|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 9, 2017 8:45:01 GMT -5
the problem mike is nobody knows where the ladder was built. we don't even know if he took it out of the attic or the basement. I assume that he built it in the garage where else could he have built it? as far as the museum I think the important stuff was recovered I don't see anything that can change the case. the evidence against Hauptman is to strong
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 9, 2017 8:47:39 GMT -5
Still wonder why Lloyd Fisher believed in Hauptmann's innocence. There is no proof that that piece of wood was ever in that attic. Old wood is old wood. Why would a master carpenter use something that wasn't good quality to perform the crime of the century? And nails can't be traced! I guess kate you should study the wood evidence in this case a little closer. theres plenty of proof rail 16 came from the attic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 10:57:57 GMT -5
There were so many thoughts and opinions about the kidnap ladder. Here is just one of many that appeared during the days after the crime occurred.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 9, 2017 17:42:45 GMT -5
Still wonder why Lloyd Fisher believed in Hauptmann's innocence. There is no proof that that piece of wood was ever in that attic. Old wood is old wood. Why would a master carpenter use something that wasn't good quality to perform the crime of the century? And nails can't be traced! I guess kate you should study the wood evidence in this case a little closer. theres plenty of proof rail 16 came from the attic I remember Kevkon's opinions about rail 16. It is speculation just like Kohler. I've read everything I can find although I'm not able to access the resource some of you have.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 9, 2017 17:57:40 GMT -5
There were so many thoughts and opinions about the kidnap ladder. Here is just one of many that appeared during the days after the crime occurred. This is what I thought. Even if he picked up the odd piece of wood, the whole ladder was built shabbily. ". It broke! So many contradictions in this case. A poorly made ladder made by a carpenter. A well planned kidnapping in which the kidnapper just happened to guess that the baby was where he'd never been on a Tuesday night. Staked out the place and knew baby wasn't disturbed between 8-10 but couldn't figure out that the family was in Englewood on Anna's night working. For 60 years Anna Hauptmann insisted her husband was innocent because she knew he was in the bakery with her. The rungs on the ladder were spaced so far apart that making descent extremely difficult. Maybe if he'd used both pieces of wood from the basement the rungs would have been closer.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 9, 2017 17:58:26 GMT -5
There were so many thoughts and opinions about the kidnap ladder. Here is just one of many that appeared during the days after the crime occurred. Thanks Amy. I think we have to remember the defense was never allowed into that house. The phone number on the trim of the door was bogus evidence entered in the trial and probably hurt the defense. I wouldn't trust much of anything they used. Many of their witnesses were pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 10, 2017 0:34:49 GMT -5
There were so many thoughts and opinions about the kidnap ladder. Here is just one of many that appeared during the days after the crime occurred. This is what I thought. Even if he picked up the odd piece of wood, the whole ladder was built shabbily. ". It broke! So many contradictions in this case. A poorly made ladder made by a carpenter. A well planned kidnapping in which the kidnapper just happened to guess that the baby was where he'd never been on a Tuesday night. Staked out the place and knew baby wasn't disturbed between 8-10 but couldn't figure out that the family was in Englewood on Anna's night working. For 60 years Anna Hauptmann insisted her husband was innocent because she knew he was in the bakery with her. The rungs on the ladder were spaced so far apart that making descent extremely difficult. Maybe if he'd used both pieces of wood from the basement the rungs would have been closer. That nursery provides the biggest clues to me. He chose the one shutter that could not be locked? Not to mention that the barriers upon entry (chest with suitcase and tinker toys) would have certainly been remedied on his exit by simply moving the chest to the side. By not doing so, he made a hard escape near impossible and in turn raised a significant red flag that things were not as they appeared. To quote Gardner and, in turn, Wolfe: “In the nursery that night, though, Officer Wolfe studied the window and chest. If the kidnapper got in without disturbing anything, thought Wolfe, he could hardly have exited without moving that chest. He had to get closer to the window in order to get out with the child. “The culprit would have pushed it around [aside] in order to gain a secure foothold [on the ladder],” and “he certainly would not have taken time to push the chest back in place, especially as he had the baby in his arms and was in the act of a desperate crime. But bear in mind—the chest had not been moved.” Wolfe’s thoughtful examination of the undisturbed chest, perhaps the best clue inside the house, was not paid much attention. ”
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2017 12:01:37 GMT -5
Amen! And what about ascent? You would have to be built with height and legs and agility like a pro basketball player to get up that ladder and down that ladder with the baby as Hauptmann was alleged to have done. Police couldn't do that in their tests. The rungs were spaced about 19" apart, compared to the standard 12" apart. Hauptmann, remember, was only slightly taller than average for a man of that era.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 11, 2017 13:12:18 GMT -5
Amen! And what about ascent? You would have to be built with height and legs and agility like a pro basketball player to get up that ladder and down that ladder with the baby as Hauptmann was alleged to have done. Police couldn't do that in their tests. The rungs were spaced about 19" apart, compared to the standard 12" apart. Hauptmann, remember, was only slightly taller than average for a man of that era. The ladder has to be a hoax The NJSP used a replica to do their tests in daylight without the extra added problem of carrying a package while getting out of the window onto the ladder and climbing down with it.
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Aug 11, 2017 20:42:01 GMT -5
The ladder was designed with two goals: 1) It had to fit into the back seat of the kidnapper's car 2) It had to be built in a way so as to minimize it's weight so it could be carried by "one" kidnapper. The fewer the rungs, the less the weight.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 12, 2017 6:16:50 GMT -5
The ladder was designed with two goals: 1) It had to fit into the back seat of the kidnapper's car 2) It had to be built in a way so as to minimize it's weight so it could be carried by "one" kidnapper. The fewer the rungs, the less the weight. It didn't fit in the back seat but rather over the seats according to witness Lupica. A carpenter might have designed a ladder that would have been compact and reliable. And why the extra section that wasn't needed? Another thought, why leave the ladder? Why not just watch Windows for lights, then plop the baby in the car and return for the ladder? It was a dark and stormy night and we have to wonder how all this was accomplished with no light. Even Lindbergh had Ollie look for flashlights! The ladder provided another "clue" to the too perfect crime scene.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 14, 2017 8:41:13 GMT -5
far from speculation kate
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 14, 2017 8:43:36 GMT -5
hi amy it was built for one time use. I don't think he could have used that third rail it would have been really shaky. it wasn't made for someone over two hundred pounds. I climbed a replica ladder
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 14, 2017 10:22:34 GMT -5
hi amy it was built for one time use. I don't think he could have used that third rail it would have been really shaky. it wasn't made for someone over two hundred pounds. I climbed a replica ladder Sort of brings up an interesting point, doesn't it? Why build a ladder for the most daring of all crimes that you yourself can't climb. Lightweight is helpful but impractical if the latter won't serve its most basic function.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 14, 2017 19:13:32 GMT -5
hi amy it was built for one time use. I don't think he could have used that third rail it would have been really shaky. it wasn't made for someone over two hundred pounds. I climbed a replica ladder Did you climb it at night? Alone? We're your shoes muddy and slippery? Just can't believe a carpenter would build something that could have easily caused him to be stranded in the upstairs with no way down. Just too risky.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2017 21:18:32 GMT -5
He would have thrown the baby out the window and jumped.
The ladder could have been a construction ladder - meant to be mounted to a wall of a structure being built - which Hauptmann adapted (not particularly effectively) to a leaning ladder. This has been gone over before.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 15, 2017 7:47:56 GMT -5
He would have thrown the baby out the window and jumped. The ladder could have been a construction ladder - meant to be mounted to a wall of a structure being built - which Hauptmann adapted (not particularly effectively) to a leaning ladder. This has been gone over before. I know. I left the board in 2007. Still don't believe Hauptmann built that ladder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Aug 15, 2017 11:29:19 GMT -5
Rail 16 originated from Hauptmann's house, National Lumber and Millwork was the source for other ladder rails and where he purchased his lumber, ladder nails and the ones found in his garage were from an extremely narrow PPG production window. You've got some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence for starters, of Hauptmann's direct involvement.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 15, 2017 12:28:59 GMT -5
The ladder certainly was of Hauptmann's making. The problem with it though was that it just wasn't sturdy enough for a normal leaning ladder but would have worked as a ladder nailed to a wall. These ladders did and do exist. The weight problem was no big deal - if it weighed 36 pounds or 57 pounds, whoever was handling it would just deal with it.
Possibly, in creating the third section which would have been necessary for the Morrow residence, a rail split, and to keep from purchasing wood on 3/1/32 Richard used what he had in the basement. He must have thought he could get by with the lighter construction but of course it broke making enough noise so that he hurried outta Dodge, leaving the ladder behind and, who would ever think it could be traced to him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Aug 15, 2017 13:46:56 GMT -5
Jack, I don't believe he had any intention of trying to pull the job at the Morrow house in Englewood. Much too risky. That he apparently had to rush Rail 16 just before the crime, tells me he didn't really know if two or three sections would be required in Hopewell. He was covering his bases.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 15, 2017 13:53:56 GMT -5
Jack, I don't believe he had any intention of trying to pull the job at the Morrow house in Englewood. Much too risky. That he apparently had to rush Rail 16 just before the crime, tells me he didn't really know if two or three sections would be required in Hopewell. He was covering his bases. The ladder "evidence" is shaky Sorry I couldn't resist the levity. The problem with the ladder situation is that it doesn't work. The real one held by NJSP was broken. The replica used by NJSP also broke? And the rail 16 part was never used, wasn't necessary. And is the only part that was connected by Bornmann using planks/boards from the attic. Throwing the baby out the window would have created a scene that could have been seen from inside the den downstairs and leaving a trail set in mud. I'm having a lot of trouble trying to logically equate the ladder with a kidnap. It would necessarily need another person at the bottom or inside the nursery for a hand off. That for me always points inside to one of the staff.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 15, 2017 18:02:54 GMT -5
Jack, I don't believe he had any intention of trying to pull the job at the Morrow house in Englewood. Much too risky. That he apparently had to rush Rail 16 just before the crime, tells me he didn't really know if two or three sections would be required in Hopewell. He was covering his bases. The ladder "evidence" is shaky Sorry I couldn't resist the levity. The problem with the ladder situation is that it doesn't work. The real one held by NJSP was broken. The replica used by NJSP also broke? And the rail 16 part was never used, wasn't necessary. And is the only part that was connected by Bornmann using planks/boards from the attic. Throwing the baby out the window would have created a scene that could have been seen from inside the den downstairs and leaving a trail set in mud. I'm having a lot of trouble trying to logically equate the ladder with a kidnap. It would necessarily need another person at the bottom or inside the nursery for a hand off. That for me always points inside to one of the staff.
I agree Julie. It's one thing to climb the ladder in the daytime but another to put it up and climb into a small window. Then, not disturb anything in the room. Even if the baby was thrown out the window,which I doubt because I would think the closed head injury would have rather been a bloody gash with skin torn, I can't imagine descending out the window onto that rickety ladder. Seems impossible.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 15, 2017 19:00:29 GMT -5
The ladder "evidence" is shaky Sorry I couldn't resist the levity. The problem with the ladder situation is that it doesn't work. The real one held by NJSP was broken. The replica used by NJSP also broke? And the rail 16 part was never used, wasn't necessary. And is the only part that was connected by Bornmann using planks/boards from the attic. Throwing the baby out the window would have created a scene that could have been seen from inside the den downstairs and leaving a trail set in mud. I'm having a lot of trouble trying to logically equate the ladder with a kidnap. It would necessarily need another person at the bottom or inside the nursery for a hand off. That for me always points inside to one of the staff.
I agree Julie. It's one thing to climb the ladder in the daytime but another to put it up and climb into a small window. Then, not disturb anything in the room. Even if the baby was thrown out the window,which I doubt because I would think the closed head injury would have rather been a bloody gash with skin torn, I can't imagine descending out the window onto that rickety ladder. Seems impossible. Getting out of that window was challenging enough, but while holding a kid and not taking the easy route by moving the chest, suitcase and toys? Come on. Only one logical conclusion there. Meanwhile, a light impression where a burlap sack was sat on the ground is reflected. A plummeting toddler would certainly make a greater impression than what was found. We also know this is how the ladder didn't break sending the climber to the ground.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 15, 2017 19:56:40 GMT -5
Fisher thought his plan was to go to Englewood (where the baby usually was during the week) because the ladder fit for that house. He changed plans when the baby wasn't at the Morrow residence, and went to Lindbergh's. Obviously he'd never even seen their (Charles') house because he brought all three ladder sections to the yard - so much for intense planning.
I said he'd throw the baby out the window if something happened to the ladder and he couldn't get down it, not that he threw the baby out the window. Do you commenters even read the posts?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 16, 2017 0:25:35 GMT -5
Fisher thought his plan was to go to Englewood (where the baby usually was during the week) because the ladder fit for that house. He changed plans when the baby wasn't at the Morrow residence, and went to Lindbergh's. Obviously he'd never even seen their (Charles') house because he brought all three ladder sections to the yard - so much for intense planning. I said he'd throw the baby out the window if something happened to the ladder and he couldn't get down it, not that he threw the baby out the window. Do you commenters even read the posts? How did he know the baby was't in Englewood? How did he know which window to go to if he'd never seen Charles' house and there are no footprints approaching the house far enough out for him to get a good view into the window to determine which was the nursery? How did he know the room he was going up in the ladder with the shutters closed was not filled to the brim with people?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2017 4:55:45 GMT -5
Fisher thought his plan was to go to Englewood (where the baby usually was during the week) because the ladder fit for that house. He changed plans when the baby wasn't at the Morrow residence, and went to Lindbergh's. Obviously he'd never even seen their (Charles') house because he brought all three ladder sections to the yard - so much for intense planning. The problem is that ladder, even with 3 sections, would not have worked at Englewood because it still would have been far too short. I know this because the police investigated this theory and completely ruled it out. There's several sources at the Archives which reveal this.... Off the top of my head I recall one being a NJSP Report and another an FBI Report.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 16, 2017 4:57:54 GMT -5
The most popular writer about the Lindbergh Crime wrote that about Englewood, not me. The kidnapper may have been able to tell they weren't there by lights or cars - I'm not sure.
As far as Hopewell goes, lots could be deduced by observation and it seems much by luck. I guess endless wondering about things like how far the ladder rungs were apart doesn't solve anything. Fact is that the child was somehow taken from the nursery. After that it's a whodunit which leads almost exclusively to Richard Hauptmann. There really isn't even another good candidate as an accomplice. Remember, Hauptmann was the one who brought up Fisch and most of his unsavory doings. I don't think Hauptmann would bring up someone who could rat him out for felony b&e, even though he's dead. Fisch may have said something to relatives along the way, or had a death-bed confession that would make sense when people put Fisch, Hauptmann, and Charlie Lindbergh together. So, IMO Fisch is out, and there's really all there was. Baker, Nosovisky, Capone, etc. were all known and cleared and disappeared each in his own way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2017 5:13:14 GMT -5
The most popular writer about the Lindbergh Crime wrote that about Englewood, not me. The kidnapper may have been able to tell they weren't there by lights or cars - I'm not sure. I understand that Jack, but the New Jersey State Police wrote that it was not true. It's why everything written in either of his books needs to be properly researched. If anyone goes to the NJSP Archives they will find all kinds of ideas and theories. But if they stay to pursue them to their logical conclusions they will find follow-ups. He obviously did not do that here or much of anywhere else. So he's a great "jumping off point" - meaning the book is a good place to start as motivating research, however, he's not a reliable source.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 16, 2017 5:57:09 GMT -5
What wasn't true? In a later statement, perhaps explaining. he said that the ladder had to be used in two sections, the second being from the roof to the nursery window.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 16, 2017 5:59:35 GMT -5
BTW, the NJSP in spite of all the time they spent on the case did not solve the crime. Anything they say probably should be questioned.
|
|