jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 8, 2017 8:17:21 GMT -5
It doesn't seem there's anything else it could be used for, especially if using all three parts.
They'd use spacers behind it to get more room for feet - just use different sized spacers to account for the different distanced spots away from a wall. Unless it was used vertically, even a small normally sized person would be too heavy for it, and of course their legs would be shorter so pretty wide apart steps.
It has been climbed in and out at the original kidnapping window with a 30 Lb. package - I'm not sure how many times, but this was some time after the police did their testing.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 8, 2017 9:14:57 GMT -5
jack, when I went up there with the replica ladder the thirty pounds was in my belly
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 8, 2017 9:17:57 GMT -5
jack I don't agree he built it for a construction job. the ladder was built to fit in his car and me examining the replica ladder it couldn't have been used multible times. it wasn't badly built but not good enough for everyday use.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 8, 2017 10:03:05 GMT -5
It's too bare bones and not robust enough to be a multi-use construction ladder, but deadly efficient and effective for its true purpose. Construction ladders don't take as much thought as this one did.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 8, 2017 11:54:35 GMT -5
I can't believe how far your imagination is taking you in order to support Wilentz's Hauptmann as the Lone Wolf theory. Hauptmann killed Charlie in the nursery by clubbing him with a gun? And no blood to be found and no one heard anything, like the child screaming in pain as he died?
I, for one, feel that Hauptmann's presence at Highfields on the night of the purported kidnapping is highly questionable.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2017 14:20:39 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. According to Stanley Keith only. According to the Pittsburgh Steel Company, the manufacturer, these nails were " the very common or low carbon variety" and therefore, it would be impossible to trace, or date them. I think it's 100% accurate to say that Hauptmann had nails from the Pittsburgh Steel Company that were the same very common or low carbon variety found in the kidnap ladder. But I do have a hard time saying the nails in the ladder were proven to have come from the same keg in Hautpmann's garage since the Manufacturer said it could not be done.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 8, 2017 15:22:27 GMT -5
I don't have Fisher's "Ghosts" book handy (it's in one of about eleven places) but he claimed there were only about six kegs of those nails sold. Incorrect?
LCD though is that the ladder nails were identical to those in a keg stored in BRH' garage workshop.
Just another coincidence of which they keep adding up for the guy caught w/the money.
I'll look for "Ghosts," but it could be a while.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2017 9:49:33 GMT -5
Stanley Keith took common nail identification technology to a new level in the realm of "fingerprint identification," in much the same Koehler did with the ladder wood evidence. While Koehler had the satisfaction of seeing his work become part of the circumstantial evidence testimony that convicted Hauptmann, Keith's work was deemed unnecessary due to Hauptmann's weak defense, and it was never presented at trial. As an aside, I'm not so sure that was the only reason, as Keith's courtroom charts would also have had to have been much more clearly understood than his research paper, for the Hauptmann Trial jury. Keith's later article in Iron Age magazine, Oct. 17, 1935, is a challenge to follow all the way through, but it's a brilliant and conclusive piece of research. It demonstrates clearly the condition of the nail production dies at the Monessen, PA facility and their grip die forming characteristics for the common nails produced over the standard period of deterioration of those dies, could not have produced more than 16 individual kegs of nails consistent with the identical grip markings and statistical variances found in both the nails of the kidnap ladder and the nails found in Hauptmann's possession. (from his keg, overalls and nails recovered from his demolished garage) Keith's degree of certainty was in the order of one half of one thousandth of one percent probability that the two were not from one and the same production run. I'm sure the Pittsburgh Steel Co. Quality Assurance department learned something very valuable from Keith's research and his article.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2017 11:29:13 GMT -5
Stanley Keith took common nail identification technology to a new level in the realm of "fingerprint identification," in much the same Koehler did with the ladder wood evidence. While Koehler had the satisfaction of seeing his work become part of the circumstantial evidence testimony that convicted Hauptmann, Keith's work was deemed unnecessary due to Hauptmann's weak defense, and it was never presented at trial. As an aside, I'm not so sure that was the only reason, as Keith's courtroom charts would also have had to have been much more clearly understood than his research paper, for the Hauptmann Trial jury. I'm glad Koehler's did become part of the record. His testimony that he traced rails 12 & 13 was perjury. His own reports prove it. His charade on the stand concerning the chisel was another appalling act. It completely undermined his work. Finding the ransom money in that garage led many to simply fudge, ignore, or feign ignorance about certain things. Next, if what you say was true, why would the State use perjured testimony? They aren't using good legitimate stuff while using complete BS? Doesn't make sense. Could it have been that Keith's testimony would have been neutralized by the Defense? And if so, that would harm and/or create a distraction wouldn't it? One of the things that bothers me the most is how people evaluate information they have not seen or do not know about. Fawcett's files for example. Everyone seems to "know" what the man had while at the same time didn't even know who his investigators were and will readily admit they've never read their reports. Neat trick isn't it? So because of what they did read, that means his defense was the insanity plea - it's inane. Keith's degree of certainty was in the order of one half of one thousandth of one percent probability that the two were not from one and the same production run. I'm sure the Pittsburgh Steel Co. Quality Assurance department learned something very valuable from Keith's research and his article. Yes, that was Keith's conclusion. But it wasn't the manufacturer's. The nails in the garage and in the ladder were the same common nail manufactured by Pittsburgh. It doesn't help Hauptmann for sure but Keith's conclusions are his and not the manufacturers. So it's important to be aware of all the facts which surround this.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 9, 2017 11:35:48 GMT -5
Thanks, Joe - 16!
I remembered that you were one of the people in & out of the nursery on the ladder Romeo, but thought you've been traveling incognito lately!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 9, 2017 12:27:45 GMT -5
I haven't seen statistics on burglary in a while, but when I last did, and in discussions with a few burglars, I determined that about 50% of burglars carried guns. Michael may have updates on that - if anything it's probably gone up. Also, most burglaries occur in residences where the people are believed to be not at home or asleep. In the Lindbergh Kidnapping case the occupants and perhaps guests were known to be home and assumed awake, perhaps interrupting the criminal at any time. This gives a lot more reason to be carrying a gun.
I mentioned the clubbing of Charlie with the burglar's expected gun. The criminal would have quickly used what he had in his hand to quiet the child. Even if Charlie cried some, the household was told by CAL not to interrupt his sleep. Many times head injuries are non-bleeding which could have been the case. It just seems he would have silenced Charlie rather than carry him out the window and away screaming; it was hit him, into the bag and getaway.
The reason it's important that the ladder could have been a construction ladder was that it's another possible link to Hauptmann. Why wouldn't he build a construction ladder which would fit into his car to carry to projects? He could have had plans to bid on some upper work or flat roofed buildings which the evidence ladder (in three stages) would have worked quite well for. I don't think it takes much savvy to see immediately that anyone climbing that, especially above the second joint, would be in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2017 17:40:46 GMT -5
I haven't seen statistics on burglary in a while, but when I last did, and in discussions with a few burglars, I determined that about 50% of burglars carried guns. Michael may have updates on that - if anything it's probably gone up. I don't know the statistics Jack. The prevailing theme among the men I've spoken with over the years was they did not like houses with dogs, and did not like homeowners who were armed. Typically a target was a place that offered the least amount of resistance. As an example, most Bank Robbers will hit a bank where/when they think there's less chance for blue-collar men to be there. I don't know how many times I've heard that.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 10, 2017 7:00:32 GMT -5
The important point here is that no one in the Lindbergh household reported hearing any cry. Nor did the dog bark. Anne, Betty Gow, and the Whateleys may have been instructed by CAL Sr. to ignore any crying by Charlie, but if that's the case, you have to wonder if they had known in advance that Charlie would be whisked away, or even aided in his abduction. And of course, no one could have instructed the dog not to bark - and Wahgoosh was considered to be a dog who was not on the quiet side.
So I think the idea of Hauptmann clubbing Charlie with a gun, as I said before, is a huge stretch, especially when there is nothing to definitely place Hauptmann at Highfields on the night of the purported kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2017 7:24:40 GMT -5
What kind of a victim that sleeps in a crib would have to be clubbed with a chisel or gun? We're talking about a toddler here. Would suffocation/strangulation not have been the obvious choices for the perpetrator? I don't attach any significance to Wahgoosh not barking other than to say it was unfortunate timing for him to be where he was in the house, and given the level of noise outside. And let's remember that the child was pulled from under the covers by his feet first, based on the safety pins still fastened above where his shoulders would have been. Sorry folks, but if the child's nurse is in on the plan to remove someone from the household, especially a baby, you're going to do it a bit more genteelly.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 10, 2017 8:03:22 GMT -5
Well at some point in the abduction Charlie received a head injury. The doctor said it appeared to be intentional. Of course he could have gotten it at any time during the crime, but that would have been one way of keeping him quiet so it's a consideration. Of course we'll never know if he was struck with a flashlight, a gun, chisel seems a bit of a stretch, or perhaps a fall, but the timing for a fall would have meant that he was noisy for quite a while. That's correct Joe, that he may have been suffocated, but in addition he still somehow got the head injury.
Sure, anybody from the house would have been careful taking him from the crib but where's the evidence that anyone from the house did take him from the crib?
Michael's comment about burglars avoiding dogs is a good one, because, as I've posted before, if this was a kidnapper who was getting inside information about the residence, he'd want to know if there was a dog. The normal status of the dog at the Lindbergh home was not so much that Wagoosh would be a problem, but Charlie's dog Skean normally slept just outside the nursery door (or from some authors under the crib) and would have prevented 3/1/32 from happening. It's an incredible coincidence that Skean wasn't there that night. So a kidnapper with insider information would normally pass on the Lindbergh residence as far as kidnapping Charlie was concerned.
For me that fact is enough to cross off insider information. I'm sure the "insider information buffs" will by some creative reasoning think differently about that.
Another fact on another subject that I've mentioned before, but don't remember anyone responding too, is that it's highly unlikely that anyone would be outside and below the nursery window with socks on if he didn't plan on entering the house via the window. That fact - there was someone with just socks or socks over shoes (I was told you can see the toes) on that night - means someone entered the nursery and the baby was not passed out the window.
I'm sure the "Charlie was passed out the window by a householder buffs" will by some creative reasoning think differently about that.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2017 8:40:37 GMT -5
This is a bit like Pope saying there is "no such animal as a wood expert," referring to Koehler. Fortunately, Keith wasn't satisfied with the response he got from the official at Pittsburgh Steel Co, who obviously had not considered the principles and experimental variables that Keith ultimately utilized and demonstrated. Both Koehler and Keith went well beyond what was understood at the time to advance the science and technology of their respective fields and the credit given them is well deserved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2017 11:44:28 GMT -5
As the coroner had determined the head injury was the cause of death, it doesn't mean the perpetrator had not first attempted to suffocate, strangle or anaesthetize the baby in his crib, unsuccessfully. If the child had revived itself and cried out, the head injury could well have been the coup de grace.
I don't believe anyone in that house had anything to do with the disappearance of CALjr. My point being that the method of removal, feet first from the base of the crib, points to a real kidnapping. No one in that household would have treated the baby so roughly.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 10, 2017 12:51:50 GMT -5
Hi Joe,
I, too, am with you on this being a real kidnapping, but I think the method of removal, feet first from the base of the crib needs to be looked at closely.
I know this was Condon's "realization" from Jafsie Tells All -- that the baby was killed while asleep and then yanked out from the foot of the crib.
Of course, we'll never know with certainty when and how Charlie was killed, but check this out --
Look carefully at the crib photo taken by Kelly hours after the kidnapping.
If you follow the top blanket from the pillow to the foot of the crib, you will see the blanket is then tucked UNDER the rest of the "bed clothes".
I think you'll have to agree -- Charlie was not yanked out from the foot of the crib, he was simply pulled out from the side.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 11, 2017 6:59:25 GMT -5
It could well be, Wayne. I have to admit I've never looked that closely at the configuration of the bed clothes, other than to conclude the child couldn't have been removed from the head of the bed, because of the attachment of the safety pins above the shoulders. It does appear that the length of the blanket and sheets extended beyond the length of the crib itself and were folded back, possibly as a unit, but I can't be sure. And I would hope that the crime scene photograph is indicative of the condition of the bed clothes as discovered by Betty Gow, other than for the fact she "patted down" the crib trying to locate the child.
The fact Condon made his own observation a full week after the kidnapping, makes it dated and that the bed clothes could have been re-positioned in the meantime. Michael, have you seen anything more specific in reports towards the condition of the "as found" bed clothes, that led investigators to conclude the actual method of removal?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 11, 2017 8:46:40 GMT -5
You are making the assumption that the decomposed body found in the woods was that of Charlie. Dr. Van Ingen refused to make an identification, and, as Michael shows in his book, the supposed identifications by CAL Sr. and Betty Gow seemed to be lacking in sincerity and conviction. Then, too, the overlapping toes on the right foot of the corpse did not correspond to the overlapping toes noted by Dr. Van Ingen in his letter to Mrs. Morrow summarizing Charlie's medical status. So there is no universal consensus as to the identity of that body. And, to top things off, CAL Sr, had the body immediately cremated after obtaining custody of it. So the world will never know whether that body was CAL Jr.'s or not.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 11, 2017 10:26:26 GMT -5
I'm not making any assumptions at all and believe the body found in the woods was CALjr. Length of body, age estimated to be the same, unweathered facial appearance when body turned over, size and shape of head, unclosed fontanelle, curly golden hair, (later discovered to have the same nodes running along the hair shafts) dimpled chin, number of teeth, overlapping toes, same shirt hand sewn by Betty Gow with scalloped edges matching the remaining fabric, same blue Silko thread. None of us are coroners and we weren't there, but there are many individual points of identification that make that a more than reasonable conclusion for the sake of argument and advancing the truth here. But then, I also have no time or patience for modern day Lindbergh Babies, so maybe I'm a bit biased too. Given the insane media frenzy and the deplorable actions of a few leading up to the coffin shot debacle, I'm not surprised that Lindbergh had his son cremated directly after the autopsy. Other than Van Ingen's initial refusal to make an identity, what tells you this was anyone other than CALjr?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 11, 2017 12:27:31 GMT -5
To Joe and All:
The body found in the woods, or more accurately, parts of a body found in the woods, was too decomposed to identify, and Dr. Van Ingen rightfully refused to do so. And there s one highly significant point here that many have overlooked and cannot be spun: The living Clarlie, according to Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow, had an overlapping of his right LATERAL toes. The corpse, on the other hand, had an overlapping of the right MEDIAL toes. If Dr. Van Ingen was not in error in his letter to Mrs. Morrow, there is no way on earth to explain this discrepancy between the body and the living Charlis. In other words, if Dr. Van Ingen was not in error in his letter to Mrs. Morrow, the partial body found in the woods was NOT that of Charlie!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 11, 2017 17:15:05 GMT -5
well how come the father and the nursemaid identified him it was Charlie. ive heard this crap to many years
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2017 19:59:22 GMT -5
Michael, have you seen anything more specific in reports towards the condition of the "as found" bed clothes, that led investigators to conclude the actual method of removal? The only thing I can add is to refer you to pages 126, 147, and 151 of my book. On these pages I show where both Lindbergh and Bornmann claimed the bedding was completely undisturbed, but that by the time Kelly got there the bedding was, according to him, "disarranged."
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 11, 2017 23:38:09 GMT -5
well how come the father and the nursemaid identified him it was Charlie. ive heard this crap to many years Read Michael's book regarding the antics at the funeral parlor surrounding the supposed ID of the body by CAL Sr. and Betty Gow. Disingenuous comes to mind as a description of their behavior. Dr. Van Ingen refused to do so. And if you understand the difference between "medial" and "lateral," you'll see that, barring a mistake by Dr. Van Ingen in his letter to Mrs. Morrow, the corpse was NOT that of Charlie. You can't rule out the possibility that CAL Sr. and Betty Gow gave false identifications with a motive of closure in the "kidnapping" aspect of the case. ( Plus the media had prematurely identified the body as Charlie prior to their viewing of the body.) Declaring Charlie officially dead benefited both of them by (1) distancing themselves from possible culpability in Charlie's disappearance and (2) stopping further ransom extortion demands against CAL Sr.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 12, 2017 10:36:56 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, based on the fact the bedding appears relatively arranged, I would assume then that Kelly's photograph demonstrates more or less, a re-enactment of its condition as discovered by Betty Gow.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2017 15:58:58 GMT -5
Look carefully at the crib photo taken by Kelly hours after the kidnapping. If you follow the top blanket from the pillow to the foot of the crib, you will see the blanket is then tucked UNDER the rest of the "bed clothes". I think you'll have to agree -- Charlie was not yanked out from the foot of the crib, he was simply pulled out from the side. In order to help visualize this - here's is Wayne's diagram (as well as another picture of the crib): Attachment Deleted Attachment DeletedThanks Michael, based on the fact the bedding appears relatively arranged, I would assume then that Kelly's photograph demonstrates more or less, a re-enactment of its condition as discovered by Betty Gow. I don't know how to explain it Joe, but you are certainly right that Kelly was the one who snapped these two pictures of the crib.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Apr 13, 2017 6:52:30 GMT -5
Based on the bedding being tucked under at the foot of the crib, I believe Wayne is correct and that the baby was probably removed from the side of the crib. In a scenario where the baby was smothered before being removed, this would place the kidnapper alongside and more toward the head of the crib. Once the body was lifeless, he would have realized the safety pins were holding back the covers near the baby's head. At this point, he would just lift the covers, reach under and pull the baby out by the legs or torso. The baby's high chair was positioned at the foot of the crib, and the height of the end rails and corner spindles would have made it awkward and unnecessary to stand there.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 14, 2017 8:47:08 GMT -5
I only went halfway up. I cant see anybody using the third rail it looks shaky when its together if it had to be used I don't think it would have worked. that's my opinion being exposed to a replica ladder
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2017 8:32:01 GMT -5
Why did Shippel say that he hated and distrusted Lindbergh because of his 11 year old daughter (Shippel's daughter) Daws overheard him saying negative things about both Lindbergh and the NJSP. I believe it had to do with the fact that, because of the crime investigation, the SP broke into his home, rummaged through his belongings, then took what they wanted - all while he wasn't there. Needless to say he was upset about that.
|
|