|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2009 16:11:28 GMT -5
I am always looking for new information concerning the ladder. For example, was it a unique design completely thought up by its maker? Or had it been a "borrowed" idea, concept, and/or design? The Pipe Organ Ladder was suggested - then disproven. Next, the "Nursery Ladder" was suggested by Police and seemed to have been knock out by Kevin. I stumbled upon the newest one....something I just found today: Chimney Ladder. It was suggested for the NJSP to go to either M.W. Kellogg Company in Jersey City or Custodis Chimney Company in New York City to view their "chimney ladders." Here they would see, according to the Chimney Sweep providing the information, ladders similiar to the one they found at Highfields. I have searched for such an ladder and this is all I come up with: www.corbisimages.com/images/HU053461.jpg?size=67&uid=ECB3333B-ED17-41D2-96D4-4E7CEE7F7927Any thoughts or ideas?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Nov 30, 2009 18:43:32 GMT -5
mike, i thought it looked like a old shed homemade ladder you see in old pictures, or a barn ladder
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2009 6:54:37 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 2, 2009 9:31:32 GMT -5
Did you ever see a WWI trench ladder?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Post by Joe on Dec 2, 2009 19:00:59 GMT -5
I've often wondered if some inspiration came from the attic ladder that a young Richard Hauptmann used to enjoy pulling down and climbing when he lived at 64 Bautzenerstrasser in Kamenz, specifically the swing jointed construction concept.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2009 16:29:58 GMT -5
Could you guys post pictures of these? I've searched and can't come up with anything.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 4, 2009 17:04:32 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Post by Joe on Dec 4, 2009 19:17:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2009 9:26:05 GMT -5
I agree they both could be the "trigger" behind the idea or design. For me, I think the Police were trying to be too specific. That is, they were looking for something to exactly match.
I found something new from Squire Johnson the Monday just past so I am going to try to make heads or tails of it once I review his file. I truly believe the researching end of this case is NEVER over no matter how much time you put into it. There's always something to be found.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 6, 2009 11:41:19 GMT -5
I agree completely. Police tend to think inside the box or by past experience. The ladder was a product of both the specific requirements of the builder and the sum of his experience. As such it borrows from multiple sources as well as incorporating some elements unique to Mr. Hauptmann's ingenuity.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2009 13:39:33 GMT -5
They made this mistake with the ransom notes too. If they had a good suspect they dropped them if their handwriting was different even though it was their belief (even after Hauptmann was arrested) that more then one person was involved. Big mistake if you ask me. I can buy that. There's alot of variables to consider. First and foremost: Did Hauptmann see or visit Highfields in the past? If not, then who gave him the information? Next, certainly the question has been asked: Did Hauptmann build the ladder? If so, then where did he build it? Did he have help building it? And was it his design? I went back to see what those Carpenters who build Highfields said who were questioned by Police about this ladder: Harold Pearson: Saw or heard nothing suspicious. Was shown a section of the ladder used. Claimed he never before saw it. Believed it was built by a man with a fair knowledge of the carpenter trade. Edward House: Examined the ladder and said it looked like the work of a carpenter. Howard McKaig: He examined the ladder but gave no information. He did say that it was the State Law in Mass to counter-sink all rungs on a ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2009 6:58:50 GMT -5
The other thing I wanted to mention while I think about it is (and I know this is the wrong thread but I brought it up here) that after the JJ Faulkner Letter they started to do the same thing. Now, considering that every Expert was saying its Author was different from the Ransom Note Writer you would expect the Police to reach back into their previous lists of suspects, and in some cases they did, but mostly they did not.
Another mistake.
Also consider they had Hauptmann pen out exemplars of "JJ Faulkner"... This is interesting on more then one level due to the fact the Writers were different, Hauptmann was supposed to have written the Ransom Notes, and while there is a record of these exemplars being requested then made - they weren't offered as evidence or turned over to the Defense.
So where are they now? Well, they aren't at the NJSP Archives with everything else. I've spent 10 years looking for them. They're not there.
At the very least its just another case of hiding exculpatory evidence.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 10, 2009 15:31:48 GMT -5
To be honest Michael, I think everyone who has followed this case or written about has done the same thing, more or less. We all get "locked" into certain things. It can be pretty tough sometimes to stand back and look from another perspective and even harder if one has a prejudice or purpose which precludes alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2009 19:13:59 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes the shortest distance between two points doesn't necessarily mean its the right "line" to draw.
There are facts and there is speculation. And its a dangerous game to play if one wants to discover the truth - once a conclusion is reached. It's why the discussion boards are so important.
The State's game-plan is mapped out in the trial preparation notes and the fact they hired yet another Attorney to find grey-area common law tactics in order to charge Hauptmann with murder. This was an extremely delicate balance which could be harmed by anyone else even possibly being the Killer - however slight.
I have several questions and unresolved issues:
1. I don't know why they would do requests from Hauptmann for J.J. Faulkner to compare to that deposit slip if they were convinced he wrote the Ransom Notes. There wasn't one Expert to my knowledge that said the Ransom Notes matched the Deposit Slip.
2. Why they are gone. And when they were gone is important. For example, the Governor never even saw them. They even kept Gartner's in order to prove he didn't write them. Obviously, Hauptmann's are much more important.
3. Why all evidence that would assist in Hauptmann's Defense "went missing" or they feigned ignorance about it. The footprint casts for example.... Or how about the fingerprint evidence? If it weren't for Dr. Hudson requesting Wilentz to share it, and Wilentz trying to hide it - that part would never have been brought out by the Defense. Wilentz even pretended to have lost his voice so that he didn't have to let Fisher into that attic!
4. We know other exemplars are missing as well... Turrou's book proves this.
5. Other missing evidence can at least be traced to a certain point. These exemplars seem to end at their conception.
In the end I simply hope to solve each piece so that the sum of the parts equal its whole. I am convinced we did so with Rail 16 and S-226 despite what the most logical choice had been before-hand. But with each piece fitted into another, it also may reveal there's another missing piece we hadn't seen before those two were snapped in.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2009 6:59:38 GMT -5
Investigation concerning the ladder possibly being for "Window Cleaners"...also leading into the possibility of a Painter's Ladder:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2009 19:14:03 GMT -5
Here's one that had the same idea as you did Steve:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 16, 2009 12:45:48 GMT -5
thanks mike
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 20, 2009 9:11:32 GMT -5
Here's one written to Gov. Moore from Elisha Webb, an owner of a Jobbers Company in which he asserts the design is based upon a window cleaners ladder:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 25, 2009 16:08:56 GMT -5
Log in to view this document:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 27, 2011 8:13:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 28, 2011 7:41:42 GMT -5
Looks like the top two sections (counter-sunk) and then the bottom (nailed on top). The rungs look very close together which would be a difference. Still though, its possible this is where the idea came from.
Kevin, did these trench ladders ever employ dowels or a similiar connecting device for higher situations?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 28, 2011 13:40:36 GMT -5
I really didn't post these photos in an effort to show that the ladder was made by a veteran of the trenches. The real purpose was to show that the construction of a ladder with rungs on the outside face has a purpose. In situations where the ladder is right up against a surface, having the rungs on the face allows for a toe space. So in essence, face applied rungs are sometimes a preferable method of ladder construction.
Michael, no I have not seen the particular dowel joint on the kidnap ladder anywhere else. However, necessity is the mother of invention. I have seen joints which are close, but they have all been on traditional rung ladders. Going to the face rungs makes joining the sections more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2011 16:06:43 GMT -5
I am assuming the necessity is the ability to conceal it within the vehicle?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 30, 2011 16:50:03 GMT -5
I am assuming the necessity is the ability to conceal it within the vehicle? Could be, but I have never completely bought that one. It's not just one of the ladders dimensions that should be considered here, imho.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2011 18:56:11 GMT -5
Kevin, it seems a good possibility the trench ladder design provided inspiration for Hauptmann's ladder. I wonder too if the basic folding attic ladder of the time, which he later reminisced about having climbed in his boyhood Kamenz home, provided yet another piece of the complete design which he ultimately constructed in his mind and later on in the garage.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2011 6:51:16 GMT -5
Let me ask you this: What mandates a unique design to something that is not needed?
It's like we have this clever construction which Kevin had proven was the perfect height for this window meant to snuggly fit into the open shutter for additionally stability.
This alone proves, to me, there is much pre-planning going on for whatever crime is intended.
But here is the Rabbit Hole we find ourselves falling into concerning just about every circumstance that exists. Here, there's this ladder that needs to be unique, and needs to be perceived the source of the death of Charles Jr.
This guy Hauptmann must be Cold-Blooded, Calculated, Stupid, Unskilled, and have Nerves of Steel. He has to be all these things at once sometimes while in some situations merely possess one of these qualities while not having the others.
One does not spontaneously take drive into God's country to a home in the middle of nowhere then walk across this muddy, wet yard, in a windy, rain soaked, pitch-black situation and place your ladder against some random window for this to happen.
Whoever pulled this off had information. How they got it is up to you to decide - but they had it. It was, in essence, the perfect "snatch" yet, among many other things that make no sense, they bring this home-made ladder - when there was a perfect ladder for the job on the premises.
It's like dividing by zero. It doesn't work.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2011 7:16:51 GMT -5
That's why I remove the "snatch". Look at it in an completely different way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2011 7:38:02 GMT -5
I know. Your theory always re-assured me that you were seeing what I was. The difference is you are coming up with a theory which differs from mine. The bottom line is there must be an alternative explanation which satisfies all the variables and/or circumstances that exist.
Here's what I did some time ago: Take each and every clue on March 1st, from beginning to end, draw a circle around them then start placing explanations around them. What best works individually? Once that is done, try to see what common denominator exists for each of these conclusions you have drawn. Can they all "snap" into place? If one or more doesn't fit, might a slight adjustment to a couple of them now create a workable solution?
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The Lone-Wolf, Illegal Alien, Bronx Carpenter line is full of right-angles.
What straightens them out?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2012 14:44:53 GMT -5
Here is an interesting angle that I came to me the other day. Many people credit Koehler for much of the solution of the LKC. He did, in fact, obtain clues and evidence which were later used to convict Hauptmann. But to what degree did his work help find Hauptmann? It was already presumed that the kidnapper was in the Bronx area so the tracking of the wood only helped substantiate that belief. On the other hand, Koehler really derided the construction of the ladder and the builder's abilities. I wonder if Koehler ever realized the ingenuity of the design, flawed as it might be? Did it ever occur to him that the mortising and nailing were not representative of a complete amateur? Did he realize that a carpenter would likely try to disguise his abilities in much the same way the ransom notes were? What I really wonder is, had he emphasized to the police that they were looking for a man who was a professional carpenter and one with some ingenuity and given what the police already assumed about him being German and in the Bronx, if they might have actually been able to track Hauptmann down much sooner. Granted, there were many German carpenters around, but wouldn't someone from the area think of Hauptmann had this information been made public, especially given his strange and radical change in lifestyle right after the kidnapping?
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Jan 25, 2018 14:02:13 GMT -5
The fact that Rail #16 is a replacement indicate that the first two sections (#1 & 2) were discarded and that BRK did not build them.
After acquiring them, he hurriedly built the bottom section (one that is not mortised, section #3) but left a fatal flaw.
If you look at the two original sections (#1 & 2) you will seed how they interlock. The bottom section (middle #2) has two rungs close together at the top. They are mortised and one is right above the dowel hole. This arraignment give strong support.
The section that BRK built has only one run at the top and is not mortised and none over the dowel. This is the fatal flaw.
|
|