dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 3, 2015 13:38:14 GMT -5
I thought I was done for a while, but there is always someone going on and on about climbing up the ladder and through the window and out again. Now it's "lightningjew," who's belly aching about how hard it would be. In June of 1983, at the age of 34, they (Highfields) let me give it a try, I did it on the first try. Up and in. Out with a 18 pound bag of rice that they had on site. Done period. Lightn', stop talking about it and go do it. Or pay to have someone do it so you can sleep again at night! Geez!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 3, 2015 14:47:19 GMT -5
LOL, well, thanks for your concern but I get plenty of sleep (whatever that has to do with anything) and, as I said, I have done something similar; I have climbed through a window using a ladder, and it was not easy. And I've talked to others who have climbed through the actual Highfields window and they said that wasn't easy--and would've been even less so at night, during a storm, with that specific ladder, with the ground lower than it is today, not knowing what or who might be in the dark room being climbed into, etc. But even if it was easy to get in and out, how do you explain nothing being disturbed in the nursery and the kidnapper's seeming foreknowledge that no one would walk in on him? How do you explain the two sets of footprints leading away from the house if it was just one kidnapper pulling this off? And how did one person assemble that ladder and raise it into position without leaving any evidence of that in the surrounding mud? I mean, either way and in any case, feel free to be "done", since I for one can't make heads or tails of your winks and nods and yammering half-sentences... Geez.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 3, 2015 16:08:22 GMT -5
The box, they looked after everyone left. Can't give you any more than that. Check when the bills started showing up.(The "they," you guess.) What happened with the Barr woman at Lowes Theater, didn't happen with Richard. I'm sure you already knew that! Thus the folded bill story. But who was it who had the bill? Definitely not Hauptmann there. Those folds are the "worst" clue imaginable. I just got a call from a friend who follows this site on a regular basis and he insisted that I put a disclaimer regarding my tapes. I have agreements with the dead and some families of the dead to not use the material until after certain dates. Some of those dates have pasted, but some have not. The longest is still 2 years plus out. While there is no doubt you have a treasure trove of interviews with many involved before they all started to "die off" (and I envy you for this), however those interviews that do exist from the 80's tend to show people's memories weren't so good at times. Take Bornmann for example, or even Swayze.... I think you know what I mean. So it's a really hard thing to overturn source documentation with memories coming 50+ years later. I could see why, for example, Keaten would tell you that he was one of the first at the grave-site because he came in the next "wave" so maybe that's what he meant - or possibly what he remembered. 2 men even raised the body up with sticks to remove the nightshirt. So the body was disturbed with sticks on more then one occasion. Perhaps he helped and it wasn't in a report, or maybe his memory started to slip where he believed he had? Next the idea of people being afraid seems like a real and possible explanation. Yet, many people were submitting claims and receiving reward money. I think seeing that none of them got clipped might encourage others to join in to get theirs too. Regardless, any interviews cannot be considered if we don't know what they said. So I'm glad at least someone has them to consider, and specifically the guy who did all the leg-work to get them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 16:45:21 GMT -5
Amy, It was a teller. I just got a call from a friend who follows this site on a regular basis and he insisted that I put a disclaimer regarding my tapes. I have agreements with the dead and some families of the dead to not use the material until after certain dates. Some of those dates have pasted, but some have not. The longest is still 2 years plus out. Even if everything was clear I would still have everything on hold. My sons are film makers and they have expressed a great interest. Thanks, Dave for revealing it was a teller. I apologize for asking. I didn't realize you had all this legal stuff hanging over your head, or I would not have asked for that hint. I always have concerns with asking Michael things too. I know he is working hard on a book and I try not to seek information that may reach into that in some way. Yes, I never thought that the Barr passing had anything to do with Hauptmann. I have been spending time going over the spending of the ransom money and I have been keeping notes about it. I think there are some interesting things going on with that ransom money. Good question about who gave that folded bill to Barr. You can be sure I will be spending time on that question!! Thanks again Dave for sharing.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 3, 2015 16:45:34 GMT -5
Michael,
I had dinner with my friend British Historian David Irving two weeks ago and he made a comment that is spot on with your post. "If your dealing with primary source information that others don't have access to your always going to have to deal with this claim. They will say: If we don't have it (Other researchers) then it is the same as not existing at all, or because of the passage of time the odds are it is totally inaccurate now." He went on to say that it was that train of thought that he had to deal with when writing his Goebbels bio, and currently with his new bio of Himmler. (Due out in the fall.)
Michael your doing a great job on this site. Keep up the good work. And thanks, I needed the conformation you gave me in you post.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 4, 2015 5:44:03 GMT -5
Regarding Dave's comment above about Keaton's statement to him and Plebami, how would Keaton know that the ransom bill in question had at one time been folded? Did he just get lucky and say that it had, and then it turns out that it had? Or was he telling the truth and in fact it was folded when BRH was apprehended?
It really doesn't make much difference. The bills from the gas station, vegetable stand and shoe store that were firmly attributed to Richard were not folded so in all likelihood his billfold bill wasn't folded either.
In trying to trace when Hauptmann actually got the money, of more importance is that he said himself (Sisk sworn testimony) that the bills had been in the garage floor jug which would have been a fairly inaccessible long while for the bigger bills. Also, it was commented on by examiners long before Richard was caught that some of the bills had been stored in a damp climate for a lengthy time - musty smelling.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 4, 2015 9:14:30 GMT -5
Jack, Check the names on the list of the gang who made the arrest of Hauptnann.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 11:07:05 GMT -5
In trying to trace when Hauptmann actually got the money, of more importance is that he said himself (Sisk sworn testimony) that the bills had been in the garage floor jug which would have been a fairly inaccessible long while for the bigger bills. Also, it was commented on by examiners long before Richard was caught that some of the bills had been stored in a damp climate for a lengthy time - musty smelling. Can we be sure that Hauptmann actually said this to Sisk?? When Sisk said this when testifying, Hauptmann actually stood up and said "Mister, Mister you stop lying. You are telling a story." I am inclined to believe Hauptmann here. There are other ways (not just the Fisch story) that some of the garage ransom money could have become damp and musty smelling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 11:31:08 GMT -5
Since the arrest of Hauptmann has been brought up here, there is something I have been wondering about concerning when Hauptmann was arrested. According to reports, LE was surveilling Hauptmann's residence on September 18th, 1934. They actually saw Hauptmann and Anna leave their residence that evening. LE thinks they have a hot suspect in the Lindbergh kidnapping case, yet they don't arrest him. They let the Hauptmanns leave. Why not arrest him on the 18th. Why did they wait until the 19th to apprehend him? Considering where Richard and Anna drove to that night, weren't authorities concerned that they might be leaving the country? Or didn't they follow Hauptmann to see where he was going?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 4, 2015 13:55:50 GMT -5
This theory is nothing new, but if Hauptmann was indeed the man who constructed the ladder under these circumstances, why would he make one so prone to breaking and so difficult to climb (remember the space between rungs was 19 inches rather than the standard 12 inches)? Don't you think that if an accomplice ordered a ladder to be made, if would have been of more professional quality than the ladder that was found at the scene?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 4, 2015 14:18:28 GMT -5
One of my main questions about the ladder has always been, why go to the trouble of building one at all? Why not buy one or steal one from a construction site or something? My answer to that, for now, is ladders were (still are) manufactured in fairly standard sizes and couldn't necessarily be folded into cars for easy transport, so, here, something more customized was needed. And as to the question of fragility: I agree; this ladder seems to be made with the minimum amount of materials. What this tells me is that it was made to be used only once and not even necessarily for heavy-duty climbing, but mostly as a prop--one which, again, needed to fit into a car for easy transport. And since wood from the ladder matched wood from his house, I think, in any case, Hauptmann certainly built it, but what I'm not sure of is how far his involvement extended beyond this...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 14:57:06 GMT -5
One of my main questions about the ladder has always been, why go to the trouble of building one at all? Why not buy one or steal one from a construction site or something? My answer to that, for now, is ladders were (still are) manufactured in fairly standard sizes and couldn't necessarily be folded into cars for easy transport, so, here, something more customized was needed. And as to the question of fragility: I agree; this ladder seems to be made with the minimum amount of materials. What this tells me is that it was made to be used only once and not even necessarily for heavy-duty climbing, but mostly as a prop--one which, again, needed to fit into a car for easy transport. And since wood from the ladder matched wood from his house, I think, in any case, Hauptmann certainly built it, but what I'm not sure of is how far his involvement extended beyond this... I like all your reasoning about the ladder needing to be built so it could be transported in a car. I think that is important and no doubt played into the designing of this ladder. It may look roughly made but it was well designed so perhaps it was made to look like the builder wasn't a skilled carpenter. Plus, if it was made to be left behind whay spend alot to make it or care how nicely it looked, especially if it was more or less a prop item. You say you are not sure of how far Hauptmann's involvement extended. What makes you not sure?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 4, 2015 15:04:51 GMT -5
Amy - they wanted to arrest him outside of his house and he got home real late on the 18th.
Hauptmann lied about everything until he was cornered - so you would take his word over Agent Sisk's?
Interestingly, the reason he got mad at that point of the trial and outbursted was that the jug story blows the Fisch story all to hell.
Dave - I have no idea whether Buster was in on the arrest - he probably could have seen the bill if he wanted to. Now, according to what I just read at the time of the arrest Sisk and Keaton confronted Richard on the sidewalk, the bill was found on Hauptmann and Seary looked it up and saw that it was a ransom bill.
Enough police to start a fundraiser over by Hauptmann's car.
And as for all of this involvement stuff, there's no evidence that any one else committed the crime except Hauptmann. Fisch, for example had solid alibis for 3/1/32 and one of the cemetery meetings; Reich and Lindbergh, witnesses seeing the "lookout," said he was of medium build which doesn't describe Fisch but would describe Hauptmann. I think at Woodlawn the "lookout" was Hauptmann and at St. Raymond's it was a queer trolling for business. One way they do it is to drop a handkerchief or other item, keys, etc., then they become knowingly approachable.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 4, 2015 15:08:23 GMT -5
Who saw Richard and Anna leaving on the 18th?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 15:35:40 GMT -5
Who saw Richard and Anna leaving on the 18th? This comes from Ludovic Kennedy's book Crime of the Century, pages 166 & 167, paperback edition. I believe his source for this was an FBI report: Three plain police cars were to discreetly wait near the Hauptmann's house. The cars contained a mix of BOI, New York Police, and NJSP. What they saw was around 8 p.m. the evening of Sept. 18th was Hauptmann and Anna leave their home. They drove to the dock where the ship Europa was to see Anna's cousin Hans Schmid who was leaving for Europe. Apparently they didn't return home until around 2 a.m. on the 19th which is the day they arrested Hauptmann. Do you need the names of the officers? Kennedy lists them.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 4, 2015 16:19:40 GMT -5
It's been said many times in the past, but the chain of custody of the ladder from the time it was found, to the time it was analyzed by Koehler, to the time it was presented in the courtroom, was never established, opening up the possibility that the ladder was altered somewhere along the way by its handlers. Then again, police and their carpenters were in complete control of Hauptmann's attic for days after his arrest, and could have altered the wood there to match the ladder or vise versa. There were so many opportunities to "frame" Hauptmann with ladder evidence after he was arrested that, judging by the generally overzealous way in which the prosecution handled the case, one would have to say that there was a reasonable possibility that at some stage of the process, ladder evidence was fudged so as the rail 16 of the ladder could be claimed to have come from Hauptmann's attic. Although a rather unsophisticated rural and small-town jury bought the prosecution's wood match theory, there were reasons to doubt it and the controversy persists to this day.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 4, 2015 16:32:04 GMT -5
Hey Hurt, I think what makes me unsure about the extent of Hauptmann's involvement, one way or the other, is that I'm not sure how many people were involved in general--how big the participant pool was, you know? Without definite contours to that, it's difficult to know exactly how far anyone's involvement extends. But where I'm at right now, given the totality of evidence and just as a shortest-distance-between-two-points explanation, is that, first of all, there was an insider mastermind of this whole thing, who had the clout to manipulate LE and make sure the kidnappers' literal and figurative path was clear. This person went to an associate of some sort to actually organize everything, by recruiting and paying the kidnappers to go to Hopewell and carry this out. And I think there were three of these kidnappers because two men needed to leave the double footprint trail leading away from the house, plus a driver to make the tire sound Anne Lindbergh heard. Additionally, we have the accounts of two strange cars with a total three men in them seen around the area that day. I think one of these three may've been Hauptmann, but I just don't know for sure. Maybe that's too simple, too convenient. Anyway, all amateurs like myself definitely and ultimately know for sure is that Hauptmann built the ladder and handled ransom money, so, again, I'm unsure as to how deep his involvement was, and go back and forth on this. But as to the wood evidence being faked: Well, maybe this is just a gut thing on my part, but I don't think it was. That being said, I don't think Hauptmann, especially as a carpenter with access to all kinds of lumber, cannibalized his attic floor. That seems bizarre and unnecessary, and would indeed suggest that the wood evidence against him was manufactured. But what I think happened was that contractors--electricians working in Hauptmann's attic--had pulled up some floorboards and discarded them in a scrap pile in the basement, which Hauptmann easily and quite conveniently pulled from to build the ladder, either not realizing that the wood came from part of his house, or, if he was aware of its origin, not realizing the wood could be traced to him. To me, while this doesn't prove the wood evidence wasn't faked anyway, it still makes a lot of sense and supports the notion of Hauptmann building the ladder.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 4, 2015 18:01:37 GMT -5
Thanks Amy:
I just remembered that they discussed not getting Anna involved in the arrest. My faux pas.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2015 18:41:47 GMT -5
Since the arrest of Hauptmann has been brought up here, there is something I have been wondering about concerning when Hauptmann was arrested. According to reports, LE was surveilling Hauptmann's residence on September 18th, 1934. They actually saw Hauptmann and Anna leave their residence that evening. LE thinks they have a hot suspect in the Lindbergh kidnapping case, yet they don't arrest him. They let the Hauptmanns leave. Why not arrest him on the 18th. Why did they wait until the 19th to apprehend him? Considering where Richard and Anna drove to that night, weren't authorities concerned that they might be leaving the country? Or didn't they follow Hauptmann to see where he was going? The 18th was the first attempt at coordinating a plan of surveillance. They wanted to get their bearings as to the car, the surrounding conditions of the home, and the best places to watch people entering and leaving the house. It was a chaotic situation that caused a huge fight between the 3 Agencies, with the FBI insisting there were too many people which would arouse suspicions among the Neighbors and the Suspect. At one point Sisk threatened to go to a pay phone and call additional Agents to match the numbers of the other Police who were there. In the end the surveillance was called off over night because Neighbors did become suspicious. Sisk, fearing the FBI was being "double-crossed" sent Special Agent Seykora to stay overnight. The next morning it was decided they were simply going to surveil the house and the suspect. Sisk would write that specifically, if Hauptmann left, they wanted to catch him passing ransom money. In the end that plan had to be abandoned because Hauptmann had "made" the tail and was trying to elude them by speeding up and running red lights. And as for all of this involvement stuff, there's no evidence that any one else committed the crime except Hauptmann. Fisch, for example had solid alibis for 3/1/32 and one of the cemetery meetings; Reich and Lindbergh, witnesses seeing the "lookout," said he was of medium build which doesn't describe Fisch but would describe Hauptmann. I think at Woodlawn the "lookout" was Hauptmann and at St. Raymond's it was a queer trolling for business. One way they do it is to drop a handkerchief or other item, keys, etc., then they become knowingly approachable. I disagree that either Look-Out was Hauptmann for several reasons. While I think the word "queer" is offensive I will concede the Police, the Governor, or other Investigators used it in their Reports, and Letters. With this in mind none seemed to think the Look-Out was trolling a cemetery that night by loudly blowing his nose, running back and forth, disguising his face, etc. - or the possibility would have surely been mentioned in their communications.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 4, 2015 23:46:00 GMT -5
Hey Dave:
Last time I talked to you we were both trying to find Rita one night - just a coupla playboys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 9:08:52 GMT -5
Hauptmann lied about everything until he was cornered - so you would take his word over Agent Sisk's? Interestingly, the reason he got mad at that point of the trial and outbursted was that the jug story blows the Fisch story all to hell. I agree that Hauptmann did a lot of lying but this happened on both sides of the fence, along with a lot of stretching of the truth. If Hauptmann had said he had the ransom money in that jug 3 weeks before they apprehended him, then I don't know what report that comes from. Sisk testifying like that conclusively puts ransom money in that jug has left me wondering why this jug wasn't introduced into evidence. I checked the evidence list for the state and it is not there. If this is so damning to Hauptmann's defense why not have the jug in court to solidify that testimony. They entered the shellac can into evidence.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 6, 2015 0:43:47 GMT -5
My friend Jack. That's a great picture you use. Be that William Allan? Dave
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 6, 2015 3:07:29 GMT -5
The one & only.
Goin' to the rally?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2015 7:35:19 GMT -5
I agree that Hauptmann did a lot of lying but this happened on both sides of the fence, along with a lot of stretching of the truth. If Hauptmann had said he had the ransom money in that jug 3 weeks before they apprehended him, then I don't know what report that comes from. Sisk testifying like that conclusively puts ransom money in that jug has left me wondering why this jug wasn't introduced into evidence. I checked the evidence list for the state and it is not there. If this is so damning to Hauptmann's defense why not have the jug in court to solidify that testimony. They entered the shellac can into evidence. All great points Amy. I've searched and searched for any source outside of the trial for something - anything - that I could rely on as a "possible" source for this testimony. I've found nothing. However, as I've pointed out in the past, it's possible there is a source but that it's not at the NJSP Archives where I know that it is not. The other thing is that it's coming from Sisk. For me, that's a tough one to get around because this guy is someone judging by his Reports, Memos, and Letters, that was a real Professional. So my first and natural inclination to dismiss this is thwarted by a guy who is always doing the "right" thing - even when his peers in the NJSP and NYPD were not. It's a real shame the Defense didn't ask him if Hauptmann had been beaten. Remember, Wilentz was denying a beating took place when he knew one had occurred. Sisk was there when it happened and told the Agents not to participate then quickly communicated to Hoover about it. And so what he would have said to that question would then answer beyond all doubt whether or not the jug testimony was true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 21:35:41 GMT -5
I've searched and searched for any source outside of the trial for something - anything - that I could rely on as a "possible" source for this testimony. I've found nothing. However, as I've pointed out in the past, it's possible there is a source but that it's not at the NJSP Archives where I know that it is not. The other thing is that it's coming from Sisk. Well, maybe if Reilly had done his job right, he would have cross-examined Sisk on this point, but he did not. He let it stand unchallenged. Even though his client stood up and in his own way called Sisk a liar, Reilly does not even bring it up to Sisk. Maybe if he had, Sisk might have mentioned such a report when questioned. I trust when you say Sisk behaved like a pro in this case but I would feel better about all this if it could be verified. I remember Anna calling Mrs. Achenbach a liar because she was lying and Anna knew what she said wasn't right. Maybe the way Sisk was telling it wasn't quite right and that is why Hauptmann said what he said. I really need to go over Hauptmann's testimony to see if Reilly asks Hauptmann about that jug! I would think that he would want his client on record denying what Sisk claims Hauptmann said about ransom money in the jug. Or at least he should want that denial in the record.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2015 5:33:29 GMT -5
I've looked into this further and discovered that in late October '34, Lanigan told Sisk he desired to go over all the evidence and information the FBI had which might assist them in the prosecution of Hautpmann. He believed he might possibly have information which the state police did not have and that he wanted to benefit of all the knowledge that he might have as to what their men did, and what they heard or what they might be able to testify to. He asked Sisk to prepare a Memo outlining exactly what each Agent was doing and what they could testify to. However, I am unsure if this was ever done because Hoover was against it, and I do not have such a memo. The Memo below shows Sisk's attitude concerning what he thought about the trial. Now remember that Sisk believed Hauptmann could not have pulled this off alone and was always of the opinion that others were involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 16:24:10 GMT -5
I've looked into this further and discovered that in late October '34, Lanigan told Sisk he desired to go over all the evidence and information the FBI had which might assist them in the prosecution of Hautpmann. He believed he might possibly have information which the state police did not have and that he wanted to benefit of all the knowledge that he might have as to what their men did, and what they heard or what they might be able to testify to. He asked Sisk to prepare a Memo outlining exactly what each Agent was doing and what they could testify to. However, I am unsure if this was ever done because Hoover was against it, and I do not have such a memo. The Memo below shows Sisk's attitude concerning what he thought about the trial. Now remember that Sisk believed Hauptmann could not have pulled this off alone and was always of the opinion that others were involved. I am glad that Sisk believed that Hauptmann wasn't a lone wolf but he sure is pleased with how well the prosecution's case is going - a case that was being laid out against Hauptmann as the only participant in the kidnap/murder/extortion. Did Sisk know that Judge Large was enticed away from the defense team or that Charles Schleser spied for the prosecution by pretending to be a defense team witness? Sisk certainly makes good points about Reilly's poor performance as a defense attorney. There are so many instances where Reilly failed to cross examine in a meaningful and defensive way for his client. Sisk notes the dissention that exists among the defense counsel. I certainly believe that. They all had to endure Reilly trashing sound defense strategy. Wow! Hoover was sent mutilated copies of the ransom notes. The animosity between Hoover and Schwarzkopf is certainly apparent in that act. About that jug found in the dirt, would you know if LE had or tried to lift any prints off that crock? I know the jug was dirty, but I thought I would ask anyway.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 8, 2015 17:00:35 GMT -5
Just to add one very important fact to the controversy over whether or not Hauptmann built the ladder (apologies for the omission in my last post on the issue): The ladder was fingerprinted extensively, and no fingerprints found on the ladder matched Hauptmann's. Would Hauptmann have built the ladder using gloves so as not to leave prints? Doubt that he would be thinking along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 8, 2015 17:39:33 GMT -5
I do too, though I wouldn't entirely rule it out. What with so many subsequently handling the ladder though, it may've been that Hauptmann's prints were obliterated or covered up by all the others. In any case, if he did build the ladder and didn't use gloves (which I tend to think), then I think Hauptmann must've had assurances of some kind that the ladder wouldn't be traced to him, so, as far as Hauptmann was concerned, it was okay to pull from wood in his house, to not use gloves--since the crime scene would be allowed to become a free-for-all of cops and reporters, etc. The question then arises as to who was there that night who would've had the authority to allow this?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 8, 2015 23:07:11 GMT -5
I do too, though I wouldn't entirely rule it out. What with so many subsequently handling the ladder though, it may've been that Hauptmann's prints were obliterated or covered up by all the others. In any case, if he did build the ladder and didn't use gloves (which I tend to think), then I think Hauptmann must've had assurances of some kind that the ladder wouldn't be traced to him, so, as far as Hauptmann was concerned, it was okay to pull from wood in his house, to not use gloves--since the crime scene would be allowed to become a free-for-all of cops and reporters, etc. The question then arises as to who was there that night who would've had the authority to allow this? One thing, though, is that it was fingerprinted, I believe, while disassembled and Dr. Hudson said that Hauptmann's prints were not found on the ladder, even in places where the person who built it had to have touched. This greatly reduces the chances for contamination, as opposed to the exposed rungs, etc.
|
|