|
Chisel
Feb 10, 2017 11:12:13 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Feb 10, 2017 11:12:13 GMT -5
I know that the chisel found on the Highfields property ( near the ladder) after the purported kidnapping was used by the prosecution as evidence against Hauptmann. Yet Hauptmann had complained vehemently to Gov. Hoffman - during a prison visit by the governor - that his chisel set was made by a different manufacturer than the chisel found on the Lindbergh property. Would anyone have any reasonable explanation as to how and why Wilentz and friends could use this chisel at trial without some fraud going on?
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 11, 2017 9:16:22 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2017 9:16:22 GMT -5
I know that the chisel found on the Highfields property ( near the ladder) after the purported kidnapping was used by the prosecution as evidence against Hauptmann. Yet Hauptmann had complained vehemently to Gov. Hoffman - during a prison visit by the governor - that his chisel set was made by a different manufacturer than the chisel found on the Lindbergh property. Would anyone have any reasonable explanation as to how and why Wilentz and friends could use this chisel at trial without some fraud going on? Hauptmann claimed he had a new 5-piece Stanley Set. Unfortunately, there is no inventory of these chisels among the tools recovered from his home. Scaduto claimed to have found a Stanley among Hauptmann's tools while researching for his book. I do know that items are at the Archives, which were recovered from his apartment, for which no chain or custody, report, or notation exists - presently. I say "presently" because there's no way for me to say one did not originally exist. Also, Hauptmann did admit that he had a couple of other chisels that he bought one at a time here and there. Among those wood chisels was a 1/4" Buck Brothers chisel, a 1-1/2" Jordan chisel, and a 1/2" chisel (no make determined). So Hauptmann did have a Buck Brother chisel found in a box in his closet - not in his tool chest in the garage. Unfortunately, Koehler perjured himself when he pretended the chisel was among those tool in his tool box found by police in the garage. Regardless of "where" it was found though, it was found, and Hauptmann admitted ownership. But what does that mean? Well, back in 1933 when Koehler made an intense examination of the ladder, he said he could not tell what sized chisel made the mortises. After Hauptmann's arrest then suddenly he could tell that the 3/4" chisel found at Highfields could have done it. This is the sort of thing that is bothersome. While it doesn't prove Hauptmann innocent, it proves they were willing to "fudge" things where/when needed. Another point of fact is that local investigations had these chisels being found all over the Sourland area, and in fact, the Trenton schools were using this brand of chisel in their "manual training" classes. So when other Authors say they were "old" or "rare" remember this fact so as not to be distracted. Another thing that bothers me is the 3/4" chisel had the letters "LK" engraved in the handle "recently." Furthermore, it was razor sharp having been sharpened by an "expert mechanic." Yet, Koehler's evaluation of Hauptmann tools show he did not properly take care of them, and those sharpened weren't done correctly. More, he classified Hauptmann as a "careless" carpenter. How does anyone reconcile these things? Next, what was the chisel for? There were absolutely no chisel marks on the window or shutters. For me it was a "throw away" meant to lead police away from any inside job theory. Look, I'm no John Douglas, but I have studied Hauptmann for quite some time, and I find it extremely hard to believe he would discard any of his personal tools for this purpose - especially one in such great shape.
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 11, 2017 9:51:18 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 11, 2017 9:51:18 GMT -5
but he did discard them mike plus the ladder killed him. I believe he brought the chisel to pry the window open we don't know what he was going to use it for. he might have used it to hit the babys head. we will never know
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 11, 2017 16:18:00 GMT -5
but he did discard them mike plus the ladder killed him. I believe he brought the chisel to pry the window open we don't know what he was going to use it for. he might have used it to hit the babys head. we will never know Used the chisel to hit the baby's head, really? How can that happen with no blood found on the chisel? Fractured the skull, yet no blood on the chisel? Wilentz was way out of line on that theory, but the jury lacked the smarts and the guts to see through this lie, apparently.
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 16, 2017 10:19:43 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 16, 2017 10:19:43 GMT -5
hurtable im just throwing it out there the evidence shows the babys head was hit. either he dropped the baby or hit it.i don't believe the drop theory but I could be wrong
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 16, 2017 17:55:38 GMT -5
Since the skin is elastic, it's not uncommon for skull fractures to occur without the skin being broken. That being said, I do think that the head injury is what killed CAL Jr., and that this was inflicted intentionally, quickly and quietly in the crib. With what, I'm not sure. The butt of a gun that maybe one of the kidnappers brought along? Could have been the chisel. Being only 3/4", it seems kind of small and lightweight, but it's possible.
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 18, 2017 9:29:06 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Feb 18, 2017 9:29:06 GMT -5
Since the skin is elastic, it's not uncommon for skull fractures to occur without the skin being broken. That being said, I do think that the head injury is what killed CAL Jr., and that this was inflicted intentionally, quickly and quietly in the crib. With what, I'm not sure. The butt of a gun that maybe one of the kidnappers brought along? Could have been the chisel. Being only 3/4", it seems kind of small and lightweight, but it's possible. We are discussing the chisel as a murder weapon, as argued by Wilentz at the Hauptmann trial. The chisel is, by definition, a sharp object. It is illogical to claim that the victim was struck in the head with that chisel if there is no blood on the chisel and no blood left in the area where the chisel was found.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 18, 2017 9:43:12 GMT -5
his gun was very small the chisel is a better weapon. why automaticly there has to be blood don't forget it was a small child
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2017 10:43:06 GMT -5
his gun was very small the chisel is a better weapon. why automaticly there has to be blood don't forget it was a small child I think it's absurd to think anyone brought a chisel to the house with it's intended purpose to strike the child in the head with it. What Wilentz was trying to do, in my opinion, was cover any questions about whatever loose ends he imagined might be in the Jurors minds. This is probably better addressed by a Lawyer but that's how I see it. Aside from being one piece of the set "blinds" used to point investigators away from an insider, there is no use for the chisel. That's one place where they went wrong, and it shows it was merely a prop. If they were smart about it, they would have at least used it somewhere - because that's what an outsider would have done before suddenly discovering it wasn't needed. For example, they start prying at the louvers when the shutters swing open. The mark, however slight, remains then reveals intent. But absolutely nothing. And if it wasn't needed and they never utilized it, why is it even out? For what purpose did it sit at the spot where it was found? Only one.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 18, 2017 12:36:12 GMT -5
Since the skin is elastic, it's not uncommon for skull fractures to occur without the skin being broken. That being said, I do think that the head injury is what killed CAL Jr., and that this was inflicted intentionally, quickly and quietly in the crib. With what, I'm not sure. The butt of a gun that maybe one of the kidnappers brought along? Could have been the chisel. Being only 3/4", it seems kind of small and lightweight, but it's possible. We are discussing the chisel as a murder weapon, as argued by Wilentz at the Hauptmann trial. The chisel is, by definition, a sharp object. It is illogical to claim that the victim was struck in the head with that chisel if there is no blood on the chisel and no blood left in the area where the chisel was found. i always assumed they were implying the handle/butt end of the chisel was used to strike the child, not the blade.
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 18, 2017 15:35:41 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Feb 18, 2017 15:35:41 GMT -5
Regrettably for Hauptmann, the jury was either in too much of a collective rage and/or simply not sharp enough and not courageous enough to pick up on Michael's train of thought. This chisel argument was far from the only flaw in the prosecution's presentation.
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 18, 2017 20:13:01 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Feb 18, 2017 20:13:01 GMT -5
As with the chisel blade, there was no blood or bone or brain matter on the chisel handle that could corroborate the use of the the chisel handle to bash the child's skull. Only logical conclusion would be that Wilentz was overreaching on this point.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Chisel
Feb 19, 2017 7:36:03 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2017 7:36:03 GMT -5
I have a difficult time believing that chisel was intended to be a murder weapon. There would be far more efficient ways of dispatching with a baby in the crib without the risk of any sign of trauma being left, something that would kibosh any possibility of a ransom payout. Wilentz was certainly reaching and overstated his case, but clearly by that time, the reality of Hauptmann's involvement was cemented in the minds of the jury. That chisel does make a great break and enter tool. It's very strong, relatively lightweight, and has great pry and leverage. Look in any standard toolbox and pick out a more efficient and universal one. We do know it wan't needed to break and enter. We don't know why it was left behind, but during that momentary decision making process over what to leave behind and what to bring back, I'd venture it was dropped or left unintentionally.
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 24, 2017 9:47:28 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 24, 2017 9:47:28 GMT -5
hi joe, Hauptman might have had something in his pocket or something he didn't leave at the scene
|
|
|
Chisel
Feb 24, 2017 9:54:25 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 24, 2017 9:54:25 GMT -5
mike we will never know how the childs head was hit with. we don't know if he brought the chisel in the house or not.i never believed the baby died in a fall because the ladder broke but we will never know
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 2, 2017 10:38:46 GMT -5
How tightly did the dowels joining the ladder sections fit?
Could the chisel have been used to "punch out" the dowels when disassembling the ladder sections? It looks like there are metal "buttons" on the dowel ends which might facilitate impacts without splitting the dowel. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/dowel1.jpg
If so, the chisel may have brought to use even the chisel handle, not the blade, to push the dowels out if they were tightly wedged.
Maybe that is why the two sections remained together - the chisel was dropped, couldn't be located quickly and they had no means of pushing the remaining dowel out. So the ladder was ditched...
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 6, 2023 12:43:14 GMT -5
The wood chisel found "near" the "ladder" was one made by Stanley, size, 3/4". A DAMAGED--not "new"--Stanley 1/4" wood chisel of the same design was found on Hauptmann's property. NOT a "full set missing only the 3/4." Charles Schippel had the same set of Stanley chisels, and his was missing the 3/4".
Whilst (snicker) we're on the subject, Hauptmann's garage contained a STACK of left-over 8-10 foot boards. He didn't need to cut one out of the floor of his attic. It also contained a home-made two-piece extension ladder. FWIW.
Whilst (snicker) we're on the subject, we know that John Condon had a nice little real estate business in the Bronx, AND on City Island. I've done handyman work over the years. I've seen a lot of landlords write their contact information on the walls of utility closets, for the benefit of handymen, furnace men, etc. Did anyone ever check to see if Condon owned that house before Hauptmann? Hauptmann also owned a couple of rental properties. Right? Does that explain Condon's contact info in Hauptmann's closet? I mean, supposedly, this CARPENTER Bruno Hauptmann made a half-assed guilty attempt to "rub" it off. I mean, why not SAND it OFF? Or even, plane it off? Unless, it had been there ever since he bought the house and he never noticed it, before. Or didn't care. I mean, why write it down on the wall of a closet AT ALL? Especially when it's not really all that similar to Bruno's handwriting. Especially the 4's...
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 7, 2023 14:01:17 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2023 14:01:17 GMT -5
The wood chisel found "near" the "ladder" was one made by Stanley, size, 3/4". A DAMAGED--not "new"--Stanley 1/4" wood chisel of the same design was found on Hauptmann's property. NOT a "full set missing only the 3/4." Charles Schippel had the same set of Stanley chisels, and his was missing the 3/4". The 3/4" chisel found lying near Highfields was a Bucks Brothers. It had a battered handle from someone using a hammer on it. There was a 1/4" Bucks Brothers chisel found in the cigar box in Hauptmann's closet not in the tool chest as fraudulently presented in court. The handle on this tool was not battered. Hauptmann had planned down the handle on one side so, as he explained, it wouldn't roll off his bench. Hauptmann claimed to have a new Stanley Set in addition to the miscellaneous Bucks Brothers he had. I wrote about all this on pages 241-268 in V3 for further details and reference.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Chisel
Oct 8, 2023 10:39:33 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2023 10:39:33 GMT -5
The wood chisel found "near" the "ladder" was one made by Stanley, size, 3/4". A DAMAGED--not "new"--Stanley 1/4" wood chisel of the same design was found on Hauptmann's property. NOT a "full set missing only the 3/4." Charles Schippel had the same set of Stanley chisels, and his was missing the 3/4". The 3/4" chisel found lying near Highfields was a Bucks Brothers. It had a battered handle from someone using a hammer on it. There was a 1/4" Bucks Brothers chisel found in the cigar box in Hauptmann's closet not in the tool chest as fraudulently presented in court. Certainly Wilentz and Koehler, in the latter's testimony, could have been additionally forthcoming in stating that the 1/4" Buck Bros. wood chisel had been found along with the 1/2" and 1-1/2" chisels in a cigar box in Hauptmann's kitchen. The overall theme within your coverage of 'The Chisel' seems typically ‘supportive’ towards the accused, in this case through its conveyed impression that the above chisels were somehow, separate entities from the other contents of his carpentry toolbox, which he kept in his garage. When questioned by Wilentz, Hauptmann didn’t even realize these three chisels were found in the cigar box in his kitchen, instead relating something about one of them laying on his garage work table. This suggests strongly that he probably, and routinely, brought tools back and forth between garage and house, according to what he was working on at any given time. From the reports and testimony, it's clear the three chisels found in the cigar box were part of his tool kit, but that they were simply in a different, temporary location at the time of his arrest. The handle on this tool was not battered. While the 1/4" chisel appears not to have been hit with a hammer, the evidence also demonstrates that the 3/4" chisel found at Highfields had been repeatedly impacted with a hard headed hammer or instrument. A careful carpenter would have used a rubber or wooden headed mallet on a wood handled chisel while seeking to ‘cut wood’ in less time than by hand motion. Given the mass of circumstantial physical evidence against Hauptmann, it’s no stretch at all to me, that the same hammer which drove the 8 penny nails through the kidnap ladder rungs into the side rails, was used on the 3/4" chisel to cut the siderail mortises. Getting back to Hauptmann's 1/4" chisel, he claims to have bought it for 'fine work' making it far less likely this chisel would have been hit with a hammer, at least not in the aggressive manner in which the 3/4" chisel was hit.
Hauptmann had planned down the handle on one side so, as he explained, it wouldn't roll off his bench. Hauptmann attempts to distance himself from the 3/4” Highfields chisel here, by explaining he planed the handle of his 1/4” chisel to prevent it from rolling off his work table. He’s simply being ingenuous here by failing to acknowledge that the blade of the 3/4” chisel is long and wide enough for it to have remained stationary on a slightly inclined surface, ie. there would have been no need for the same handle planing treatment on a 3/4" chisel, unless the blade was so short as to imbalance it towards the handle end.
Hauptmann claimed to have a new Stanley Set in addition to the miscellaneous Bucks Brothers he had. Why then, would this set not have been catalogued during the search of Hauptmann’s garage? Sure, he could have loaned it out, but if he did, then why would he not have sought strongly to have it recovered? If the Stanley set had had a 3/4” chisel present, this would have made its recovery all the more important. Instead, Hauptmann seems almost indifferent towards its existence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2023 9:09:40 GMT -5
The 3/4" chisel found lying near Highfields was a Bucks Brothers. It had a battered handle from someone using a hammer on it. There was a 1/4" Bucks Brothers chisel found in the cigar box in Hauptmann's closet not in the tool chest as fraudulently presented in court. Certainly Wilentz and Koehler, in the latter's testimony, could have been additionally forthcoming in stating that the 1/4" Buck Bros. wood chisel had been found along with the 1/2" and 1-1/2" chisels in a cigar box in Hauptmann's kitchen. The overall theme within your coverage of 'The Chisel' seems typically ‘supportive’ towards the accused, in this case through its conveyed impression that the above chisels were somehow, separate entities from the other contents of his carpentry toolbox, which he kept in his garage. When questioned by Wilentz, Hauptmann didn’t even realize these three chisels were found in the cigar box in his kitchen, instead relating something about one of them laying on his garage work table. This suggests strongly that he probably, and routinely, brought tools back and forth between garage and house, according to what he was working on at any given time. From the reports and testimony, it's clear the three chisels found in the cigar box were part of his tool kit, but that they were simply in a different, temporary location at the time of his arrest. The handle on this tool was not battered. While the 1/4" chisel appears not to have been hit with a hammer, the evidence also demonstrates that the 3/4" chisel found at Highfields had been repeatedly impacted with a hard headed hammer or instrument. A careful carpenter would have used a rubber or wooden headed mallet on a wood handled chisel while seeking to ‘cut wood’ in less time than by hand motion. Given the mass of circumstantial physical evidence against Hauptmann, it’s no stretch at all to me, that the same hammer which drove the 8 penny nails through the kidnap ladder rungs into the side rails, was used on the 3/4" chisel to cut the siderail mortises. Getting back to Hauptmann's 1/4" chisel, he claims to have bought it for 'fine work' making it far less likely this chisel would have been hit with a hammer, at least not in the aggressive manner in which the 3/4" chisel was hit.
Hauptmann had planned down the handle on one side so, as he explained, it wouldn't roll off his bench. Hauptmann attempts to distance himself from the 3/4” Highfields chisel here, by explaining he planed the handle of his 1/4” chisel to prevent it from rolling off his work table. He’s simply being ingenuous here by failing to acknowledge that the blade of the 3/4” chisel is long and wide enough for it to have remained stationary on a slightly inclined surface, ie. there would have been no need for the same handle planing treatment on a 3/4" chisel, unless the blade was so short as to imbalance it towards the handle end.
Hauptmann claimed to have a new Stanley Set in addition to the miscellaneous Bucks Brothers he had. Why then, would this set not have been catalogued during the search of Hauptmann’s garage? Sure, he could have loaned it out, but if he did, then why would he not have sought strongly to have it recovered? If the Stanley set had had a 3/4” chisel present, this would have made its recovery all the more important. Instead, Hauptmann seems almost indifferent towards its existence.
1. The overall "theme"? These are facts that should be considered at face value. Approach them that way instead of worrying about what you would determine is a theme to try to knock down. Case in point, attempting to downplay a fake exhibit and perjury by suggesting they "could" have been more forthcoming. "Could" is a curious choice of words here, and it shows you doing exactly what you accuse me of. Food for thought. Wilentz should have been disbarred and Koehler charged with perjury. This idea that "we know" he did it so we're going to start framing evidence isn't acceptable under any circumstance. Yes, the 1/4" chisel was his, but in trying to connect him to the 3/4" inch they lied and misrepresented the situation in order to impress jury. If they engaged in these tactics here, where else did these or similar types of illegal conduct occur? Fact is, they were willing to do it beyond all doubt. In this example we have a conspiracy between the prosecution and its witness. A witness, I may add, who has been given so much positive attention as being such a great expert. These things matter Joe 2. Regardless of how or why, the handles were different. One of Koehler's points was that the wood handles tied these chisels together. Do they? No. In fact, these handles does not link the two together, rather, suggests otherwise. One may feel comfortable believing they were mates anyway but that doesn't erase the true facts. To us anyway, because the true facts/situation was not afforded to the Jury for their consideration. Just the opposite. 3. Is that what he's doing? So you don't think he planed down the handle on the 1/4" for this purpose? Or he did? If so, how would you have responded? 4. I do not know. I've suggested it may have been borrowed at the time which was a real possibility. " Fought strongly to have it recovered?" Huh? He was consistent about his ownership of Stanely chisels as several sources indicate which has led me to believe he owned such a set. Scaduto's discovery seemed to support this. As I explained in my book, I do not believe what he found what actually came from Hauptmann's garage, but admittedly, this is just my opinion. But even if it wasn't, it shows the police entertained the thought that he did indeed have such a set.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Chisel
Oct 9, 2023 12:23:15 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2023 12:23:15 GMT -5
1. The overall "theme"? These are facts that should be considered at face value. Approach them that way instead of worrying about what you would determine is a theme to try to knock down. Case in point, attempting to downplay a fake exhibit and perjury by suggesting they "could" have been more forthcoming. "Could" is a curious choice of words here, and it shows you doing exactly what you accuse me of. Food for thought. Wilentz should have been disbarred and Koehler charged with perjury. This idea that "we know" he did it so we're going to start framing evidence isn't acceptable under any circumstance. Yes, the 1/4" chisel was his, but in trying to connect him to the 3/4" inch they lied and misrepresented the situation in order to impress jury. If they engaged in these tactics here, where else did these or similar types of illegal conduct occur? Fact is, they were willing to do it beyond all doubt. In this example we have a conspiracy between the prosecution and its witness. A witness, I may add, who has been given so much positive attention as being such a great expert. These things matter Joe I've reviewed all the trial content on discussion of the 3/4" chisel and would say that Wilentz and Koehler somewhat misled the court with their findings surrounding the 'missing' 3/4" chisel in Hauptmann's toolbox. But disbarment and perjury? I believe that if questioned further about this for source verification, a reasonable argument would then have been made that the 3 chisels belonged to Hauptmann and were used by him during his carpentry work and by extension, a part of his carpentry toolkit.
In asking the jury to consider whether the 3/4" chisel could be connected to Hauptmann, the prosecution seemed equally as intent on demonstrating that a 3/4" chisel had been used to carve out the recesses in the ladder's siderails. Regarding the prosecution's inferrence that the 1/4" and 3/4" chisels were essentially identical with the exception of size and therefore the 3/4" chisel might be connected to Hauptmann, I don't believe this is valid due to the commonness of Buck Bros. chisels at the time. That the handle of the 3/4" chisel had been carelessly used with a steel hammer hitting it, ostensibly to rough hew a piece of wood and that a steel hammer would have been used to drive the 8-penny nails into the ladder's siderails, I believe is reasonably, potentially relevant towards the court-demonstrated evidence that demonstrated that a size 3/4" chisel, was used to carve out the ladder siderail mortises.
There are many other possible implications around Hauptmann's chisels (including the alleged Stanley set) and their use or relative non-use after the time of the ransom payment, not to mention the fact that the 3/4" size is probably a carpenter's 'go-to' size for a variety of functions, not all of them having to do with woodworking. It would have been so much better for Hauptmann at the trial if he had just been able to show he had that same handy 3/4" 'go-to' wood chisel available, but of course he wasn't able to do this.
I'd also venture there is much more to discuss on this subject, before even reasonable conclusions can be reached. Again, your research as usual, has uncovered a lot on many subjects, and I do believe there is much further capable of being explored on this one.
2. Regardless of how or why, the handles were different. One of Koehler's points was that the wood handles tied these chisels together. Do they? No. In fact, these handles does not link the two together, rather, suggests otherwise. One may feel comfortable believing they were mates anyway but that doesn't erase the true facts. To us anyway, because the true facts/situation was not afforded to the Jury for their consideration. Just the opposite. Hauptmann's wood chisel set, (other than the alleged Stanley set) was essentially a rag tag assortment of different makes and models. Storage of the three chisels, the 1/4", 1/2" and 1-1/2" in a cigar box, within the trunk in his apartment, suggests to me, they were possibly not in current use, even though Hauptmann in his trial testimony, didn't seem to realize this. The location of these chisels also suggests to me they were 'out of sight and out of mind,' essentially three less reasons for him to maintain his carpentry practice vs. his new found occupation as full-time Wall St. investor.
3. Is that what he's doing? So you don't think he planed down the handle on the 1/4" for this purpose? Or he did? If so, how would you have responded? My main point here is, there would have been no reason for the owner (Hauptmann or anyone else for that matter) to have planed the handle of the 3/4" chisel found at Highfields. The length and width of its blade would have provided a stationary base for it to have rested on a slight incline, even if suddenly jostled. Hauptmann's 1/4" chisel, with its relatively narrow blade, under the same conditions, would have been far more prone to roll on an incline even when at full blade length. Therefore, it does make sense to flatten the handle on a 1/4" chisel, as Hauptmann claimed he did, but not for a 3/4" chisel. The only exception here with the 3/4" rounded-handled chisel would be if its blade over time, had been ground down enough for its larger weight to have shifted from the blade end to the handle end. At that point, it would have made sense to flatten its handle to keep it from rolling on an incline.My secondary point. Hauptmann attempts to distance himself from the 3/4" chisel by suggesting the two chisels were not alike because one of them had the planed handle and the other did not. A carpenter would have known better here, and I believe Hauptmann presented an intentionally misleading narrative here that he simply hoped would not be questioned, and he was fortunate enough that it was not.If you're at all skeptical about what I've related above, and if you can grab a couple of vintage round handled chisels of those two sizes, try out a 'rolling test' for yourself. 4. I do not know. I've suggested it may have been borrowed at the time which was a real possibility. "Fought strongly to have it recovered?" Huh? He was consistent about his ownership of Stanely chisels as several sources indicate which has led me to believe he owned such a set. Scaduto's discovery seemed to support this. As I explained in my book, I do not believe what he found what actually came from Hauptmann's garage, but admittedly, this is just my opinion. But even if it wasn't, it shows the police entertained the thought that he did indeed have such a set.Fought / sought.. take your pick here. Question: I do know that investigators discovered a Stanley NAIL set, and wasn't it also found in the cigar box? Could this nail set somehow have become confused with the alleged Stanley CHISEL set?
|
|
The Stones Unturned Podcast
Guest
|
Chisel
Oct 10, 2023 15:05:22 GMT -5
Post by The Stones Unturned Podcast on Oct 10, 2023 15:05:22 GMT -5
Thanks! (I finally found a hi-res photo of the 3/4" chisel in question.) Yup. Buck Brothers. Swell. But, what about Schippel's chisels? Anybody know anything about those? Also, Hauptmann hardly had a "full set" with "one missing." He had a couple. The full set of those chisels had 12 all together: www.jimbodetools.com/products/complete-vintage-set-of-twelve-buck-bros-bevel-edge-socket-firmer-chisels-79053Also, HOW did the "kidnapper's" chisel end up on the ground with the ladder? Did "he" drop it? How? If he was trying to carry the ladder in one hand, and the kid in the other, where was the chisel? In his teeth? Besides, there were no footprints near the ladder or chisel. According to NJSP Corporal Wolf's report, the kidnapper must have THROWN the ladder several feet. Why? Why not drop it? I'll say it AGAIN--It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to "climb out" that window onto ANY ladder in ANY position. The taller French window? Sure. Probably. That little sash window? NO. WAY. Let alone do it with a 30 pound kid in your arms. But even if "he" THREW the kid out the window first, there is simply NO WAY an adult of any age or sex could climb back out onto any ladder. Even if they could climb in. Which, they couldn't. IF the window were above a porch roof, or something. Maybe. But, you STILL couldn't do that without kicking the suitcase/box lid out of position. Let alone, do ALL this in PITCH DARK conditions. SILENTLY. On the FIRST try. No way. On the other hand, all you really have to do is hop in the library window, tip-toe up the stairs, grab the kind, DROP THE RANSOM NOTE INSIDE THE CRIB, and tiptoe back down the stairs. Piece of cake. I mean, if you know so much about the layout of the place and the habits of the, um, inhabitants...piece of cake.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 10, 2023 15:39:18 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2023 15:39:18 GMT -5
1. Not "somewhat" but absolutely. That wasn't the situation as it was found. If they had presented it as you just did that would have been fine. But ask yourself why they did not. Once you answer there's your reason for disbarment and perjury. Next, Koehler himself concluded he could not determine the width of the chisel used. It wasn't until after Hauptmann's arrest that his opinion changed. Considering the ruse they pulled with the tool chest, is there even a question why his opinion changed? There's no excuse for lying, tampering, and fabricating evidence. Whether or not they believed Hauptmann guilty is no excuse. So there's a bigger issue here, one that leads to the question as to whether anything they said was trustworthy since they were quite willing to engage in this conduct. The main issue is that the evidence should have been presented truthfully. You may believe that 3/4" chisel was Hauptmann's after reviewing everything yourself as it truly existed. That's how the jury should have come to such a conclusion too. But they were not only lied to there was a degree of acting involved here too. Why? To improperly influence the jury. For example, let's say someone broke into my home wearing a mask and dropped it on the way out. It was tested for DNA and two unique profiles were found. Later, a man was arrested for the crime and one of those profiles matched his DNA. If the Prosecutor asserted that only one profile existed and withheld from the Defense the information about the other one because they believed the charged individual was guilty, I'd be the first person to say the entire matter should be thrown out if it was presented that way in court. 2. The cigar box was found in his closet. The other work he did I mentioned in V3 I believe. That included building Manfred's furniture, building display stands, and something to do with chairs. Maybe I didn't, I honestly can't remember at the moment. Whether he used those chisels or not I couldn't say. 3. I fully understand your point Joe. Still, Koehler did not make it, instead he presented the condition of both handles as if they indicated a match. One did not have anything to do with the other as we both know. As a reminder, Koehler was supposed to have been an expert. 4. See your response at point #2 because your position here seems at odds. Even so, how do we know when those chisels were loaned out? I think your point assumes the chisels were loaned out for like six months or something. For example, I owned a carpet cleaner once that I loaned out and didn't seek it back until I needed it myself. Since you don't believe Hauptmann needed his chisels, what's the hurry? Another possibility is that since Koehler believed some tools were missing that were used to construct the ladder, perhaps you might consider they were there too? 4a. I'm not sure who you believe was making a mistake like this. Hauptmann? Seems to me he's either lying or telling the truth. Confusing a nail set instead of a set of chisels doesn't even sound remotely possible. Scaduto? His book and letters are quite clear about what he found.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2023 15:46:40 GMT -5
Thanks! (I finally found a hi-res photo of the 3/4" chisel in question.) Yup. Buck Brothers. Swell. But, what about Schippel's chisels? Anybody know anything about those? Also, Hauptmann hardly had a "full set" with "one missing." He had a couple. The full set of those chisels had 12 all together: www.jimbodetools.com/products/complete-vintage-set-of-twelve-buck-bros-bevel-edge-socket-firmer-chisels-79053Also, HOW did the "kidnapper's" chisel end up on the ground with the ladder? Did "he" drop it? How? If he was trying to carry the ladder in one hand, and the kid in the other, where was the chisel? In his teeth? Besides, there were no footprints near the ladder or chisel. According to NJSP Corporal Wolf's report, the kidnapper must have THROWN the ladder several feet. Why? Why not drop it? I'll say it AGAIN--It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to "climb out" that window onto ANY ladder in ANY position. The taller French window? Sure. Probably. That little sash window? NO. WAY. Let alone do it with a 30 pound kid in your arms. But even if "he" THREW the kid out the window first, there is simply NO WAY an adult of any age or sex could climb back out onto any ladder. Even if they could climb in. Which, they couldn't. IF the window were above a porch roof, or something. Maybe. But, you STILL couldn't do that without kicking the suitcase/box lid out of position. Let alone, do ALL this in PITCH DARK conditions. SILENTLY. On the FIRST try. No way. On the other hand, all you really have to do is hop in the library window, tip-toe up the stairs, grab the kind, DROP THE RANSOM NOTE INSIDE THE CRIB, and tiptoe back down the stairs. Piece of cake. I mean, if you know so much about the layout of the place and the habits of the, um, inhabitants...piece of cake. A reenactment was made for the NOVA special. It was done during the day, great weather, with a safety line, and the man was successful. He put the bag in his teeth while climbing out of the window. Obviously the variables of darkness, wind, cold, no safety line, and for those who allege it was Hauptmann, he had false teeth so couldn't have pulled such a maneuver with the bag.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Chisel
Oct 11, 2023 9:05:05 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 11, 2023 9:05:05 GMT -5
Thanks! (I finally found a hi-res photo of the 3/4" chisel in question.) Yup. Buck Brothers. Swell. But, what about Schippel's chisels? Anybody know anything about those? Also, Hauptmann hardly had a "full set" with "one missing." He had a couple. The full set of those chisels had 12 all together: www.jimbodetools.com/products/complete-vintage-set-of-twelve-buck-bros-bevel-edge-socket-firmer-chisels-79053Also, HOW did the "kidnapper's" chisel end up on the ground with the ladder? Did "he" drop it? How? If he was trying to carry the ladder in one hand, and the kid in the other, where was the chisel? In his teeth? Besides, there were no footprints near the ladder or chisel. According to NJSP Corporal Wolf's report, the kidnapper must have THROWN the ladder several feet. Why? Why not drop it? I'll say it AGAIN--It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to "climb out" that window onto ANY ladder in ANY position. The taller French window? Sure. Probably. That little sash window? NO. WAY. Let alone do it with a 30 pound kid in your arms. But even if "he" THREW the kid out the window first, there is simply NO WAY an adult of any age or sex could climb back out onto any ladder. Even if they could climb in. Which, they couldn't. IF the window were above a porch roof, or something. Maybe. But, you STILL couldn't do that without kicking the suitcase/box lid out of position. Let alone, do ALL this in PITCH DARK conditions. SILENTLY. On the FIRST try. No way. On the other hand, all you really have to do is hop in the library window, tip-toe up the stairs, grab the kind, DROP THE RANSOM NOTE INSIDE THE CRIB, and tiptoe back down the stairs. Piece of cake. I mean, if you know so much about the layout of the place and the habits of the, um, inhabitants...piece of cake. A reenactment was made for the NOVA special. It was done during the day, great weather, with a safety line, and the man was successful. He put the bag in his teeth while climbing out of the window. Obviously the variables of darkness, wind, cold, no safety line, and for those who allege it was Hauptmann, he had false teeth so couldn't have pulled such a maneuver with the bag. Did the kidnapper out of necessity, really have to wrestle with the child in a bag or otherwise, while going back out the window? Why are all re-enactments, either practical or even theoretical, based on this scenario? Could not a lone kidnapper have just lowered the bag and neutralized child to the ground by using a rope tied to the bag, before exiting the nursery? And if he had have had assistance from another person, surely that person would have been awaiting the handoff of child from a position just outside the window, while standing on a rung near the top of the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 11, 2023 12:41:41 GMT -5
A reenactment was made for the NOVA special. It was done during the day, great weather, with a safety line, and the man was successful. He put the bag in his teeth while climbing out of the window. Obviously the variables of darkness, wind, cold, no safety line, and for those who allege it was Hauptmann, he had false teeth so couldn't have pulled such a maneuver with the bag. Did the kidnapper out of necessity, really have to wrestle with the child in a bag or otherwise, while going back out the window? Why are all re-enactments, either practical or even theoretical, based on this scenario? Could not a lone kidnapper have just lowered the bag and neutralized child to the ground by using a rope tied to the bag, before exiting the nursery? And if he had have had assistance from another person, surely that person would have been awaiting the handoff of child from a position just outside the window, while standing on a rung near the top of the ladder. Still boggles my mind, as it did the investigators that night, that a kidnapper would choose to once again scale the chest with the suitcase on top and tinker toys on top of that instead of simply just quietly moving it out of the way. It made an already near-impossible escape even harder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Chisel
Oct 11, 2023 14:56:59 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 11, 2023 14:56:59 GMT -5
Did the kidnapper out of necessity, really have to wrestle with the child in a bag or otherwise, while going back out the window? Why are all re-enactments, either practical or even theoretical, based on this scenario? Could not a lone kidnapper have just lowered the bag and neutralized child to the ground by using a rope tied to the bag, before exiting the nursery? And if he had have had assistance from another person, surely that person would have been awaiting the handoff of child from a position just outside the window, while standing on a rung near the top of the ladder. Still boggles my mind, as it did the investigators that night, that a kidnapper would choose to once again scale the chest with the suitcase on top and tinker toys on top of that instead of simply just quietly moving it out of the way. It made an already near-impossible escape even harder. I fully understand the degree of difficulty involved here, but have long concluded this kidnapping was the work of someone up to the task of adaptively dealing with whatever obstacles presented themselves, perhaps to a degree beyond common understanding. Like someone who was able to silently burglarize three homes at night in his home town, basically lived in a ship's coal bin during one of his three attempts to illegally enter the US and clung to a pier for hours on end in cold ocean water to avoid capture. And as I firmly believe Hauptmann was not only the kidnapper but also CJ for multiple sound reasons, the same level of manual agility and dexterity that allowed him to scale an 8-foot iron rail fence, swing himself over the top and land lightly on the other side. As implied by his wartime friend, Frank Tolksdorf, Hauptmann was the kind of person you would have wanted on your side in a life or death situation.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 11, 2023 20:07:16 GMT -5
Joe likes this
Post by lurp173 on Oct 11, 2023 20:07:16 GMT -5
Just a couple of comments on the ladder entry/exit if I may. I know that many on this forum have seen this, but another ladder reenactment was also done by Don Wildman in 2018 as part of his TV series Mysteries at the Museum, season 19/episode 14, on the Travel Channel (Michael along with Falzini, Gardner and others were on a panel discussion towards the end of this episode). Although Wildman was 57 years old at the time and certainly not in great physical shape, he did succeed (although quite clumsily) in getting into and out of the nursery via a replica LKC ladder (and without a safety line or carrying the bag with his teeth!). If a 57 year old like Wildman could get in the nursery and then exit with a 30 pound bag, it certainly shows that it not only can be done but that it would not even be that difficult for a very fit and athletic 32 year old such as Hauptmann. Even Lindbergh commented on Hauptmann's excellent physique.
For me, if anyone doubts that this window entry and exit can be done, even at night and under the conditions of March 1st, it indicates that they have never been a well conditioned and athletic 32 year old man. I have absolutely no doubt that my co-workers and I at the age of 32 could have done this entry very efficiently and very quickly under the following two conditions:
** The child had to be unconscious/deceased when it was ripped out from under the pinned bedsheets of the crib.
** An accomplice on the ground (standing on the boardwalk) was securing the ladder tightly against the house wall in order to ensure that it did not move sideways upon entering and exiting the window.
Since more than one set of footprints were discovered at the outside crime scene (page 90 of DeLong's interview with Schwartzkopf in June 1932), I believe, as many do, that there were multiple perpetrators at Highfields that night. It certainly follows that one of these individuals would have been able to steady the base of the ladder while it was being climbed.
In light of all of the above, I have little trouble in accepting the possibility that the child could have been taken from the nursery that night of March 1st via the ladder. With a window that was not even locked, it was not an impossible task by any means. Just some of my thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 12, 2023 9:45:56 GMT -5
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 12, 2023 9:45:56 GMT -5
Just a couple of comments on the ladder entry/exit if I may. I know that many on this forum have seen this, but another ladder reenactment was also done by Don Wildman in 2018 as part of his TV series Mysteries at the Museum, season 19/episode 14, on the Travel Channel (Michael along with Falzini, Gardner and others were on a panel discussion towards the end of this episode). Although Wildman was 57 years old at the time and certainly not in great physical shape, he did succeed (although quite clumsily) in getting into and out of the nursery via a replica LKC ladder (and without a safety line or carrying the bag with his teeth!). If a 57 year old like Wildman could get in the nursery and then exit with a 30 pound bag, it certainly shows that it not only can be done but that it would not even be that difficult for a very fit and athletic 32 year old such as Hauptmann. Even Lindbergh commented on Hauptmann's excellent physique. For me, if anyone doubts that this window entry and exit can be done, even at night and under the conditions of March 1st, it indicates that they have never been a well conditioned and athletic 32 year old man. I have absolutely no doubt that my co-workers and I at the age of 32 could have done this entry very efficiently and very quickly under the following two conditions: ** The child had to be unconscious/deceased when it was ripped out from under the pinned bedsheets of the crib. ** An accomplice on the ground (standing on the boardwalk) was securing the ladder tightly against the house wall in order to ensure that it did not move sideways upon entering and exiting the window. Since more than one set of footprints were discovered at the outside crime scene (page 90 of DeLong's interview with Schwartzkopf in June 1932), I believe, as many do, that there were multiple perpetrators at Highfields that night. It certainly follows that one of these individuals would have been able to steady the base of the ladder while it was being climbed. In light of all of the above, I have little trouble in accepting the possibility that the child could have been taken from the nursery that night of March 1st via the ladder. With a window that was not even locked, it was not an impossible task by any means. Just some of my thoughts on this. Hold on--I think I found it on Apple TV. Give me a minute... Awesome! Thanks! Very helpful! Um, you notice he had to MOVE the suitcase over to one side so he could STAND on the chest climbing out. Right? I won't quibble over the other convenient edits. I didn't see him actually climb all the way through from outside or inside without a tiny bit of help from his crew, but I won't quibble over that. I will, however, quibble over the fact that he had to move the suitcase that was not moved when the crime scene photos were taken. And, um, where is the antique beer stein that miraculously WASN'T knocked off? I don't see it in his reenactment. But I do see him unavoidably "rubbing" against the spot where the stein was found still standing... I will also quibble over a couple of other things: 1. According to Corporal Wolf's report, there was ONE set of footprints WITHOUT SHOES coming and going from the house. It's the stocking feet I'm quibbling over. Find a 1-inch nominal board and stand on the edge of it. In stocking feet. Forget climbing up a ladder. Just stand on the edge of one board on one shoeless foot. Isn't that fun? Now, walk 1/2 mile (according to Wolf's report) over freezing muddy ground in stocking feet. Now, climb up and down a ladder. Now, carrying a 30 pound sack of sugar, walk the 1/2 mile back. Isn't that fun? Now, back to the chisel, which I so rudely dragged the conversation away from. According to Wolf's report, the ladder was partly DISMANTLED. Not partly folded up. Dismantled. WHY? Maybe he decided he didn't need the third section. It wasn't used in the reenactment. But, then, the REST of ladder--and the chisel--was found right next to it, as though he had dismantled it AFTER he climbed down. For whatever bizarre reason. But, forget that. Wolf says the kidnapper "apparently THREW the ladder..." In other words, there were NO footprints, shoeless or otherwise, near it. WHY? I can see leaving the ladder in situ. I can see laying it on the ground so it's not so conspicuous. But THROWING IT? Silently? AND the chisel? Where WAS the chisel whilst (snicker) he was climbing OUT of the window? Not in his hand. In his teeth? In his pocket? WHY would he throw it over by the ladder? So he can get framed? PS The photos of the ladder in this doc show NO mud on the ladder. NO photos ever seen ever show ANY traces of mud on the ladder. From a shoe, or a sock. Wolf's report mentions two small smudges of mud, one on the suitcase, and one on the floor. NOTHING about ANY mud on ANY part of the ladder. PPS You, uh, you've NOTICED that REAL ladder lying up against the house underneath the French window, right? The window that WAS tall enough to climb in and out of? The window he "DIDN'T" choose? That's a concrete patio under that window. Right? The one Betty Gow SAID she deliberately left open? (I know, the shutter, but, there was a shutter on the other window, too...) To let in some air? But instead, our supervillain... Thanks again! VERY helpful!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 12, 2023 11:00:11 GMT -5
Did the kidnapper out of necessity, really have to wrestle with the child in a bag or otherwise, while going back out the window? Why are all re-enactments, either practical or even theoretical, based on this scenario? Could not a lone kidnapper have just lowered the bag and neutralized child to the ground by using a rope tied to the bag, before exiting the nursery? And if he had have had assistance from another person, surely that person would have been awaiting the handoff of child from a position just outside the window, while standing on a rung near the top of the ladder. I can't entertain a rope now being introduced. Again, the most important variable is time. Were the "kidnappers" concerned about it or not? Bringing a rope to then be somehow tied to a bag to then be slowly lowered sounds a little silly to me. Something like this, if real, should have been a "get in and out" as rapidly as possible. It's why none of this makes any sense, so sure, bring a rope, a trained monkey, and a trampoline too. Why not? Intend to break glass with a chisel while you're at it. But no. Warped shutter, window unlocked, child asleep, unattended, doesn't cry out as he always did, and dog left behind instead of sleeping under the crib. Anyway, I was addressing the Lone-Wolf scenario, and I've always believed multiple people were involved, so yes, multiple people better explain the sitatuation. Just a couple of comments on the ladder entry/exit if I may. I know that many on this forum have seen this, but another ladder reenactment was also done by Don Wildman in 2018 as part of his TV series Mysteries at the Museum, season 19/episode 14, on the Travel Channel (Michael along with Falzini, Gardner and others were on a panel discussion towards the end of this episode). Although Wildman was 57 years old at the time and certainly not in great physical shape, he did succeed (although quite clumsily) in getting into and out of the nursery via a replica LKC ladder (and without a safety line or carrying the bag with his teeth!). If a 57 year old like Wildman could get in the nursery and then exit with a 30 pound bag, it certainly shows that it not only can be done but that it would not even be that difficult for a very fit and athletic 32 year old such as Hauptmann. Even Lindbergh commented on Hauptmann's excellent physique. NOVA tried to get the height right, knowing the ground is higher today than it was in 1932 as just one example. I cannot say whether or not this was done for any other recreation. One cannot construct a ladder to the same specifications then place it up against the house and expect it represents a true situation today. Additionally, there were some scenes that I believe did not make it in the NOVA documentary. One that I saw that I don't believe made it was when Kevin Klein, John Douglas, and Mark Falzini, all three together, doing a "war dance" as they attempted to raise the ladder before placing against the wall. Mind you, this was on a nice clear day without any cold or wind howling. None of what I mention is to undermine Lurp's position of course, I just wanted to offer a little clarity from my perspective. As to more than one person, yes, there is no doubt in my mind there were as I've repeatedly stated.
|
|