kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2007 7:45:17 GMT -5
That should be a riser vent for the plumbing which will terminate outside of the house.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2007 5:50:56 GMT -5
I wanted to kick more around about the "Klein-Purdy" Theory....
I've been looking closely at the information surrounding the Electrician who did this job and its interesting to note that his bid for the job was way lower then the others. For example, one bid was as high as $235.00 as opposed to the winning bid of $126.00. The only other bid that I have found (to date) which comes closest is $190.00.
For me, this is yet another bit of circumstance to apply here knowing they wouldn't be wasting time when dealing with this (1) piece of 2x6 obstacle.
Now my question is this: Did only S-226 remain on the floor or did the entire board eventually wind up in the basement? What is the likelihood of the rest of that piece being removed before the job was finished?
It seems to me this would explain Miller's observation that no piece was missing on that floor and might explain the rest of the back-dated Police reports. Because the basement had an external entrance it might have been in the Police's best interest to place this board back up there in order to limit any argument of "someone else" having gone into the basement to take that board.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 9, 2007 16:46:17 GMT -5
The most compelling aspect of the floorboard removal is still the location of that starter board in relation to the second floor wall. I don't know how accurately one can date the attic floor installation relative to the rough electrical installation, but even if the floor pre-dates the initial electric work there could be many reasons for a later need to access that wall from the top via the attic. I see it happen all of the time. As for the removal of the entire floorboard and then a later re-install by the police, it's an interesting thought. Personally I don't think that they would have put that one together, especially since that 1"x6" t&g was such a common building material prior to the widespread use of plywood. I would also tend to believe that S-226 would exhibit more damage as I doubt that had it been removed by electricians there would be little concern over damaging it with a pry bar. Usually when you pull up a piece of old Yellow Pine flooring it splits or at least the edges do, especially after years in a dry attic.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2007 20:31:25 GMT -5
This is good stuff....
First of all thanks for correcting my error - the board was a 1x6 and not 2x6. Keep an eye on my stuff because sometimes I am thinking one thing but typing another....
I think I could demonstrate the fact the electric was done afterwords with what I have. But even so - perhaps it was indeed removed later for other reasons due to its location. The saw cut and its location indicates it wasn't a carpenter.
I made the suggestion concerning the remainder of Board 27 being returned to the attic based upon the knowledge that the attic was searched w/o any such finding on 9/26. This actual "discovery" (if there was one) was made once Koehler finally arrived on scene on October 9th and then of course the "other" reports were written and back-dated to reflect this discovery on 9-26 when it clearly wasn't made then. Of course then there's Miller, and a host of other circumstances....
I think the "control" to what the damage could have been is contained on Rail 16 if in fact that is the other piece of S-226. There are no "pry" marks on it according to Koehler's 3-4-33 report.
And so we look at S-226 and don't see much damage (e.g. "china man's eyes, pry marks, etc.). What we did have was the lower portion "snapping" off as described by Bornmann having pulled it up with his bare hands.
This is our dilemma here as well.
Let me ask you this: Could those cut nails have pulled out of the joists that easily? We're talking 8+ years if Bornmann had in fact done what he claimed to have. And if so, why would these nails in the lower piece "hold" when the others simply pulled out of the joist?
(No agenda on my part here....just trying to gather the facts from someone with the knowledge to answer these questions with a neutral perspective).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 10, 2007 6:55:06 GMT -5
Unfortunately there is no "scientific" way to answer this simply because there are so many variables at play, though from experience I would definitely say yes to the first question. As for the second, the proper way to place that first board is by a combination of face and blind nails. The blind or toe nails are used to drive the board ( move it) as well as holding the tongue side down while allowing for movement due to expansion and contraction. However it appears that this plank was face nailed only. However, that doesn't mean all of the nails were driven perfectly perpendicular and some probably were angled in. So while some of the nails would offer little resistance to the plank being pulled others , especially as the plank is twisted upwards, are angled and captured. That's why you can often pull old cut nails out by hand if you are pulling along it's axis, but try from an angle and it becomes a struggle. Then there is also the issue of dryness. After that much time of exposure in a dry, hot attic, the Yellow Pine would have become more brittle, checks and splits would have developed. That would make removal a process likely to result in a damaged board.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 10, 2007 12:18:47 GMT -5
Guess I'm thick as a board (pun intended), but what was the significance of Bornmann backdating his "attic" reports?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 10, 2007 20:43:28 GMT -5
I write official reports and we must have it completed before the end of the shift. If I were to go home and remember something I unintentionally omitted I would then have to write another report dated the day I wrote it, and explain exactly why. We would never be allowed to tear up the old report, rewrite the entire thing but this time include what I had omitted and then date it as if I wrote it the day before. That would be back-dating the report.
Now we must put the report writing in 1934 into proper perspective. Police wrote in their notebooks and would eventually type up the report whenever they got the opportunity - which could have been days later. That is why you may see a report that includes several days of information.
In this case the above excuse doesn't hold water. Bornmann had typed up at least (3) different reports concerning the exact same events. His earliest had no such discovery listed, in fact, it specifically claimed nothing of value had been found. This is in most of the books to include Scaduto, Kennedy (Court TV Consultant), and Dr. Gardner's.
Dr. Gardner crosses Bornmann's info with Koehler's reports. This shows that as late as October 4th he has the items found in the attic specifically listed by Bornmann as being turned over to him but isn't aware of any such discovery on Bornmann's part. Later a report written by Koehler have him bringing S-226 "back" to the Bronx from NJ but other Bornmann reports clearly indicate that S-226 was locked up in the closet and never left the Bronx.
These people weren't being 100% truthful and weren't on the same page with their stories. This then leads to speculation as to why they were lying.
Koehler's above mentioned report also added a little fuel to my suggestion because if he is telling the truth and S-226 was brought down to the Training School it may have come from the basement. I have also suspected that attic flooring had been pulled up by the time Bornmann made his way up there - looking for ransom money just like all the other cops were. However, most likely Koehler was lying but I just like to examine all possibilities and see what could or won't work. Make no mistake about it - Koehler was willing to and did lie when he felt the need. I've got an unpublished document he was preparing in order to defend himself which claims he wasn't even aware that cut nails had been used in that attic until the day he was ordered to the Bronx!!!
Anyway, it could be they wanted the "discovery" to predate Samuelsohn's claim. It could be he actually noticed it on his first trip but failed to see the significance until he spoke with Koehler the day before they went back to the Bronx so he backdated the report to demonstrate the date of his actual discovery regardless of when he realized the significance. Or it could be he thought he was the first in that attic and an argument could be made that's when it should have been noticed..... Basically in order to solidify the discovery.
Or maybe it was for reasons much worse. And so if the "Klein-Purdy" theory is correct, and it looks like it may be, then I think its possible they figured this out too. They stressed, especially Koehler, that no one else had access to that attic. So while the basement is pretty damning - its door having an entrance that could have been entered by just about anyone might have been seen as a potential "Pandora's Box" most especially since Hauptmann was claiming Fisch gave him the ransom money by the time of the actual "discovery" that Rail 16 matched S-226 on October 9, 1934 and not September 26, 1934.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 11, 2007 6:42:56 GMT -5
Michael, I would say that there is little doubt that A. Koehler would recognize the mate to rail 16 the moment he saw it. This is his pay dirt and he has been digging for some time. I think Bornmann, on the other hand, would be less certain, though he would certainly see the possibilities. BTW, another reason I doubt S-226 was in the Basement are those shadow marks from the floor joists. S-226, even after all of this time still exhibits it's past life as a floorboard. That just wasn't the case with rail 16 where no one observed any of the telltale signs of prolonged exposure as a floorboard.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2007 18:49:35 GMT -5
I certainly believe he would have seen the possibility having his reports where so many times he saw none. This is important in weighing the information in both his and Bornmann's reports as it relates to the actual date of discovery. It's very clear Bornmann, if he did make it on 9/26, told no one about it until 10/8. And if this is true then we have several more lies in multiple places.
Another one of Koehler's lies that drives me absolutely crazy was his saying that the cut nails found in the attic fit into the holes perfectly.
That's BS.
Those cut nails varied in size by their very nature. I had some that came directly from that very attic and dropped them into the holes of S-226 myself (for the original purpose of seeing their angles).... Some nails fit loosely, some didn't fit, some fit tightly, and some did seem to fit perfectly.
If you read what Koehler had to say they all dropped into those holes making a perfect fit every time - its misleading and quite clear to me that he purposely embellished this point.
I hope everyone remembers this when they read Keraga's report and/or go to one of his lectures.
I agree this is very powerful evidence. I happened to be with Kevin one day at the Archives and we saw these shadow marks on S-226 but found none on Rail 16. It's hard to get around although Keraga definitely tries... or dare I say he missed it?
I hope everyone remembers this too when they read Keraga's report and/or go to one of his lectures.
It ruins any notion that Hauptmann crawled into his attic and cannibalized his floorboard - which is what Keraga somehow concludes from his research.
Here's my next question: If Bornmann did pull up S-226 with his bare hands what's to say the Electricians didn't do the same? Would we expect they had a pry bar with them when running the wiring? By the same line of thought - would they have a saw with them or would this be something they would have to borrow?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 20, 2010 0:48:54 GMT -5
I have some questions regarding floorboard s-226. The most recent thought is that rail 16 was taken out due to some electrical work or of the sort. Is there evidence or is it assumed S-226 was taken out by this same kind of work but then made it back into the attic? Why would you apply one back and not the other?Maybe the theory is that rail 16 was taken out but s-226 stayed in the attic all along. I'm just trying to understand this theory. I saw a photo of the attic and they are demonstrating how the floorboard layed in the attic. Several boards on the right in place and on the left boards missing and the placement of s-226 and rail 16 on the left of the ones in place 3/4 full distance from the right to left. Is that correct?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 20, 2010 10:11:24 GMT -5
Gary, I think you are confusing rail 16 with s-226 and s-226e which is the remainder of the single board rail 16 came from. They were in place until removed by the police carpenters. So, the piece rail 16 was made from was obviously removed prior to the ladder construction and the question is how much prior. There is a number of circumstantial evidence which clearly indicates that it was removed well before the ladder was constructed. Then there is also common sense, if that counts for anything.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 20, 2010 12:32:57 GMT -5
thanks Kev. I think you are right. I've set my mind I want to understand it in light of what has been discussed. I really find it plausible that Hauptmann would not have gone in the attic to get this but might have been in the garage all along.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2010 16:14:10 GMT -5
Gary,
I think I can see what you are asking. Steve suggested that if Rail 16 was cut out by the Electricians, why not elsewhere along the other wiring where it ran underneath of S-226.....
S-226 was Board #27 when it was complete. Regardless of who you think cut it - once its cut it becomes S-226.
Ok. Now, S-226 remained on the floor until Bornmann supposedly pulled it up with his bare hands. In doing so a small piece at the very end snapped off. Before that, due to the "shadowing" - it appears S-226 remained on the floor well after Rail 16 had been removed. In removing what would become Rail 16, the person who did it left S-226 hanging part-way "over" the joist, that is, they didn't saw it flush.
In addressing Steve's point here are my suggestions:
1. Consider the "shadowing" that exists on S-226 but not Rail 16.
2. Consider I can prove the Electricians went into that attic after the flooring was put down.
3. Like the Carpenters who put in that floor, there were probably more then one Electrician working simultaneously. It's quite possible one Electrician removed part of the board to run his wire but the other chose not to. This same logic is used to explain why some boards had more nails then others (not talking toe board). Additionally, if you are going to question why an Electrician "did" or "didn't" do something relating to wood, then you MUST do the same thing as it applies to a Carpenter....which in this case would be Hauptmann.
And so, IF it doesn't make sense for an Electrician to do something like this, then, it sure as hell doesn't make sense for Hauptmann to either. If you are a betting man, what are the odds all of this was done by an Electrician vs. a Carpenter?
The most likely scenario is that Hauptmann pulls a free piece of wood that's laying around in Rauch's basement where Rauch was known to place leftover material from the building of his house.
The alternative is he instead cannibalizes the attic floor by such an inconvenience (access and egress) and irrational act, along with breaking almost every rule a Carpenter was ever taught.
It's why Hauptmann is so sure its nonsense because he knows he didn't do any such thing. However, he doesn't seem to consider what we now know or he wouldn't have been so cock-sure of himself.
*Kevin, if you disagree with anything here please point it out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 20, 2010 20:48:51 GMT -5
Nothing I disagree with, Michael. I would only add a few things. Any carpenter who would even think of making a trek up 3 floors to get probably one of the worst choices of wood, would know to gab it from the opposite side of the floor. Why? Because unless you laid the floor you would assume that the starter course was both face nailed and toe nailed. In a tongue and groove floor you are always going to have an easier time removing the last course not the first.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 21, 2010 6:18:50 GMT -5
Exactly, that is major....
For those who read our board you have to try and over-come the "culture" that prevails when researching this case:
Loyalty.
Loyalty to a thought, an idea, a position, person, or fellow Researcher. These are obstacles to getting to the actual events.
For example, people may read this, agree, but never say so publicly because they don't want to "upset" Keraga or his research. Also, if you disprove something a key witness like Koehler testified too, then it calls into question other assertions. Furthermore, they may fall into the same trap as the Prosecution, that is, want to accept something because it makes Hauptmann appear more guilty. And so that helps to solidify their position they hold so dear.
See what I am saying?
Although the idea is to nail down facts, sometimes by doing so you open more doors to the unknown. It can be frustrating yes, but ignoring things, or shrugging them off because its easier is counter-productive in the end. It will always keep you from reaching your goal here.
If you disagree with me - go ahead and hurt my feelings. Listen, its the only way to get to the bottom of this. We have been slowly making our way there. Jack, with all due respect, without this message board the Rail 16 mystery would NEVER have been solved. And yet, after all of these years - despite those who would make every effort to stop that - it finally is.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 21, 2010 8:43:13 GMT -5
If I can and beg your patience for elementary questions for those that have studied this a long time.
So S-226 would have been an illogical choice for Hauptmann to pry off in the attic because how it was nailed on. Is that correct?
Looking at unfortunately b & W pictures why does S-226 have more visible knots than the other floor boards? Are not knots weakness in the strength of a board?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 21, 2010 11:36:36 GMT -5
It's the nature of low grade yellow pine to have a lot of knots. As for strength, it depends on the way in which a load is applied to the board. The more important issue is that knots make an already difficult wood to work with even worse. Often those knots will even damage a hardened tool.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 23, 2010 10:37:02 GMT -5
For anyone who has studied the wood evidence.......
I was wondering how "shadowing" fixes a floorboard in one location for a long period of time? What makes S-226 belong in the attic other than it was found there ? Is it more than nail holes consistent with the other floor boards? Maybe thats enough.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 23, 2010 11:32:36 GMT -5
Gary, the "shadowing" is really an aging process which occurs for a variety of reasons and will vary with conditions and wood species. In the case of the attic floorboards there is a clear ghost image where the board contacted the floor joists. This is partly an accumulation of airborne particles that tend to aggregate next to the joist. It becomes a permanent stain or discoloration which can only be removed by abrasives or cutting tools. S-226 and s-226e both have distinct shadowing evident where they were in contact with the attic floor joists. No such shadowing is evident on rail 16 nor was it.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 4, 2010 15:35:41 GMT -5
its simple mike, the nails went through the board and the joists and lined up perfectly. theres pictures of it im sure youve seen. putting the nails in the board at the museum dosnt mean anything
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 23, 2012 6:04:54 GMT -5
Hello, new intrigued here after reading Ludovic Kennedy's book.
I have a question.
Rail 16 was thicker than S-226?
Yes?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 23, 2012 10:07:00 GMT -5
If you mean wider, yes. The 3 5/8" wide ladder rail was cut down from the floor board.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 23, 2012 10:19:33 GMT -5
No I mean thicker.
Rail 16 was supposed to be 1/16" thicker than the attic floor boards.
Yes?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 23, 2012 10:49:39 GMT -5
In Figure 10 in this PDF you can see that Rail 16 is thicker than the board marked "board from attic floor" www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplr/fplr1420.pdfYou can drop it into photoshop and check. Also the ring patterns are not a mirror image as you would expect but appear to look the same (ie. not mirrored), you can also check that in photo shop by rotating Rail 16 by 180 degrees. I got interested in this because Ludovic Kennedy mentioned the thicker Rail 16 in his book. There are other pictures on the net that seem to match ring patterns but Rail 16 has more rings. I was hoping someone could explain it all.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 23, 2012 11:06:44 GMT -5
In fact, and I recommend you try this, if you superimpose the whole of end of Rail 16 onto the picture labelled "Board from attic floor" you will see that Rail 16 sits in the middle of the attic floor board and Hauptmann would have had to plane both edges.
That doesn't make any sense to me and I'm sure that's not the way the holes are supposed to line up with the joist.
So there are two issues to be cleared up here: 1) The rings are not mirror images. 2) Rail 16 when completely superimposed on S-226 sits in the middle (and slightly higher).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2012 18:58:54 GMT -5
Thanks for posting and welcome to the Board! I believe Kennedy's point concerning this comes from Edward Mielk's testimony: Q [Pope]: Now, is there any difference in the size of the two boards, I mean the dressed size of them?
(Objection Wilentz)
A [Mielk]: One board is thinner than the other. [Trial Testimony, Page 4083 (Re-direct)] Koehler concedes this point and testifies to this: "...when held side to side, as he did, they do show a difference in the thickness of the two edges;..." then explains "Now that difference in thickness on the edges is due to the fact that each of these boards is thicker on the side where the tongue is and thinner on the side where the groove is, and both of them run from thicker to thinner, from the tongue to the groove side." This matter comes up again during the "Attic Confrontation" in the Hauptmann apartment.... Mr. Loney then measured the thickness of the ladder rail and the floor board from which it was cut, first with a rule and then with a pair of calipers. He pointed out that the floor board was thinner in places, which was correct, but the difference was not great and not anywhere near 1/16 inch as reported in a release from the Governor's office that night......All of these differences are insignificant when it is considered that the lumber was low grade and therefore poorly dressed and not dry when dressed because it obviously had shrunk considerably after it was nailed down in the attic. Consequently slight variations in thickness would be expected due to uneven shrinkage. [Koehler Report, p2, 3-28-36] I think this explanation makes even more sense when considering the fact that one Board was nailed down in the attic while the other was laying around in the basement. Therefore, if drying is occurring, they are being subjected to different variables.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2012 19:09:56 GMT -5
I've communicated with many Dendrochronologists concerning this matter. I don't recall any Expert I emailed not getting back to me with their opinions and/or ideas. As I recall, just about all said the only way to conclude a match was invasive study, although they all said they were most likely a match. Among them was one Expert who many regard as the absolute best among their ranks, in fact, they were all referring to HIS book. Anyway, I asked how they might not match and I got some ideas there too. However, as I said, they all believed the study would probably prove they were.
So I think its important, armed with a real "matter-of-fact" logical scenario concerning exactly how Hauptmann would indeed come into possession of this board without all of the BS we've been fed over the years, to consider what these Experts were saying after viewing these photos when evaluating whether the rings match or not.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 2:05:46 GMT -5
I will try and post a picture with the overlay of the full Rail 16 on top of S-226 so that you can see how I think they cheated.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 2:29:04 GMT -5
Here it is:
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 24, 2012 3:42:10 GMT -5
I think cabinet makers and lutists would be better.
I have some beautiful "book matched" furniture and guitars. I often look at them and admire them and think about how they were made which is why this stood out for me.
When you cut wood you get mirror images of rings and grain at the intersection. On guitars and pianos this can often look spectacular when placed side by side.
One of the sleights of hand in the document I linked with the pictures is that the rings are "matched" - but this makes no sense because the patterns are not a mirror.
This whole wood matching is highly suspicious from start to end and the fact that the defence was denied access to the attic shows that things were amiss and they were hiding something.
Also - according to Kennedy - when Haputmann was being interogated he was never once asked about the attic.
|
|