Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 1, 2017 9:42:46 GMT -5
No one's saying the information is new, Michael. These articles suggest there may well have been even more valuable information, quite innocently out there within the news of the day, compared to what people know about the house plans today. Perhaps the general public interest in what was taking place in Hopewell may have led someone to inquire about the upper floor arrangements, during a "casual visit?" Have you fully explored all that was released to the public regarding the house plans and its build progress? While I may not have the current time and resources to pursue this at length, your analogy is a bit of a headshaker and I hope others will not feel discouraged about doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2017 9:56:12 GMT -5
No one's saying the information is new, Michael. These articles suggest there may well have been even more valuable information, quite innocently out there within the news of the day, compared to what people know about the house plans today. Perhaps the general public interest in what was taking place in Hopewell may have led someone to inquire about the upper floor arrangements? Have you fully explored all that was released to the public regarding the house plans and its build progress? While I may not have the current time and resources to pursue this at length, your analogy is a bit of a headshaker and I hope others will not feel discouraged about doing so. You've completely lost me. What evidence is there that someone was asking about the 3rd floor? Can't we suggest that under any circumstance? To answer your question: I have not explored everything. Although I've tried that is impossible. It's why when I see something new I give full credit for it because there is always more to be found. Why anyone would be discouraged as a result of any opinion I give doesn't make sense to me. If someone disagrees, the normal course of action is to show where I could be wrong. But honestly, shaking your head won't get you there and baffles me as to what your position is.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 3, 2017 9:11:37 GMT -5
oksay let me dig it out
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 4, 2017 9:43:46 GMT -5
Hey Wolfman, Nice find! Are you talking about BRH's extradition hearing transcript? Could you please send me the exact quote? I don't see it and in BRH's autobiography he doesn't even bring up robbing the mayor. He admits to robbing the two women, but not the mayor, unless I missed that page, too. Thanks! hi wayne in his deportation hearing july 14th 1923 he was asked question; was it larceny from the person or from a building or what? Hauptman response; I broke into the house of the mayor of the city of penbruch, Germany. question; what did you steal from the mayors house? Hauptman response I was with another man and we stole 1000 marks.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 4, 2017 11:24:03 GMT -5
Hi Wolf,
And thanks for the response! I agree with you, that BRH broke into a mayor's house (it was actually Mayor Sehierach in Bernbruch on the night of March 15/16, 1919).
But looking at your statement, you'll notice no mention of a ladder being used or that it was a second-story job.
Again, take a look at BRH's arrest records, his autobiography, his police interrogations, his extradition hearing, and the trial testimony and you will not find one mention of BRH using a ladder in Germany to enter a second-story window.
Think about this. If Wilentz did not mention these two facts at the trial (and he didn't), then I think we can put the prior ladder/two-story break-in to rest. Did not happen that way.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 5, 2017 0:14:52 GMT -5
Good stuff Wayne!
I've thought the ladder fact was correct all along, just assuming somebody had found it some where. Looks like not so. I even considered that ladder use was a reason he may have been chosen for the inside job. That theory now has to be not.
I believe Hauptmann acted alone which is the reason nobody's snitched on him to date. BRH even said himself that if the kidnapper never told anyone what he'd done, how would anyone ever know to connect him to it?
It was a simple and lucky crime which has been over-analyzed and over-investigated for more than eighty years. It was solved long ago.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 5, 2017 8:30:44 GMT -5
In his carpentry/construction work, say at the Majestic, was Hauptmann used to being on ladders?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 5, 2017 14:51:20 GMT -5
The ladder found at the crime scene was actually a construction ladder which was meant to be nailed to the side of a building. It would have worked fine as that, not supporting any diagonal weight on it's middle so to speak.
Hauptmann was an interior finisher so he wouldn't be working outside on ladders, but all carpenters are well trained to do any of the carpenter's jobs they may be asked to do. Yes he would have been somewhat familiar with ladders as a carpenter, and he admitted that he'd know how to build one.
He had plans in his notes for the rung attachment of the evidence ladder, though realistically you wouldn't have to draw any plans for that technique.
The drawing could have been a plant.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2017 16:09:47 GMT -5
He had plans in his notes for the rung attachment of the evidence ladder, though realistically you wouldn't have to draw any plans for that technique. The drawing could have been a plant. That's what Wilentz claimed it was. As I recall from the testimony, and check me just to be sure, Hauptmann didn't deny the picture was in the notebook. He attributed it to one of the pictures a child drew there. I've seen people say " yea right a child was drawing in his notebook" type of response, but yes, there were other pictures in that notebook obviously drawn by a child. There's another one that I believe they were saying was the Nursery but that's absolutely ridiculous if you ask me. Next, I see no purpose for anyone to sketch the supposed "ladder plans" as indicated by what is drawn there. Why is it the kidnap ladder? Because it looks like it could be? Regardless of whether or not Hauptmann had a hand in building this ladder I just don't find this drawing as meaning he sketched it out in preparation of building it - how does it assist? But that's just my opinion - here is the scan so everyone can make up their own minds. Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2017 16:25:59 GMT -5
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 5, 2017 16:26:13 GMT -5
I agree. The only value the picture would have is that those who felt him guilty could say that he had a drawing of the ladder in his notebook and in a way not be lying.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 6, 2017 8:52:56 GMT -5
regardless I know I read it somewhere but he did admit to the crime. hauptmann was a criminal
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2017 9:57:22 GMT -5
Some personal thoughts on Hauptmann's notebook drawings:
The Ladder - drawn by Hauptmann. No, he didn't have to, but it was probably during a time in the ladder design, when he was contemplating the need to fit all three pieces together in his Dodge, ie. recess the rungs for the top two sections. A purely visual appreciation thing here and this tendency is common among carpenters and mechanics. He even throws in what could be a representation of the dowel he would need to join sections.
The Window - drawn by Hauptmann. Not a window at all but a conceptual design for an icebox. The lower diagram is a tray type drawer which slides into the top section of the upper drawing. I've often wondered if he planned to keep the baby "on ice."
The Multi-Drawing Pages - all drawn by Hauptmann after drinking too much, which is the reason they look a bit childish. He wouldn't allow a child to draw in his notebooks and the second drawing down on the left is not the work of a child. The house could be the Lindbergh house with the one window at the side of the house, representing the important one, the nursery window.. and perhaps the front door.. or perhaps a stretch here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2017 10:02:12 GMT -5
I've lost YOU? My post was simply to show what others, and not necessarily just yourself, might not be fully aware of, ie. information available to the public about the Lindbergh house build plans and schedule, and some food for thought. That's what my position was.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 6, 2017 10:17:53 GMT -5
Michael,
Can you please tell us who those two men are in the photo you posted on this thread, posing as if they are inspecting the what appears to be a (better looking) replica of the "kidnap ladder"? Is one of them Koehler?
That photo certainly gives the viewer the feeling that, due to the abnormally large spacing between the rungs, the ladder would be impossible for anyone but a very tall long-legged man to use. That point might have been driven home by Hauptmann's defense team at the trial, but it was just one of many squandered opportunities for the defense.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2017 13:14:50 GMT -5
Pardon me Hurtelable for jumping in, but in case this couldn't wait, I believe that is Anthony Hauck on the left and Robert Peacock on the right, both with the prosecution. Also that that ladder is the real thing, as noted by the labelled nails. The 19" rung-to-rung spacing was definitely made for someone with relatively long legs and strength/agility. Hauptmann had both.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 6, 2017 15:56:08 GMT -5
Just thinking: The long legs would match "Slim" Lindbergh (6' 3"), more than Hauptmann (5' 10"). And the ladder was found on Lindbergh's property, wasn't it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2017 16:14:37 GMT -5
Both of your leaps are feasible, but putting aside any of the inarguable circumstantial evidence which connects Hauptmann to the ladder for a moment, what do you have that connects Hauptmann to Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2017 16:19:55 GMT -5
Some personal thoughts on Hauptmann's notebook drawings: Okay this should be fun.... The first one is a sketch of a footstool he was going to use on the "doll-house" in Frenchtown on his next kidnapping. The other item is a weapon he was going to use to lash his victims. The second is the nursery window, because he needed to visualize it, and the bottom is the crib. The circular items was the way in which he could estimate the child's weight which he could use to make sure the ladder was strong enough. The last is the nursery window again, under that is another estimation of how much money the crime could yield (in code) and below that was a Chinese throwing star which he planned on throwing at Lindbergh had he entered the room. Lastly, yes, that is highfields, and the full moon was meant to signify that he was planning on hitting the house at night. I am supposing he meant to draw a ghost looking out of the window to signify how he meant to kill the child but probably forgot to do so in his haste.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2017 16:29:48 GMT -5
Michael, Can you please tell us who those two men are in the photo you posted on this thread, posing as if they are inspecting the what appears to be a (better looking) replica of the "kidnap ladder"? Is one of them Koehler? See Joe's response below because he's 100% on the money. Pardon me Hurtelable for jumping in, but in case this couldn't wait, I believe that is Anthony Hauck on the left and Robert Peacock on the right, both with the prosecution. Also that that ladder is the real thing, as noted by the labelled nails. The 19" rung-to-rung spacing was definitely made for someone with relatively long legs and strength/agility. Hauptmann had both. Hauptmann had long legs? ]Just thinking: The long legs would match "Slim" Lindbergh (6' 3"), more than Hauptmann (5' 10"). And the ladder was found on Lindbergh's property, wasn't it? Hauptmann was 5'8" with a size 9 shoe. His shoe did not match up in Hopewell. His shoe size did not match up at St. Raymond's. He could have all the agility in the world, but I don't see how he could shrink his foot. Next, Wilentz used testimony to show Hauptmann had been injured then insinuated it was due from a fall off of that ladder. Reconcile this "idea" with Cemetery John jumping off the fence at St. Raymond's then sprinting away. So he also has the ability, it seems, to be heal himself when the facts show Cemetery John wasn't injured.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 6, 2017 16:33:16 GMT -5
A construction ladder would probably have wider rungs to get up quicker. I think the ladder wasn't made exclusively for the kidnapping (possibly it was repaired for it,) it was just already made and handy. Notice - that type of ladder is disposable also - hey, he left it at the scene of the crime unluckily for him.
Michael: did somebody (prosecution guy) actually say things like the drawing of the house and window was a part of planning for the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2017 16:41:50 GMT -5
Michael: did somebody (prosecution guy) actually say things like the drawing of the house and window was a part of planning for the kidnapping? I remember reading it somewhere for sure. Believe me I couldn't myself come up with it on my own. However, exactly where I'm not sure. Was it in the trial transcripts? Or maybe a report? I just can't remember. I have a way sometimes of pushing aside things I think are a little wacky in order to make room in my brain for things I believe aren't - only to later want to find the source again but draw a blank because of how I dealt with it earlier. If it's in the trial transcripts it will speak for itself, but if it's in a report, memo, or letter then it could be less then an official position.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2017 2:24:53 GMT -5
Too cool!
The drawing in Hauptmann's notebook will never be described better than you do above.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 7, 2017 11:06:16 GMT -5
Jack, do you think Hauptmann built this ladder for another purpose? I honestly can't imagine anyone having enough faith in it for more than one specifically-designed use. And even at that, it's design would put anyone climbing it at some level of risk.
Hauptmann told investigators he didn't use ladders even when fitting windows above ground level. He claimed he did his work while leaning out of the open window. I believe he also told the six psychiatrists who interviewed him, (Huddleston Report) that he had poor balance and there may be something to that based upon his wartime injuries. Or, perhaps he was overstating this in support his claim of total innocence. Nevertheless, it's the one factor that makes me most question, that it was actually him climbing the ladder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 7, 2017 11:19:12 GMT -5
Relatively long legs, based on his height and I've seen this reference in writing often. There does seem to be something to it, when looking at a full length photo of Hauptmann.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2017 16:31:56 GMT -5
Well, Joe, I think he'd built it for another purpose, had it handy and took a chance with it and it worked. The nails used in building it came from a keg in his garage. If we knew when he got those nails it would close one end of the ladder construction window.
All the talk of long legs and not using the third section is just BS. He was a very determined individual who would get the job done when he had to no matter what. Lucky for Lindbergh BRH wasn't interrupted because he'd have to have had a gun to go into that house. That's probably what he killed Charlie with in the nursery - clubbed. That he took the third section of the ladder onto the crime scene, shows not much knowledge of ladders or the Lindbergh home.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 7, 2017 18:20:23 GMT -5
I don't know Jack.. he didn't pick that piece of board from his attic or basement and go to all of the effort in planing down what became Rail 16 for a regular construction ladder. He needed that piece of wood in a hurry. You're right about the nails.
I don't believe he had the Lindbergh house sized up to the point where he knew for certain it would take either two or three sections. More like a good approximation and he figured what he took would cover his needs. And he was agile and his legs were long enough to overcome the wide rung-to-rung spacing.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2017 22:46:13 GMT -5
If he'd have made it for the kidnapping job, he'd have easily made it more heavy duty. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or much of a carpenter to see where the ladder's weak points were. Another ten pounds with a few heavier rails wouldn't have made any difference to him. About the same money to buy and no big deal for him to carry.
I believe he'd built the evidence ladder for a construction job that perhaps he never got, and just grabbed it when he decided to do the kidnapping.
He would have used that used piece of wood on a construction ladder and he seems to have been a planing nut. Those ladders were disposable - just thrown on the woodpile after the job.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2017 22:53:57 GMT -5
Joe:
One thing that proves that the evidence ladder was meant to be a construction ladder (mounted to a wall) is that it's in three sections. Look how it held up (not) at two sections. Can you imagine it used as a leaner and being up on the third section? If it held you could get up about twenty feet on it - spooky.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 8, 2017 5:53:48 GMT -5
Jack, I wouldn't climb a replica of that ladder leaning against a house unless i) I had fall arrest on, and ii) the rail ends were reinforced with winds of stainless steel wire, to keep the wood around the dowel holes from splitting. It was built light for portability, which was one of the main considerations. I believe something went awry during the kidnapping, which made the ladder suddenly disposable, but that wasn't the original plan. The nesting feature means it's not going to lay flat against the side of a building when fully assembled, (rails are different depths) so how do you actually attach it to the wall, in your scenario for it being a construction ladder?
|
|