|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 24, 2012 20:24:38 GMT -5
how much differnce are you talking about? i got a good idea of how the kidnapper got up the ladder at the scene of the crime. no reenactment is perfect, but its better then the nonsense that the kidnapper went through the front door. i think only 2 sections was used. whats staring in my face?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 20:27:49 GMT -5
Some of the Lone-Wolf people speculate that Hauptmann did it because of what happened to the Red Baron. Anything to show Hauptmann was doing it completely by himself in order to make it fit....
The "Revenge" Theory is an interesting one. But I have to ask that if you aren't doing it for the money then why risk collecting it? You could torture the Lindbergh Family for an eternity by not doing so. Why return the child? By doing that, you stop an infinate amount of Nut Cases and/or Extortionists pretending to be the Kidnappers. So both moves actually assist Lindbergh.
So at least some were in it for (the) money as far as I am concerned. I think we should be asking why, whoever had the dead child, would feel obligated to make sure the child was "returned."
I call this the "Conscientious Kidnapper" Theory. And there's more to support this position as well. The "would I burn" statement. The "Red Johnson is innocent" claim. The "tears" in his eyes. The complete trust in Condon. And the refusal of the $20K because they were supposed to have believed Lindy needed the money. Heck, was Cemetery John Abe Lincoln reincarnated?
Then there's the "Manipulated Woman" Theory. Both Inspector Walsh AND Hauptmann himself hypothesized that if a woman were involved it would be for love or emotional reasons.
This list goes on and on.... It could have been done for multiple reasons, and this itself could show that more then one person was involved for their own personal agenda or angle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 20:47:47 GMT -5
I wasn't there. You were there and part of it. Shouldn't you be telling me that? It reminds me of Script drawing conclusions on the handwriting first then examining the Ransom Notes later so as to support his conclusions.
I can accept that if you give me your reasons about what you disagree with Kevin about first. It's like what he has proven never happened.
I agree. But in doing one you must act in good faith by doing your absolute best to replicate the original situation. Then you have to allow for error. You don't fudge then tell us it proves what you have already believed.
William Allen went in the woods, and not on my leg.
The front door scenario was one that LINDBERGH himself accepted. I know something about that which is block-buster enough for my book... Stay tuned here.
If you really believe that I think you should prove it by climbing an actual replica at the exact height and angle by placing your foot with full weight on the top rung.
When faced with that scenario, I am willing to bet you will change your mind in a hurry. Why? Because the ladder will scissor, and you will fall. It wasn't designed for it and it wasn't used that way for exactly that reason.
I am going to defer to Kevin on this for future discussions on these points.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 21:00:57 GMT -5
You look 37 in this photo Steve. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 24, 2012 21:08:39 GMT -5
i think i just hit 50. the ladder didnt scissor the way your claiming. im confused on who your thinking im disagreeing with kelvin? kevin? kelvin was at hopewell with the replica. i really dont think the third section was used
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 24, 2012 21:12:32 GMT -5
If you think 2 sections were used, then you have to accept Hauptmann had an accomplice.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 24, 2012 21:18:15 GMT -5
Michael, you and Kevin are saying all three pieces of the ladder were used. This is interesting. Refresh my memory--why did the police believe only two were used? I’m not disagreeing with you—I’ve never had any opinion at all about this subject.
I will also be very interested in that blockbuster about the front door you mention. Both Wendel and Curtis’s alleged informant mentioned a ladder entry and a front-door exit. However discreditable those two may have been, I’ve always felt the risks of a front-door exit might not have been greater than trying to go down the ladder with the kid.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 21:18:17 GMT -5
I believe this is Sweeny which shows the 3 sections in use and the ladder placement. If you compare it with where Steve is its much different. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 21:33:38 GMT -5
BR,
Kevin demonstrated that the 3 sections were designed to fit into the louvers of the shutter in order to add stability. It's almost a perfect fit. If two sections were employed it was to open the shutters only. I am going to stop talking about Kevin's research and let him explain it.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 24, 2012 21:41:02 GMT -5
i dont think hauptmann had help, i think only two sections were used
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 24, 2012 22:55:09 GMT -5
Actually, I don’t think Hauptmann used two OR three sections. I think he used 50,000 sections, because that’s how many he would have needed to reach the nursery window from Fredericksen’s bakery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2012 8:30:02 GMT -5
It's possible BR. Manley believed he was there, and despite being very sick dragged himself to Flemington to make sure his voice was heard. Add the man who brought Manley's name to the attention of the Defense to the laundry list of people threatened with death due to his involvement. But even with him in the Bronx it doesn't mean he wasn't involved. There is nothing black and white about this Crime from beginning to end because if there were - the issues would have all been answered. But we're getting there. Slowly but surely. Getting back to Steve's picture on the ladder.... Again, I wasn't at this "test" to see whether or not 2 sections could have been used. But if this picture is indicative of the ladder placement for this "experiment" I can see why Steve believes it was do-able. Assuming it is how they conducted their test - that 2nd section is too high on the side of the house. The height can be accounted for in this way: - The yard is higher now then it was then.
- The yard was muddy then and the ladder rails actually sank into the ground. I would give the measurements but I don't need people doing damage control by claiming they did account for it and throw my numbers back at me. (If they took that circumstance into consideration they will be able to tell you exactly what they were).
Now as to the placement... Was this ladder almost directly under the Nursery Window or was it further to the right - according to the Rail Holes in the mud?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2012 8:31:07 GMT -5
Did he have a Strudel or a Danish?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 25, 2012 10:37:52 GMT -5
i didnt know that theres comedians on this site
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 25, 2012 10:38:45 GMT -5
right of the window because any more right you cant get in
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2012 11:03:50 GMT -5
It may be funny, but it also has relevance if you give it some thought. So you are saying 2 sections to the right and at the angle that the holes locate it? Ever try to open a sash weight double hung window from that position? Do you think he swung over using the shutter? How about the exit? What would keep the ladder from moving to the right as he tried to get his foot on it? Did you guys ever try this maneuver? Did anyone you know ever climb an unreinforced kidnap ladder in two sections and at that angle? I mean I am 100% in favor of re-enactments. But what's the point of a re-enactment if it is incomplete and inaccurate?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 25, 2012 11:03:59 GMT -5
I always thought the ladder was placed to the right of the window. Also, was the window itself open or was it just the shutters that were unable to be closed?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2012 11:07:16 GMT -5
Correct, to the right. Window unlocked, shutters unlocked but to what " fixed as best" means, I am unsure.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 25, 2012 11:13:15 GMT -5
If it was placed to the right, what would be the purpose of designing it to perfectly fit the louvers of the shutters as Michael points out?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 25, 2012 13:31:31 GMT -5
Michael and Kevin, what you are saying about all 3 sections of the ladder being used is interesting. I believe this crime was a very well-planned and well-executed one, and it makes sense that they (or he) wouldn’t have carried an extra section if it wasn’t needed.
However, it seems to have been the consensus of the police on the scene that only two sections were used. In fact, Gardner just matter-of-factly says (p. 29) “only two were used.” How do we account for the conclusion of the original investigators? Glancing at materials, I gather that they thought entry from a 2-section ladder would be easier than from three; also, in the yard, the third section was found a little ways away from the other two. Was there any other reason they had?
Lightningjew, I believe that the ladder being to the right of the window is still consistent with fitting into the shutter, inasmuch as the shutter is to the right of the window, like in the black-and-white photo Michael posted. I guess we could say—it’s to the right, but not too far to the right?
However, I do have questions about this. Michael, you say that it was designed to fit into the louvers of the shutter and was almost a perfect fit. Does this imply that the perpetrator had inspected the shutters from close-up—or were such louvers of standard enough dimensions that he wouldn’t have needed to do that?
Also, if the 3-piece ladder was designed to fit into the louver, what was the purpose? Was it to help stabilize the ladder? I presume it wasn’t to keep the shutter from flapping, since no one could have predicted a gale would be blowing when the thing was built.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2012 14:25:56 GMT -5
To start, the ladder was found with section one and two still connected and the rails split. The third section was not far from the two. For the record, not having been there that night, I can not say what configurations were employed or how many times. What I know is the 2 section ladder is short and if located where the holes were, too far to the right unless someone was footing the ladder and helping to get the child out. The three section ladder fits nicely between the frame rails of the shutter and it would be possible, though still difficult, for one person to enter and exit. There is nothing that I know of that would make putting it up multiple times impossible, especially if they used the boardwalk as well as the earth.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 25, 2012 16:33:40 GMT -5
i dont think the third section was used, why then, in a hurry take the third section off? leave the other two locked?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 25, 2012 17:24:48 GMT -5
Hey Kevkon, Have never been able to figure where the ladder broke. If we're seeing the two sections, for now up against the house, I'm guessing it must have been a rail nearest to the shutter/window? Was it an upper part of the rail or the lower part, closer to where the two sections met? Also, weren't there marks against the wall where the top of the second section rested against the house? Appreciate ya.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2012 21:13:56 GMT -5
James Oscar FarrellFrom the Verbatim Report of Conversation Between Evalyn Walsh Mclean and James Oscar Farrell at Friendship, Washington, D.C. January 13, 1934: Yes, I have positive knowledge advance arrangements was made and carried through by the butler in the Colonel's home and the maid in the Morrow home, namely Wheatly and Violet Sharp - both of them now deceased - its unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 25, 2012 22:05:55 GMT -5
What exactly was this positive knowledge about Whately and Sharpe?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2012 22:45:14 GMT -5
I am having a hard time keeping up with this thread. Farrell is in the FBI Summary Report - and since they actually did investigate him - there is listed some reliable information concerning him starting on page 399. I have the referenced Conference (which they refer to and I quoted above). I've written him off but that doesn't mean it isn't worth looking into. I usually find something important even when there's an investigation about someone who is a Con-Artist.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 26, 2012 0:15:42 GMT -5
Michael, thank you for finding out that this was Farrell. I agree that this thread has split into too many directions. Being administrator of this board is obviously not an easy job. At some point, I think those of us so inclined should chip in and buy you a gift in appreciation.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 26, 2012 8:48:31 GMT -5
Hi Mairi, The second section had splits in the rail. The split went from the bottom through the dowel hole and up to the closest rung or #5.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2012 7:42:08 GMT -5
Mairi: You didn't have to move over the Ladder thread. Our discussion here has gone just about everywhere...but that's what the general thread was intended to cover because we all know one thing leads to another.
BR: Thanks for the pat on the back. I said that because I had reached back in answering your question and there had been some after so I wasn't able to keep up at the time of the post.
As far as the shutters being a standard size? I don't know - that's one for Kevin. I wouldn't expect someone to guess however, so I believe it at least shows they had specific information. How that happened is up to us to debate.
LJ: For my money, the design was meant for an open shutter. Of course I would not have known that if it weren't for Kevin. The Police didn't go with that because there were some marks on the wall which they believed was evidence that 2 sections were employed. As Steve pointed out, the ladder had been together at the 2 sections but not the 3rd when it was found. Next, the Rail divots in the mud do not indicate the ladder was up more then once. As Kevin suggested, it could have been on that board-walk too (and not the mud) during one or more times. I also suppose the ladder could have been placed exactly in those holes again, but that would suggest a staged event - so the Police weren't allowed to consider it.
What they did was consider multiple parties climbing into that Nursery with the idea of being quick about it. Not taking their time by raising and lowering the ladder multiple times. So they went with what evidence they had staring them in the face and avoided anything that suggested otherwise - most especially as time went on.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 27, 2012 8:26:45 GMT -5
The size of shutters that actually work are determined by the size of the windows they cover. In terms of width that would usually be 30" to 40" on a bedroom window. Height can vary much more but is not a consideration here. In other words, someone would obviously need to see the house, ie case it out, but not have go up and measure the shutters.
|
|