kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 19, 2012 10:42:32 GMT -5
I thought I would start a thread in which we could eliminate some of the confusion relating to this case. There are numerous examples of false and misleading claims that have developed and taken on a life of their own in this case. Let's see if we can clear the field a bit. I'll start with the often heard claim that the child died as a result of the ladder breaking. - There's absolutely no evidence of the ladder breaking where it was erected.
- There's no evidence of any impact on the ground
- There is no evidence of the required footprints to recover the body fro such a fall
Eliminated
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 19, 2012 11:01:28 GMT -5
I thought I would start a thread in which we could eliminate some of the confusion relating to this case. There are numerous examples of false and misleading claims that have developed and taken on a life of their own in this case. Let's see if we can clear the field a bit. I'll start with the often heard claim that the child died as a result of the ladder breaking. - There's absolutely no evidence of the ladder breaking where it was erected.
- There's no evidence of any impact on the ground
- There is no evidence of the required footprints to recover the body fro such a fall
EliminatedGreat idea Kevkon!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 19, 2012 15:09:29 GMT -5
Another good one Kevkon. I've always why Anna didn't dump Richard figuring that sooner or later something would hit the fan. It would have been pretty difficult for me to have hidden $ 15k from my wife. No matter how dumb we're led to believe Anna was, you'd certainly think she'd eventually think there was something fishy going on (no pun intended).
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 19, 2012 15:11:30 GMT -5
sb "I've always wondered..."
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 20, 2012 9:58:53 GMT -5
great post!
if the ladder didn't break in use, when did it break? surely they would not use an already broken ladder? or, how did it break while being carried away?
would a child in a bag (one theory) leave much of an impression on the ground? sorry, i don't want to sound cold-hearted, but would a child that age be more "crushable" than an older child? what if he had the soft-bones/skull or some such condition that some claim?
would there need to be footprints to recover that body? would not the body have fallen near the bottom of the ladder where presumably the culprit would end up was as well?
not saying i disagree, just seeking more insight into your theory.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2012 11:19:37 GMT -5
Break and fail are two entirely different things. The point is, though we will never know when the ladder's rail split we can determine that it did not fail in place.
It really doesn't matter and I really don't want to get into the "soft skull" issue here. There is no indentation in the very soft soil below. More importantly, there where no marks or prints from the actions required to retrieve a fallen object.
Imagine that the child dropped. Can you imagine the response by the kidnapper? He's been pretty careful so far, but this is unexpected. There's no doubt that there would be collateral evidence relating to the actions or movements of the kidnapper.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 20, 2012 12:35:40 GMT -5
Scratch marks on the wall indicated that it did fail in place. Unfortunately no forensics at that time and atrocious crime scene, so no splinters were found in the dirt below the window. But something had to have made those scratch marks and the ladder fit.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2012 16:30:14 GMT -5
That's a pretty strange conclusion. Have you seen the photo of those marks?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 20, 2012 18:25:47 GMT -5
Yes I have - they are drag marks. So no longer how long you'd like to argue it, which I admit is kinda fun, unless Officer Wolfe found the ladder on 3/1/32 and put it up against the house and climbed it and it broke, the ladder had something to do with the kidnapping. You've been professing wood evidence for about ten years - suddenly you disavow it? What makes a conclusion strange? But it really doesn't matter Kevkon, iz all a game.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2012 20:03:16 GMT -5
And this is why myths won't die. That was a trick question, Jack, Sorry
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 21, 2012 0:56:28 GMT -5
I have seen photos of the marks - never been there - do you think the police created them? So what are you trying to say? That the ladder was a prop? Doesn't sound iike what you've been saying for the last ten years. If the ladder was a prop then Lindbergh was a culprit.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 1, 2012 7:37:41 GMT -5
The ladder could not support more than 150 lbsOk, I think we have all read this claim in one or more of the many books on this crime. Usually it is attributed to the NJSP though I am not sure who specifically first stated it and how they made this determination. What I do know is that it has been used as the basis for two completely opposite claims. One being that the 150 lb limit was exceeded with the combination of the climber and the child and thus the resultant faailure resulted in a fall. I have already addressed the fall issue. The other claim is that no one could climb the ladder as it was too weak and therefore it was only a prop. Well the ladder can hold a lot more than 150 lbs. I built a replica using the exact methods and materials found in the original. I set up the ladder at the same angle it was set at Highfields that night using both dimensions of the holes and the mark on the wall. I then attached a 50 gal can to the rungs with a digital weight gauge and proceeded to fill the can with water. While the can was filling I was able to observe the reaction of the ladder as weight was added. What I found was that the ladder could hold far more than 150 lbs. In fact, I could not get it to fail even with over 240 lbs ( at which point I could no longer add any more weight). Here are some pictures; And here is photo of the impressions in the ground. Look familiar?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 1, 2012 8:51:13 GMT -5
Great photos. But what're some thoughts as to why the ladder was found broken?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2012 8:56:55 GMT -5
That's a great piece of work Kevin and an excellent visual demonstration! Although the experiment doesn't account for any sudden or lateral forces, the point is well made here that this ladder had the capability of being climbed by someone, familiar with its limitations but well beyond the weight estimated by investigators.
ps.. what's your camera?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 1, 2012 9:53:11 GMT -5
LJ, it's really impossible to determine what caused the ladder to have the splits found that night. My guess is that the split(s) may have started while in use but the actual completion of the split probably occurred when it was tossed on the ground. With no load on it, a sudden impact can cause that to happen. Joe, thanks! Although I couldn't show it, I actually did some lateral tests by swing the filled barrel. Once again, no failure. Also not shown, I probably added another 30 to 40 lbs to the 240 lbs, still no failure. The only thing that indicated a potential failure was that the withdrawel force for the nails holding the top cleat was reached and they started to pull out. I use a Canon PowerShot SD1000. It's LKC approved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2012 10:14:57 GMT -5
I agree with Joe - great research (as always) Kevin!
Now let's get to the above answer to LJ's question because its bothering me a little..... I am having a hard time envisioning this ladder (perhaps even just this section) being tossed onto the ground and the Rail splitting like it was found - most especially where it was found.
So I guess my question to you is this: Is it possible the split occurred before the crime and they used it anyway? If so, what weight could it hold under these circumstances?
I am thinking outloud here.... Isn't it possible when the ladder was pulled from the car nested that it was tossed onto a harder surface creating a crack, then once it was acutally employed the damage became worse?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 1, 2012 10:43:57 GMT -5
my friend kel keraga also built a replica ladder, he told me it might have split because the dowel pin hole was to close to the end of the rail
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 1, 2012 10:44:12 GMT -5
my friend kel keraga also built a replica ladder, he told me it might have split because the dowel pin hole was to close to the end of the rail
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 1, 2012 10:57:33 GMT -5
I think Michael's idea for how the splits occured is possible. Kevin, could another explanation for the split rails possibly be that the sections slapped together when the ladder was being taken down (I'm also trying to account for the falling crate/breaking wood sound Lindbergh said he heard)? I mean, are the splits consistent with that kind of action (sections slapping together too hard)?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 1, 2012 14:51:53 GMT -5
LJ, I don't know how much due I give the account of the crate noise. For one thing, he said it came from the Kitchen direction. For another, the ladder just doesn't make that type of noise when it splits. It's actually kinda quiet.
As for when the splits occurred, as I said there really is no way of telling. Had Koehler ( or someone else) looked more closely at the actual damage and recorded the moisture content of the wood,it might be possible to narrow it down a little. What I do know is that if the ladder is thrown down while connected onto an irregular surface, it is possible for the joint to impart a momentary force to the holes and overcome the resistance of the wood tensile strength across the grain. The result is a sudden split which follows the grain. This is the damage that occurred to the original ladder. Could there have been a pre-existing split, yes that is possible. Could the split or ladder be repaired on site, yes that is also possible.
I am surprised that none of you commented on the ladder marks in the ground. It was soil similar in texture and moisture to that in Highfields. It definately proves the ladder was climbed as the depth corresponds to the weight of the ladder and climber. Also, you caan see how the ladder elogates the holes when it is under load and arches.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 1, 2012 16:50:13 GMT -5
Since there didn't seem to be any collateral damage around the ladder marks in the ground to indicate that the ladder fell during use or something, it would seem, based on your analysis, that the irregular surface you mention could've been the ground--but the patch of ground where the ladder was discovered, that it could've been tossed there after use. And I don't mean that the cracking of the wood would've caused the noise Lindbergh said he heard, but possibly the ladder sections slapping together as the ladder was being removed. But I was also thinking that I don't know if I put too much stock in that noise either. It came from the opposite direction, as you say, and there's no way of knowing exactly what this noise sounded like either way. As to the marks in the ground: Honestly, the photos I've seen of the original marks--I really don't see anything at all. If anyone has a photo, could it be posted?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 4, 2012 8:02:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 4, 2012 14:20:29 GMT -5
Okay, I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not seeing anything in this photo that look like the marks in the recreation photo. Maybe I'm blind. Kevin, you posted a great aerial photo of Highfields awhile back, with the access roads highlighted. I hate to trouble you, but could you possibly do something similar here with the footing marks, because, again, I'm just not seeing them in this photo.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 4, 2012 15:20:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Nov 12, 2012 9:41:39 GMT -5
A test of the ladder was made during the investigation using the original as a model, and it did break exactly the same place when Schwarzkopf came down with a sack simulating the baby. The fall was 5 feet and the stone window ledge likely was what the baby struck. The idea that Hauptmann got to the ground with a live and uninjured baby is implausible, especially when it is obvious that the baby was killed before Hauptmann escaped from the general area. How else could the baby have been killed? If Hauptmann had wanted to kill the baby, he would have suffocated it - either in the crib or later. It was almost certainly an accident - no kidnapper would ever destroy the only means (in most cases) of getting the ransom, and the manner of death also supports accidental death.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2012 16:59:30 GMT -5
You are right. Schwarzkopf did say that test proved what you claim. So since you believe this test what else did it prove?
Well, according to Agent Connelley, Schwarzkopf told him the ladder could only hold 125 lbs before breaking. Schwarzkopf would later tell Special Agent Sisk that his test proved it could only handle 130 lbs.
So this same test proves it wasn't Hauptmann since the least he could have weighed was 175 lbs - although he was most likely 185 lbs.
Therefore it would be "illogical" for you to point to this test as proving one thing but not the other. Many o' "crackpots" point to one thing then ignore the other.
Are you now starting to understand why you cannot legitimately mislabel people by what you are doing in your posts?
|
|
|
Post by rod on Nov 24, 2012 22:00:44 GMT -5
I'd like to see online a close resolution pix of the ladder, and including the 'clever locking mechanism' of the 3 parts. I'm still not clear if the cops inserted that 'rail from the attic'. Anyone know? In one of the books I read, an investigator talked to Bruno on death row, and Bruno (answering hypotheticals how a 'kidnapper would have done it') said, "The ladder would have broken going UP, and then the kidnapper exited down the interior stairway". Bruno was a competent carpenter, the ladder supposedly craftily designed, but shoddily constructed. If so: the carpenter threw it together in a great rush, used whatever crap he had on hand, was under a severe time constraint to build it, did not want to be seen buying a long ladder (?), may have slapped the ladder so shoddily because he did not believe HE (or a heavy person) would be mounting the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 4, 2013 2:52:21 GMT -5
Kevkon: another LKC myth is that the child died the night of the kidnapping (leaving aside the how). There was no way to determine this based on the remains that were found much later. A few days here or there maybe.
In other words, there seems to be a general consensus that the child fell or was dropped, whether deliberately or accidentally, the night of March 1st, 1932, but we don't know this for sure. Yes, there are scratch marks and footprints but they're not enough to pinpoint the time of the child's death.
To put it another way: a neighbor (or neighbors) could have kidnapped the child, taken it away to his home, took care of it for a day or two, and then, when he (or she, or they) realized that Lindbergh had gone public with the news of his child's abduction, then they killed the baby, out of rage and frustration. They were amateur criminals with a grudge against Lindbergh; or just wacky people who needed a quick 50K so they cooked up this insane scheme.
After this, well, realizing what they did, cooling their heels, these rube amateur kidnappers finally come to their senses and then they contact someone up in NYC to extort some money from Lindbergh with the phoney promise that they'll return the baby. No one's a real pro, the NYC people, maybe from the Bronx, maybe in league with Hauptmann, make contact with Condon, and the negotiations begin. The aforementioned scenario is fanciful, yes: but can you disprove it?
|
|