|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 8:35:44 GMT -5
Where can I obtain the best quality Springfield pictures of the ladder?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 30, 2012 4:00:57 GMT -5
Can someone point good quality pictures of the nail holes in Rail 16 taken before Bornmanns discovery please?
I'm assumming they were the Springfield pictures?
Thanks.
Also, if anyone has the pictures Hoffman was talking about where he said there were no holes that would be good as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2012 19:09:18 GMT -5
This is the best (close-up) shot I have of the William B. Springfield picture he took for the Acme Newspicture Syndicate on the morning of March 2, 1932: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2012 19:13:13 GMT -5
In case you think the picture isn't authentic or it was taken some other time I have Springfield's Statement where he verifies it.
I understand why you would want to see this and I have always wanted to see it myself. I've searched every inch of the NJSP Archives and this photo just isn't there. I was hoping to come acrossed it in a magazine or something but that's never happened either.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 31, 2012 1:39:38 GMT -5
Thanks Michael.
Am I supposed to be seeing nail holes somewhere in that picture?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2012 7:07:07 GMT -5
Yes, you are supposed to see (3). Sorry about the photo but its the best I have. They are there, and if you take that picture and hold it against Rail 16 itself its clear they are the exact same. (I've done it myself) I believe the one hole Dr. Hudson remembered was not any of these (3) but the one which wasn't in this picture.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 31, 2012 11:31:19 GMT -5
Well I don't see them - possibly one (the black dot on the far rail), and considering how important this is I'm surprised no one has got good quality pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2012 13:16:11 GMT -5
I don't because they are at the NJSP Archives. Once I saw them I really didn't find the need to get better photos then the one's I have. Regardless, Steve suggested you look through Kelvin Keraga's Report and the holes are pointed out within: The rest of this Report has a lot of good stuff in it, some speculation, and some questionable/misleading things (in my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 3:23:14 GMT -5
Considering the imporatance of this, I don't think that the pictures in Kergas report are very convincing. N-2? Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 4:22:17 GMT -5
A history of the particluar Springfield picture in question would be very interesting.
Does such a thing exist?
Are ALL his Lindbergh case pictures documented in chronological sequence anywhere?
Any defence lawyer today would be asking these questions.
You have to turn over every stone.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jul 1, 2014 14:41:48 GMT -5
If I were defending Hauptmann how would I respond to the research done by Kelvin Keraga and the Springfield picture? As many responses as possible please!!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2014 17:21:49 GMT -5
If I were defending Hauptmann how would I respond to the research done by Kelvin Keraga and the Springfield picture? As many responses as possible please!!! I think anyone who has ever looked at the ladder evidence has looked at the Springfield Photo with suspicion. Dr. Hudson's testimony that he only saw (1) hole on Rail 16 doesn't mesh with this picture. So here we are, and I am not sure what Keraga's Report has to do with it honestly. It's important that he included it but there's nothing new outside of a mysterious photo we do not get to see which he asserts shows the "missing" hole cut off in the Springfield photo. The bottom line is if the Springfield photo predates Dr. Hudson's handling of that ladder then the whole question about the nail holes is a dead issue. Now, since I am 100% certain concerning the true situation ( Purdy-Klein Theory) this question will cause me to play "Devil's Advocate" to which I am no stranger and I am happy to do... If I were now representing Hauptmann and the question of the (4) square nail holes has been proven which upsets Dr. Hudson's testimony, I would argue from every angle I had left available - and there are many. My first would be the quickest and easiest. That would be to use the NJ State Police's own Expert findings against them. During the late '70's, the NJSP conducted a "review" of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Evidence. They re-examined the ladder to determine the type of wood used. Rung 11 and Rail 17 were positively identified as Douglas Fir. All other wood was found to be either yellow pine or ponderosa pine or a combination thereof since distinction cannot be made soley on the minuate structure. BOTH a Wood Expert from Rutgers University AND an Expert from the FPL were consulted in an attempt to identify these pieces but they all confirmed the NJSP findings. And so if it cannot be said that S-226 and Rail 16 were the same species of pine, and could possibly be different kinds of pine, then I would submit it cannot be concluded they were once the same board regardless of the Springfield Photo.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 1, 2014 20:22:30 GMT -5
What is the Purdy-Klein theory?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2014 4:52:56 GMT -5
What is the Purdy-Klein theory? Both Rab Purdy and Kevin Klein independently brought up the possibility, years apart, that the Electricians were the ones who removed that Attic Board. Once this is properly looked at and given the attention it deserves - it works and makes sense of everything that follows.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jul 2, 2014 12:03:58 GMT -5
Michael, I am aware of Purdy. Do me a favor and post what you have on "Purdy-Klein." That would be a big help with my defense plan. I always had issues with Rail 16 and S 226 but never discussed it much when I spent the summer of 1983 in New Jersey. Cornel didn't have any idea how I could come to any conclusion about them being two different pieces of wood. One day Col. Paganio came down the "Research Room," that's what it was called then, to see how I was doing. I explained my thoughts on Rail 16 and S226.His comment was simple and direct,"Alll one piece Dave, all one piece."
I would be very grateful for anyone's input !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 14:55:12 GMT -5
Hi Dave,
Nice to see you back on the board. Hope all is well with you. I am glad to see that you are still going forward with your defense of Richard Hauptmann. It should make for some very interesting and thought provoking posts.
The whole wood/ladder issue is something that I not well versed on so I won't waste alot of your thread space by posting on it. I would have way too many questions instead of answers for you. Since you asked Michael about the Purdy-Klein Theory I am going to post a portion of it here because I have a question (of course) about it myself.
BRH has designed his ladder and compiled a metal "laundry" list. He does not want to leave an association between himself and the finish product so purchasing all the material at one place is out. He carefully picks up boards from a variety of sources without having to actually purchase any. In his landlord's basement he finds a number of pieces of "scrap" and leftover lumber. One piece, a section of 1x6 tg flooring, though not his first choice due to it's width is taken and , perhaps, some pieces of Ponderosa Pine. Now what he doesn't know is that this particular board is actually a part of his own attic floor. Removed awhile back, probably as a result of the needs of the electrician so as to be able to drill down thru the top wall plate and feed wire. Well ignorance is bliss and BRH goes to work on his ladder. In the course of laying and cutting out the mortises he uses one rail board as a story pole or template. Somewhere in this process or in the nail-up he makes an error and has a compromised rail. No problem, remembering that 1x6 he retrieves it, rips it down and he has his rail.
I think that this is an excellent theory. My question is "What date did the electricians work up in the attic when this piece of floorboard was removed"? Max Rauch, Hauptmann's landlord was ready to swear on a stack of Bibles that the attic flooring was intact when he inspected it two weeks before Hauptmann moved into the apartment in October of 1931 I think it was. Please correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jul 2, 2014 17:58:25 GMT -5
When it comes to defending Hauptmann for me, I say again for me, there are only two problems. Rail 16 and how it relates to S226, and the second is a letter Hauptmann wrote. The form of the letter, I think Michael posted it on this site, is very close to the first ransom note. The "Dear Sir" has ALWAYS been a problem for me. Both issues are going to take a lot of work. I really don't have a lot of worry about the other aspects of the case.
We had a DVD signing in London last night and today are getting ready to fly back to the States. (Check out The Unbelievers.) I'm a little slow today!
I have a lot of material that Hauptmann's friends gave me over the years. Most of it deals with period of jumping off the ship to the winter of 1931. It helps me understand the man. I've been around him, his family and his friends, since 1981. (I think Manfred and his wife are still alive, but everyone else is dead.) You know I have to say I kind of like the guy. Remember the old "what five people would you invite to dinner?" For me he would be one of the five.
Thanks for any suggestions!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2014 20:46:04 GMT -5
I think that this is an excellent theory. My question is "What date did the electricians work up in the attic when this piece of floorboard was removed"? Max Rauch, Hauptmann's landlord was ready to swear on a stack of Bibles that the attic flooring was intact when he inspected it two weeks before Hauptmann moved into the apartment in October of 1931 I think it was. Please correct me if I am wrong. The roof paper, shingles, and attic flooring were delivered to the site for Koski sometime in June of '26. The Electricians were hired in early August, so I can only assume they started to work shortly thereafter. They had no interest in preserving a rough attic flooring which was in the way of their job as evidenced by the way this board was cut away from the floor. Like Koehler testified - a Carpenter would not leave a board hanging over a joist in this way - he would have cut it "flush" with the beam. Wasn't Hauptmann a Carpenter? So who would? An Electrician trying to finish his job perhaps? You're right concerning what Rauch said. He absolutely did say that. He also TESTIFIED that about a week after 9-26-34, he went into the attic and saw an 8 ft. section of one board missing from the attic floor. That would have been damning evidence excepting that Bornmann had claimed on 9-26-34 that he too saw an 8 ft. piece missing which caused him to have the other half pulled up and removed from the attic. That would positively mean the whole board would have been missing and not just the half Rauch claimed to have noticed. How do we reconcile this? Next remember the Plumber, Gus Miller, said when he went up to check out the leak in August of '34 he saw there was no missing attic floor piece at that time. Considering these facts - just these - and can anyone say they trust Rauch's recollection concerning October '31? I could go on and on because there's much more... For example, Rauch hated Hauptmann and wanted to do anything he could to help the Prosecution. Reading his testimony further, he claimed that he was the Contractor for the construction of the house. He absolutely was NOT - so I wonder what stock he has left after committing perjury? My opinion is, considering my belief the Electricians did remove that piece of S-226, is that one did not see what they weren't looking for. And so both Miller and Rauch probably did not see that missing piece. Rauch either lied about not seeing it or, just as Miller missed it, had no reason to look for it and therefore missed it himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 10:50:22 GMT -5
Exactly! When you look closely at the pictures of the attic floor you can see where it was necessary for the electricians to remove that piece of board to run the wire you see in that area. They could not have done that without cutting that piece out. In my opinion, the Purdy-Klein theory is correct. Of course, accepting this theory means that Rail 16 was once part of S-226, does it not? So the only way to get around this would be to prove they are not the same board. Gosh, Dave really has given himself quite a challenge!
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jul 3, 2014 22:19:51 GMT -5
amie how can the purdy klein theory be correct when rail16 and 226 is the same piece of wood? people have tried to prove otherwise but never could
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 8:45:30 GMT -5
Hey Steve,
I think that the theory is correct. The theory is saying that rail 16 and S226 are the same piece of wood. The theory claims that the electricians cut that piece of board out of the attic space instead of Hauptmann. It is still the same piece of wood. Hauptmann retrieved that cut piece of board to use in the ladder from Rauch's basement. He just didn't cut the board out of the attic. Someone else did. It doesn't make Hauptmann any less guilty of building that ladder. When you look at the pictures of the attic you can see how that piece of board (that would become rail 16) needed to be removed in order for the electricians to feed that electrical line through the ceiling that is below the attic floor. I think that the Purdy-Klein theory is a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2014 9:08:41 GMT -5
Exactly right Amy. It answers ALL the questions which surround and are created by the absurdities we are expected to accept in order to believe Hauptmann took down the shelves, then climbed up and crawled through the trap door - only to just begin to cannibalize the toe-board! Then were expected to believe he left part of S-226 hanging over the joist. Then comes the lies and misrepresentation of the situation by the Police adding to the speculation it was because they "replaced" Rail 16 and manipulated the attic scene. It seems to me, that it better suited their position if only Hauptmann had access, which would be the attic, and not a situation where multiple parties could have gained access to that board - like the basement. So there's a degree of wrong-doing, just not to the level that it appears. The flooring was laid, the Electrician (getting paid by the job and not the hour) gets that piece out of his way to do his job. "That piece" is tossed out the window, and winds up in the basement with all of the others scraps and left-overs from the job. Hauptmann is told to use whatever he likes there to build his garage, and "Rail 16" is eventually put into that ladder without even Hauptmann having any idea it came from that attic. That is why he's recorded as laughing about the possibility of him stealing lumber from his attic floor knowing he did no such thing. This satisfies every situation - to include Mrs. Rauch not hearing the board being sawed and removed because she absolutely would have. That's the other thing that seems to get "missed." She was a "busy-body" who was always home, disliked Hauptmann as much as her son Tobias (Max) did, and it was well documented there were conversations she overheard through the walls that she spoke to Police about.
Again, this theory solves everything.
I would think people who always believed Hauptmann was involved would be embracing it. But surprisingly they don't seem to. It's like they're so "locked-in" that any deviation is a sort of admission to being wrong - even if it proves they were right. It's the type of thing I warn against while doing research, not just here, but anywhere. It's not always "black" or "white" and all shades of grey must be considered as well.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jul 4, 2014 13:46:48 GMT -5
what deviation mike? the fact is it was on the kidnap ladder and hauptmann had acess to the attic. as far as rauch hearing anything, I was up in that attic and don't forget rauch lived two floors down she might not have heard the sawing or she might have been out of the house. it would have been a good experiment when I was up there
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2014 16:13:28 GMT -5
what deviation mike? the fact is it was on the kidnap ladder and hauptmann had acess to the attic. as far as rauch hearing anything, I was up in that attic and don't forget rauch lived two floors down she might not have heard the sawing or she might have been out of the house. it would have been a good experiment when I was up there I think you're missing my point because the fact that only Anna and Hauptmann had access is exactly why the idea of the board being in the basement wouldn't have been a situation they wanted. I am certain they knew the true situation which accounts for the various things they said or wrote that was not true. It also accounts for what Kelly told Mary Magill concerning framing evidence. It just wasn't as extreme, and not the "framing" that everyone had in mind. About Mrs. Rauch, I don't know how you could hold that position when she could repeat conversations that were taking place in Hauptmann's apartment. She certainly would have heard it, and would have been even more angry about that then when she heard the baby cry. Sometimes common sense must prevail, and when something answers everything while at the same time allows for that too - then it's pretty hard to resist it as a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jul 4, 2014 18:03:41 GMT -5
we don't know if she was home or not. we really don't know if she could have heard it. my guess is nobody was home including his wife. I saw that closet that you had to climb, for me it would have been a pain in the ass
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 22, 2014 22:37:53 GMT -5
To romeo12 et al:
So is the place where Hauptmann lived in the Bronx currently still intact? What is its status? Is it considered an historical landmark?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jul 24, 2014 8:11:01 GMT -5
its not a landmark, the attic has a pull down stairway now instead of climbing the closet. the pantry shelf of the famous shoebox is still intact, the attic looks the same. I went into the babys closet where they got found the wood piece with condons phone number on it. people think Hauptman built the ladder in the attic. I don't think so its hot and not a good place to measure and bang nails at, that's just my opinion being up there
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 27, 2014 18:07:48 GMT -5
To romeo12:
There's something I don't quite understand. I suppose the house is vacant if you gained access to it, and no one lives there at present. So do you have to notify the owner before you get in there? Or is it kind of a museum where all are welcome?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jul 27, 2014 18:19:20 GMT -5
nobody is allowed in the house anymore. the house at the time was not vacant. we lucked out. the guy and his wife who rented the upstairs apt which was hauptmanns, got a kick out of us in the beginning, but his mother who owned the house put a stop to it
|
|