|
Post by leah on Jan 9, 2007 6:56:13 GMT -5
If there was an inside person on the night the baby disappeared then the ladder would have had to have been there. the suspects in the house are few, 5 to be exact. No footprints in the unfinished and muddy yard (it had been raining all day). A ladder that didn't need to work would have sufficed. Also, I think the ladder would have demonstrated an engineer's mindset more than a carpenter's. Again the actual time that no one but the baby was upstairs that night is extremely brief. Between bety washing clothes and CAL washing his hands the only time is when anne heard the gravel and cal hearing the orange slats. we dont know where any of the staff was during these time periods. the ladder provides a very successful diversion to WHAT was happening inside.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 9, 2007 10:15:57 GMT -5
I still don't understand this line of thought. Why plan a kidnapping to appear as though it was conducted via a ladder and window entry and then leave a ladder some feel incapable of being climbed? Why leave the Nursery in such pristine shape?
Would an engineer pick two wood species that are among the weakest in tension perpendicular to the grain and shear parallel to the grain? Would an engineer devise a loose dowel joint which transfers so much force to the rails? The builder of this ladder was focused on transportability at the expense of strength. Those dowels make for quick assembly and disassembly but do so at the cost of exerting a great amount of force on a tiny surface area. That's because only the tangential surface of the dowel contacts the rail hole. I doubt very much any engineer would overlook this critical weakness. Had Hauptmann been schooled in engineering he could have made a very easy "fix" by adding a small tension band of metal. Once again , why devise a ladder like this if one's only purpose is to fool everyone into thinking it was used? Just buy one.
|
|
|
Post by rick for leah on Jan 9, 2007 18:22:00 GMT -5
Leah--I agree. It is critically important to have some ladder, any ladder no matter how crudely constructed or rickety to prove the outsiders. The chisel/ladder combination is even better. Added to the lack of evidence of breaking, entering and prying up the windows with the chisel, plus paltry amount of mud on the very wide window ledge, or the trunk or the carpet this crime scene has all the markings of a staged performance with stage props. - there are no fingerprints of Anne or Betty in the nursery--these are missing within hours of putting Charlie Jr. to bed? So whos the cleaners?
- Many accounts call Charlie's bedtime at 0730 immediately after the snatch, suggesting that the time was moved to 0800 later on. 0730 gives more time to get down Wertsville-Stoughton road by 0820?
- CAL and CJ cant decide if the ransom note was left on the window ledge or the crib? And Betty and Anne dont see it right aways because they forgot to turn the lights on?
- Wagoosh doesnt bark and Skean is left at Next Day Hill?
- Oliver Whately goes outside to look for flashlight batteries?
Would it be fair to add Miss Alva Root as a possible insider since she was there over Saturday nite and never interviewed? Five plus one is still only 6. But everyone at Next Day Hill knows the drill as well? Why you say--because they all (but Violet) have an airtight alibi for Tuesday nite March 1st? mostly from each other/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 9, 2007 19:54:37 GMT -5
Here's a review of what we know from my perspective : The initial Police reaction was that: - There were at least two people outside of the home.
- An inside connection.
- A local connection.
- The ladder was a prop.
I believe all of these initial positions should be closely looked at because its before Lindbergh takes over the investigation and/or begins to alter its course. What Kevin says is important. If the sole purpose of this ladder was merely to be used as "throw down" evidence then all of the effort placed into making this ladder meet specific criteria doesn't make sense. However, as I have said before, it is possible it was intended to be left behind after it was used. The fact the nursery was left so nice and neat should be addressed..... Why was it? It was dark, and supposedly entered via the window - yet none of the obstacles were moved or knocked over. How's a stranger do this without knowledge and/or a light source? Additionally, why is this/these people so careful to leave everything in perfect order? The ladder being left behind is a somewhat sloppy move and isn't consistent with the nursery invasion is it? All fingerprints around the area supposedly entered were gone...to include the occupants who had just had there very own hands there. Why? The Kidnapper(s) wearing gloves doesn't explain this. No evidence of the shutter being engaged by a tool. This means the Kidnappers expected it to be unlocked or expected to make a lot of noise accessing it by somehow dis-engaging the slide-bolt. Neither was the window sill touched by any tool to unlock it. Again, as evidenced by Kevin's research and expertise these people were either prepared to break the glass and/or some other loud and destructive act OR knew it was unlocked. There's no way I'll ever believe they arrived there hoping these two obstacles were simply open. Now the ladder was up against that house. We have marks on the wall consistent with the 2 sections AND we have a big chunk of mud on the top of the bottom shutter. This mud shows at least one foot has a good amount on it. Yet, we have only a slight smudge on the top of the suitcase and a very faint trace of another supposedly heading toward the crib. Nothing anywhere else to include on the way back from the crib. That, and the ransom note are our only clues an invader had been there. Throw in the factor that Thayer wrote in his report the print in the middle of the floor was actually Anne's consistent with her golf shoe and now we have even less. I am convinced the ladder design, thanks to Kevin, was meant for the 3rd section to fit into the shutter louvers to reduce the lateral instability that existed if leaning freely against the house - especially in a wind storm. This design proves it was meant to be used. These people approached the house from either the front or the back (or both) and utilized the board-walk. This again proves planing and foresight...not to mention a light source. The footprint evidence, minus one print at the base of the ladder, all point and lead away from the nursery window. I have no doubt in my mind that this was not a 1-man job. I believe at least 2 cars are involved. I also strongly believe there was an inside connection. As far as a local being involved I find that interesting and consider that a possibility. It's very possible the child was handed out of the window to the Kidnapper on the ladder and the note given to someone who place it on the sill and closed the window. This person then wiped the window to eliminate their prints so as not to be implicated. It's also possible the invader could have entered via the window and left via one of the doors, however, I find this less likely but it should be mentioned because of was said by Curtis, Lindy, and Hauptmann. Now concerning the ladder..... The more I think about it the more I believe it was left behind on purpose as was the chisel. We know, thanks to Kevin, this 3/4" chisel would have served no purpose in gaining entrance to either the locked shutter or the locked window. So why did they bring it along? Would they have brought extra tools which would have served no purpose or was this as well thought out as the design of the ladder? I say well thought out. Which means these items were left behind on purpose. And if so the ladder served a duel purpose which is consistent with the complexity which surrounds its design. The chisel, it could be explained, was meant to be utilized to gain entrance but wasn't when they 'discovered' nothing was locked.
|
|
|
Post by leah on Jan 10, 2007 13:04:40 GMT -5
my point about an engineering feat is simply the ladder had to be designed to be transported not to hold weight. if the baby were handed through one of the doors by an insider then it would be important to have the diversion of the ladder. i really think these people expected it to be assumed the ladder was used, in fact perhaps the split was made ahead of time to reinforce the idea it was used. if this was the casethen it wouldnt matter what materials were used. michael, i think the questions surrounding that first night need to be adressed before going ahead.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 10, 2007 16:43:12 GMT -5
"...and thru the open window shes hands Charlie..." MTA Here's a review of what we know from Michael's perspective : The initial Police reaction was that: This derives from the two sets of prints in the mud and leading from under the window--one large one small? One of them was a womens shoes and checked against Violets. One was a large man's shoe, apparently too large for BRH? Could this be CAL and Gow? I am very comfortable picking Betty Gow as the penultimate insider. After all she is a "tough cookie". This is the very first nite she has spent at Highfields in 1932 (or ever)? For this reason alone Betty makes Tuesday the 1st of March totally unique. Without Betty to hand Charlie thru the open window, or out the front door, well the Monday night before would have been a better or safer or optimal night for the snatch? All I can think of here is that Paul H. Wendel lives nearby in Trenton on the same street as the Funeral parlor that Xharlies skeleton was taken to on May 12th. Maybe as has been conjectured Wendel knows Fisch? BUT Wendel surley knows enough to attract Parkers attention and make him think hes involved. Anna Bading thought the same. If I had my choice between handing Charlie Jr out the window or handing him out the front door...I would pick the latter, not the ladder! Even a handoff isnt safe from the 2nd storey and adds little to the snatch except unnecessary risk? Then Gow cleans the Nursery and straightens up? All this would square up quite nicely with the Jones letter: disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=35540;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20Forum;pagemark=20
|
|
|
Post by leah on Jan 10, 2007 21:06:41 GMT -5
i have no problem with putting betty gow in the role as insider either. im not sure if the baby was supposed to be kill or not (maybe some planned this and others werent told) but betty could have been assured the baby was in no danger. she certainly knew he was accustomed to being away from his family. the amount of ransom was very paltery for a gang unless many of them were very unsophisticated, think servants. i think all this has been said before so i wont say it again. rick, i think scaduto tied fisch and wendel. wendel had represented fisch in a drug or smuggling charge. i have no idea if there would be any records in new jersey that could confirm this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2007 21:32:37 GMT -5
No. My understanding is there were a total of (3) sets of footprints. The small ones leading toward the window and to the back of the house and (2) sets leading toward the ladder. Wolf's report mentions the two sets of fresh prints leading southeast. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/wolf.pdfI do not believe the small footprints, which were claimed to have been made by Mrs. Lindbergh, were ever checked against Violet's, or anyone else's shoe - including Anne. I am positive at least one cast was made and that Hauptmann's shoes were checked against it as well as the cast made at St. Raymond's. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1143232895I am still not sure they were Anne's, but if they were then it proves how difficult it was to navigate that boardwalk even in the daylight yet these Kidnappers pulled this off in the dead of night. Bleefeld is Scaduto's source. It may be in the transcripts.... I have a lot but have yet to see it. If and when I ever do I promise to post it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 11, 2007 6:28:16 GMT -5
I don't know what the exact sequence of actions that occurred that night, nor do I think anyone else does. I do know that it is bad detective work to make the evidence fit a theory. A clear example of that is the theory of the child's death as a result from the "broken ladder". As for the person on the inside, perhaps we should consider the possibility of a 6th person.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 11, 2007 12:52:35 GMT -5
Kevin--are you also thinking about Charlie Ellerson, who drives Betty to Highfields and a "temporary insider"? eg he comes in for coffee and then leaves. Where he goes on the way home is in question and he comes up with the red herring of seeing his own green Ford coupe in the Lindbergh driveway on the way out? Eventually, he talks to Gov Hoffman's investigative team. At the very least the insider needs to say Charlie is there? BUT Charlie was also there the night before so it appears Betty Gow still needs to be around for the snatch--or kidnap cover up?
Another Wendel connection could be thru the Knickerbocker Pie Company exposed by Gardner in TCTNDies. Charlie Schlesser, could also be the Charlie in the Jones letter? Schlesser and Joe DiGrasi are clearly persons of interest in the Trenton area where they once scammed unsuspecting clients on Real estate? Maybe there was some attorney-client contact between them and Wendel that has yet to be uncovered? Some one interviewed by the FBI suggested that Italians from Harlem were involved in Charlie Jrs disappearance--Schlesser and DiGrasi fit the bill and could make great lookouts.
What are the chances that Charlie Jr is being moved up to North Haven for safe keeping by the servants just like Constance in 1929? Same type of threat and same type of response by CAL? If this were the motive behind the kidnap cover up then Anne would know about this and be a half-hearted participant in Charlie's disappearance. Later on, CAL needs to convince her that BRH was responsible for Charlie's accident? This would be confirmed by Anne's footprints under the window? Not throwing pebbles? Just a thought?
What solid forensic evidence proves that Charlie Jr. was even at Highfields on that Tuesday nite? The Nursery is so pristine when the cops show up its almost like he was never there? Its all based upon the word of the insiders? Where is Charlie staying if he is not on Mt. Rose Hill?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 11, 2007 17:50:23 GMT -5
I don't follow why it's bad detective work that an injury may have occurred from a breaking ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2007 20:52:54 GMT -5
There isn't any proof this happened and good detective work would have either proven or disproven it. Kevin has proven the ladder did not 'fail' and we all know there just isn't any evidence of a 'fall.'
This investigation was chaotic at best and once Hauptmann was arrested they more or less fashioned what they had to point to whatever would help convict him regardless of its legitimacy.
Schwarzkopf was way out of his league and Governor Moore should have requested this matter be handed over to the FBI.
There are so many unanswered questions - one only need take a look at the various reports written by those who were the first on the scene.... We don't even know for sure if sections 1 & 2 of the ladder were found connected because one report says they were and another says they were all found parallel. This is exactly the type of thing which should have been recognized from reading the reports and a meeting should have been ordered to get all parties together in order get the real situation figured out.
The footprints are another situation which should have been crystal clear. The fact that Cpl Wolf lied under oath about only seeing (1) footprint when his report says otherwise doesn't help the situation either, but here is yet again another example of making the evidence fit a theory. Wolf doesn't mention the small footprints in his report because, in my opinion, Chief Wolf and Williamson tell him they are Anne's. In fact, very few reports mention these footprints and we see from Bornmann's testimony they were never even compared .... they simply took the family's word on it. Why? They didn't want to embarrass anyone. Did they check those prints found in the yard with any of the household? Nope - again they didn't want to embarrass anyone. Huh?
Of the many reports concerning Bush none go into what he tracked and what he didn't. All we have are the unreliable newspaper reports and a few references in some of the first books which came out. Keaton would later tell Agent Sisk that Featherbed Lane wasn't where the car was parked but that it was on Hopewell-Wertsville Road. Were they using the right names for the roads? As late as '34 they were referring to the 'highway' in that ran in 'front' of the Lindbergh Estate and 'connected' by their road as "Hopewell-Wertsville Road" however, the maps indicate this road was "Hopewell-Amwell Road" and that H-W actually ran on the West side of the property and much further away.
You've got my attention. Is this 6th person a stranger who had hidden themselves inside the house? Or a person who was there but for some reason the household did not want to reveal this fact?
Would someone who was involved in the actual crime involved themselves in the investigation? There are several schools of thought on this...
Perhaps being on the inside is the safest place as opposed to "beating feet".... How do those involved know Hauptmann won't talk? Are they getting involved as a sense of duty to him? Or maybe to assist in his Prosecution to ensure he goes down and all the information he has with him?
I say this because Ellerson seemed to be one of the few insiders who seemed willing to assist Governor Hoffman. I also say this because Schloesser acts as a "Double-Agent" for Wilentz by spying on the Defense and reporting back to him. He has always been a favorite on a short list of suspects as it pertains to Fisch's possible connection.
We do know that at least one person 'stuck around' for a short period as evidenced by the 'confession' on the secret symbol's hole maker (connecting table piece).
I suppose the evidence would be that too many people would have to be involved. It would be one of the most monumental conspiracies ever known to man-kind if CJr. wasn't in Hopewell this night. Improbable would be an understatement but I won't go so far as to say 'impossible'.... Everytime someone hits the lottery they prove that word is over-used.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 11, 2007 22:23:02 GMT -5
Hi Michael~I appreciate your response and agree with much of what you say. Please notice my previous post said "injury mayhave occurred". And in this instance I had a possible injury to the child in mind. It seems to me that if one is on a ladder which breaks one has to make some movement -maybe grasping in a different way, possibly leaning or jerking in the effort to hang on. As you go on to describe, the evidence outside was not preserved in a competent way. The descriptions/reports a jumble. The grounds a mob scene very quickly. Setting aside the smaller (perhaps Anne's footprints) footprints, is it not correct that only one footprint was found under the window? No one was likely thinking the child was dead or mortally injured at that point so I pose it to you that evidence of a fallen child was not likely looked for, then. Naturally I can't say if the child fell, but neither am I trusting enough about the preservation of the crime scene or competence of the police, to say with certainty that it couldn't have happened. The child may have fallen in a way that it hit the board walk, below. Or as I posted sometime ago, the child's head mayhave hit the side of the house while the climber is trying not to lose balance with ladder breakage. Perhaps some of this is only semantics, but if a ladder breaks upon usage, would that not constitute a measure of failure? It would have been helpful if Schwartskoff had remained in the job of floor walker. Would CAL have been able to intimidate the FBI or Parker? I'd like to think not. But how much worse a case could have been bungled than this one, I know not.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 11, 2007 22:32:51 GMT -5
Why not?
Are we to believe this was a grab and dash? Because that is essentially what the official narrative tells us.
Is it any more realistic to believe that one of the 5 household members would place themselves in such peril as an accomplice?
Why are the kidnappers circling far earlier than necessary for an 8pm snatch?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2007 6:35:52 GMT -5
It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before but Leon Ho-age had investigated a case where someone had done that. The issue as it pertains to this case is that, in my mind, it would still require help from someone on the inside.
Good question. I don't think its so the locals can see strange cars in order to make a mental note about it. I've always thought that Steve Lehman's theory might explain this .... Perhaps two or more persons left from different places and were supposed to meet up. Maybe they were driving around looking for each other.... Your suggestion may answer this as well....
I do believe they looked for evidence of everything beneath the window. They had a cracked ladder and quickly found and determined the bottom uprights had made the holes in the ground. You're suggestion that the child may have been somehow otherwise injured other then a "crash & fall" is duly noted and should be considered.
This is in line with your suggestion above. I was wondering when the stress fractures in the ladder occurred if it happened slowly or quickly and the time it would have taken to develop? Would any 'jolt' occur from this damage as it developed?
I think I would have to call on Kevin's opinion here. The results of his experiments on the replica would be most helpful to better understand the situation.
Perhaps the child was injured from a jolt of some sort causing injury but not a fatal one..... like shaking baby syndrome where the child's neck may have broken but not killed him. Even if the man heard the ladder starting to break ... perhaps he jumped down and the jolt of this caused injury (we are talking about an under-developed, feeble, and sick child). Certainly not the trauma on the side of the head but this injury could have led the Kidnappers to later cause it.
But even in kicking these ideas around I think Kevin's original point is correct. They were claiming the ladder 'failed' which caused a 'fall' and thereby killed the child.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 12, 2007 8:01:01 GMT -5
Regarding "the fall", where is the evidence? Kelly's photos are pretty good, especially the area of the ladder imprints. Soft soil, mud actually and yet absolutely no sign of a body impact. That includes the 8"w plank which is somehow to have miraculously received the full impact of a body without any disturbance to the surrounding soil. Would anyone even come up with this if it weren't for the splits in the ladder? Yet the ladder pieces and dowel are intact. That simply would not be the case had that ladder been loaded as the energy at the joint is explosive. Am I saying that a fall or mishap couldn't have occurred on that ladder? Absolutely not, anything is possible especially on that ladder and at night. But where is the evidence? A good detective always starts there.
I think it has happened recently in case as well. You know it is funny that the thought of doing this seems so risky until you remember that the kidnappers were already prepared to enter a occupied house during waking hours. They must have considered their options in doing this and how they would respond if discovered. So getting into the house earlier isn't really that much riskier and gave them quite an advantage. Stand back from this case and look at it. You see a well planned and executed job. If it hadn't been for Irey there may never have an arrest. That with all of the investigating that was undertaken. And yet I am being told that the kidnapper showed up at least a couple hours early and was not prepared to deal with the very common problem of a locked window and shutter. If you are going to get in and out, a quick assault, you don't hang around and you don't leave a crime scene like this one. It would be a violent affair.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 12, 2007 12:33:11 GMT -5
Hi Michael: vis-a-vis the insider....Charlie Ellerson/Eilerson should remain a person of interest. At one point another long-time servant at Next Day said he was involved somehow? He and Banks are at the Sha-toe providing each other an airtight alibi for Tuesday nite--but only after 9pm? Neither one of them can be fully trusted to tell the Truth/ and nothing but the Truth? Ellerson is Red Johnson's roomate?
Vis-a-vis the local person you suspect I think we should at least review our notes on madman Charlie Shippell or Schopfel? Squire Johnson was really interested in how he was strong , agile and ambidextrous with carpenter tools, a Green Paige Sedan and some burlap bags. (see Gardner)
Shippells shack was less than 1/4 mile from Xharlies grave site and numerous persons stopped by the Lindbergh Guard Shack to say Schopfel did the crime? He said he was away in the Bronx sick with the flu that nite....not much followup there?
Charlie Shippell proves the Rule of the LKC: every lead is a dead end? Nevertheless, he fits Ellis Parkers definition of deranged and he had a fearful grudge against Lindbergh? Even though he lived parttime at his Mothers the Bronx or NYC--he surely would make a better Lone Wolfe than BRH. It would be difficult to connect him up with Condon/Fisch/and the extortion in the Bronx unless of course it was completely separate from the disappearance?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2007 20:20:01 GMT -5
Agreed. It's why I believe there was inside assistance. The dog must be dealt with and, as in the other NJ nursery invasion case, I believe this dog would have to be drugged. And if CAL heard a noise you had better believe this dog heard it too. Agreed, but I think the fact he was a little crazy and unstable may hurt his chances of being involved. This crime seems much too sophisticated for him to be trusted with any aspect. There may have been an effort to draw attention to him. Waxey Gordon told George Clarke (before the body was found) that Charles Jr. was dead and had been killed by a local madman. I have always believed he meant Schippel especially due to the location of the child and Schippel's belief he knew where the baby had been dug up before being moved to where CJr. was found. Irving Wexler a.k.a Waxey Gordon: www.findagrave.com/photos/2005/179/6101_112010473488.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2007 11:52:01 GMT -5
Here is a report concerning Schippel and this claim he would later tell Police:
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Jan 13, 2007 13:18:59 GMT -5
Hi Michael...Charlie Chappelle would make a good body mover after the fact? It is pretty interesting that the body dumpsite had line-of-site to Highfields house. CC might do that part for CAL's benefit? As for the Mastermind--Court TV has a great series: www.courttv.com/onair/shows/masterminds/and also www.keirsey.com/personality/ntij.htmlOf the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition, it is the contingency planning or entailment organizing role that reaches the highest development in Masterminds. Entailing or contingency planning is not an informative activity, rather it is a directive one in which the planner tells others what to do and in what order to do it. As the organizing capabilities the Masterminds increase so does their inclination to take charge of whatever is going on. Last nite (friday) some guy could excape from any prison? He was a career criminal, 2nd storey man and bank robber. Since Wendel just did his time maybe hes no Mastermind? But who is? - John Jacob Nosovitsky--master spy
- Charles Augustus Lindbergh--master prankster
- Doc Jafsie Condon--"to be or not to be'?
- Maybe Fisch, Schlesser and DiGrasi = one?
- Al Capone is no slouch either.
The rest are just small pototoes? Baker, Bacon, BRH, Violet.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 13, 2007 13:35:24 GMT -5
There is really no way that I know of of determining the time of the initial split. It may even have existed prior to the ladder construction. However I am confident in stating that with the load of a climber on the ladder the force exerted at the dowel joints is so great that any development of a possible existing split or the creation of a new one would be sudden and catastrophic. I wouldn't characterize the result of such a failure to a climber as a fall, more like a collapse. As the top pieces of rails 14 and 15 between the dowel and next rung separate from the rails the dowel would ride over the rails as section two descends vertically. I think you can imagine what might occur to anyone unfortunate enough to be on that ladder when this occurs. The only "jolt" I think he would feel is after regaining consciousness. I really get the feeling from listening to some versions put forth by others regarding the ladder" fall" that there is a belief that the ladder could break slowly and in doing so the climber would have the time to react . That might happen in cartoons but don't believe for a second that this is a realistic result of such a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2007 16:06:22 GMT -5
Of course its natural to have suspects as it may pertain to the "Mastermind" but I prefer not to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Rather, its my style to work out what we do know then see where that leads us or what develops. Eventually, as facts rise to the surface, more specifics can be learned which should point out the possible nexus we're all searching for.
Is there someone on your list that you have a special interest in?
This is a damn good post and thanks (once again) for sharing your insight. Now, at the risk of looking stupid, let me ask you this.... (I have always been taught not to "what if" to death but in this situation I see no other way to learn)
What if the man on the ladder hands the child down then jumps down from the ladder at the joint between the 1 & 2 sections? Might this extra added - but brief force - cause the damage without failure since the load which caused it left so suddenly?
I am searching for the cause of this damage because I can't believe the damage pre-existed its use at Highfields. If so they wouldn't have used it or perhaps scraped the "snatch" OR built something new. By the same token one would expect it to fail if the damage occurred while in use as you have outlined above but it didn't.
I see this as a "catch-22" unless a viable explanation can be developed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 13, 2007 17:12:30 GMT -5
Michael, let's look at the evidence. First the area around the ladder including the holes found. There is no indication whatsoever of a fall occurring. There is no indentation from a body impact or deep footprint impressions. There are no shards of wood from the ladder to be found ( and remember the ladder at that time had relatively clean and bright wood which would stand out). There is no evidence of damage to the house evident either. Look at the ladder holes. They show slight deformation as would be expected in wet soil and a ladder of this design. They do not show an excessive amount of ladder movement such as would result from a sudden shift as the ladder breaks. In fact I think those holes pretty much exclude any type of violent event occurring on that ladder. Now the ladder is found with the splits in rails 14 and 15 , the latter having the most severe damage. There is no evidence, after exhaustive examination of the ladder, of the dowel sliding over the rail ends as it is no longer contained by the hole. That hardwood dowel would have peened over the softwood rail fibers. From all of this I would have to say that the splits occurred without anyone above the first rung or essentially very little live loading. Actually I would bet that those splits occurred sometime in the process of removing, folding up the ladder, or while it was on the ground. It is very possible, as I discovered , to snap that joint in the exact way it was found by letting it essentially over-travel the swing limit while folding it with the dowel in place. Similarly, this can occur if one were to accidentally step on one section while the ladder was still connected and lying on an irregular surface. In both cases you are essentially over-levering that joint and the result is a split . I would imagine under the circumstances of that night, any of these actions would be more than possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2007 11:54:07 GMT -5
Thanks this is very helpful.... I agree there is no evidence of a fall aside from the corpse with a cracked skull having died around the time of the abduction and these rails having the damage we are discussing. Once again I am reminded of what Defense Witness Hugh Orr had wrote: Immediately after the splitting, the total load is thrown upon the rest of the elements in the construction which still retain some capacity to resist further demolition... And On the contrary, the results of the scientifically conducted experiments from which the final conclusions of this thesis have been derived point plainly and indisputably to the fact that the state's anointed ladder was "broken" by other means then by ascent and descent theron by a kidnaper in the circumstances. If Orr sees this then I am quite sure the State saw it too. Good work Kevin!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 14, 2007 13:16:17 GMT -5
I would say that those ladder hole imprints are the most accurate and reliable means to determine the feasibility of some type of ladder failure or accident occurring. Their undistorted condition shows clearly that no major weight or directional change occurred such as would be the case of a complete or partial failure. I am sure the State knew, I am sure the defense did as well. It's no different today, it's a message not entirely acceptable to either side.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 14, 2007 15:44:18 GMT -5
Kevkon~ your reply #24: Very interesting and comprehensive analysis! Have printed it off for handy reference. Am trying to do a "rethink" as to the cause of the child's death injuries. Thanx for posting that detailed coverage. You had an earlier idea which sounded good to pursue and that is a ladder for a hunting blind. Maybe the two sections(?) If, on the other hand, this ladder was constructed specifically for the kidnap, why do you suppose they would have left such awkward distances between the rungs? Would that have anything to do with it's nesting abilities?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2007 16:19:27 GMT -5
I've been trying to catch up on this thread and digest some of the detail regarding the ladder's failure.
Kevin, you make a good point about the lack of distortion within the ladder imprints in the mud and what this infers ie. operational structure of the ladder being retained while used in this position. From my recollection, these imprints also align with the position created by the use of two ladder sections and was confirmed by the report of scrape marks on the wall, below and just to the right of the window's centre point.
In the overall process of accessing the nursery, I can visualize the use of two sections of the ladder, anchored in the mud where the imprints were found, in order for the kidnapper to quickly climb up and swing open the right shutter. However, with three sections of the ladder used and with the rails of the third section ostensibly nestled within the swung right shutter recess, as you have theorized for entry into the nursery - would this not have placed the base of the ladder much too far to the left, if we continue to observe the relevance of the found imprints?
Would the kidnapper not have recognized the need to shift the base of the ladder to the right when using the third section, in order to retain a vertical and more structurally sound ladder on which to climb?
Now, if all this was rationalized while the kidnapper was trying to think on his feet under some pretty intense pressure, is it possible he then may have placed the ladder footings on the wooden boardwalk, either by design or not?
And if the ladder footings had been placed on the boardwalk, would this not alter the scope of what might have happend to the ladder while it was being used?
Would this also not possibly point even more towards the use of an accomplice to hold the ladder in place if it had have been resting on the boardwalk, ie. less anchoring and stability?
As you can see I have lots of questions here, which I hope are helpful. I guess I'm having the most difficulty though understanding how the three sections could have been raised in the way you have suggested and the structural integrity of the ladder, while being climbed, established by the found imprints.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 14, 2007 16:53:20 GMT -5
Joe~ Wasn't the ladder further to the right than "just right of the window's center point"? Didn't it clear the whole window to the right? I still have some problem with three sections and have wondered if that wouldn't have required a leftward positioning, putting part of the lower section in view from the library window below. (I think I'm visualizing tapering sections as they go upward)
|
|