kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 12, 2006 12:35:22 GMT -5
The discussion on the missing fingerprint thread has caused me to re think the construction of the ladder, or more precisely it has caused me to think about it from another angle. Now we know this ladder is unique in it's design. We know it is constructed with some knowledge of woodworking and carpentry skills, but at the same time there is a crudeness in it's overall quality. The ladder is made up up a variety of wood species, some of which definitely show signs of a previous life. There is also a considerable , relatively speaking, amount of re-sawing evident to arrive at the finish sizes. Now if we look at these last two factors, can we draw some conclusions? Why, for example use the different species? All things considered it makes a lot more sense to consistantly use the same material throughout. Why pick wood that must be re-sized when the proper sizes are readily available? That is just a lot more work than is needed. And of course, why the use of used wood, especially the famous attic floorboard? I have read and heard many explanations as to why this is so, particularly in regard to rail 16. To be honest, none of these explanations have sat well with me. For a job on which so much is at stake and which it must be assumed some amount of planning was entailed why cobble together this most important tool at the last moment? I simply can't accept that anyone is that frugal nor that they simply left this operation go until the Sunday before the kidnapping and were forced to use what was at hand. I can believe that the builder wanted to avoid any possible link to this ladder because it was going to be left behind once it had served it's purpose. That might cause him to be wary of going to a lumberyard to buy the necessary materials. Then there is the issue which caused me to think about this from another angle; fingerprints. It might be even more conspicuous and difficult for our kidnapper to wear gloves while picking up his wood. Using wood he might have left over from other projects would not be safe since there is no telling how often he handled it and how many prints are on it. So how do you get the wood you need? You look for it in places that you know you never have been, or at least where you know you have not touched the wood. I am starting to think that the reason that ladder is made up of a hodgepodge of materials is because they were selectively culled from various locations with the express intent of building a kidnap ladder bereft of the builder's prints. In essence, leaving no trace of his identity and mobility were the two driving factors in the design and construction of this ladder.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 12, 2006 14:20:28 GMT -5
Yes, this all makes sense -- except when it comes to rail 16. The argument that it was a last minute substitute (and therefore violated the rule Kevkon establishes here) has problems. In the first place, there is the evidence it was not used at all. I know that Kevkon has a feeling that if it was not used that was only on a trial and error basis - and a final decision not use it. I am also aware of the discussion of the French window. But let us assume that this is not an excluding matter. Kevkon has himself suggested in another post that when the ladder breaks, it goes the whole way -- so more than 16 would have been damaged. Is that a correct reading of your post? (The argument is made sometimes that 16 had to be taken from the attic because it was a substitute for another rail that had broken. That is why I raise this question.)
Kevkon does not feel the ladder was a last minute substitution, moreover, so the question has to be re-put, why take a piece from inside your house if you are trying not to be caught? Especially, if, as Kevkon argues, it was intended from the outset to leave the ladder behind. (One might say, why not leave a note attached, "This board was sawed out of an attic in the Bronx. Sincerely, the Perp")
I would think that leaving a gaping board in one's attic would be almost worse than leaving fingerprints. If caught with the money, but no fingerprints - then the case is practically unprovable without the ladder. So he takes care not to leave prints, but (after insuring all the other pieces cannot really be traced), he deliberately leaves the ladder.
But suppose it is not worse. The perp's prints were not on record anywhere, or the police would have matched them up on September 20, 1934. Hence we can assume that the perp knew that. Leaving the ladder behind (and dropping the chisel) are both remarkably dangerous for a person who has taken care not to leave fingerprints.
I think we have to consider that literaly (as I understand it) hundreds of prints were on the ladder. Many of which were not identified at all. Your post presumes that since BRH built the ladder, his prints are the only ones to worry about. But the first examination of the ladder by NJ officials suggested some things about it in terms of construction -- that it might have been made by more than one person.
And there is also the problem that Koehler discovered that wood from the National Lumber Co had been put in the ladder, a place that BRH worked out of and frequented. Doesn't taking wood from that place also violate the rules you have established?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 12, 2006 15:59:53 GMT -5
Good points WC Let me take a stab at them
I am not sure if I understand your point here. Rail 16 may have been a last minute substitute and it may not have. It is all conjecture and I think the strongest argument for it as a substitute is the indication that is was not mortised at the same time as rail 17. I am not sure how strong the evidence is that it was not used, but that is another issue.
Well for one, would anyone realistically figure that there attic would be checked for a missing piece of flooring? It also may simply have been that the original intent was to replace this board and that was simply forgotten. However I feel strongly that the floorboard was removed prior to the ladder construction and that Hauptmann was actually unaware of it's origin.
One or two, doesn't really matter as long as the same process is followed
Not really. For one National supplied a lot of the wood in that area so I don't find it implausible that some of it wound up in the ladder. Also, it is very possible that Hauptmann did purchase some of the wood and took the necessary precautions or had someone else obtain it. The main factor for me is the combination of these different species of wood used in the ladder. I know it probably seems like a small issue to most, but for a woodworker it is not a common practice. There are lots of reasons for that which may be hard to understand for those who don't work with wood. I guess the major one is that mixing woods takes away continuity in the working process. I think my main reasoning for this theory has been all the discussion regarding the lack of prints, especially Hauptmann's. The notes, nursery and the ladder are devoid of his prints and as been argued here the nursery has been at least partially wiped clean. I really think Hauptmann was focused on the importance of fingerprints to the exclusion of other evidence. I don't think that is unusual in crimes, sometimes criminals think they know how to cover their tracks and do so without even realizing that there are other means of detection. Personally I think Hauptmann was genuinely surprised at the wood evidence and the ability to link it to him as well as the ability to discern the true writer of disguised documents.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 12, 2006 16:19:23 GMT -5
Your post clarifies the issues wonderfully. The question posed is why was there an absence of fingerprints on key places -- not simply the ladder. The answer: Because the perp believed that the only real evidence that could be adduced was fingerprint evidence. And the use of wood from various sources? Well, that was also because he wanted to eliminate being traced. It seems to me that you do have the perp being worried about not one, but two ways of tracing him -- as evidenced by his care with the wood, which you do re-emphasize in this post. You then suggest in response to my comments, that perhaps BRH did not even know where the wood that made up rail 16 came from. But he did. Whether it was from the attic, or the basement, he knew it came from his house -- because it matched the attic board. I think my term the gaping wood upstairs confused matters a bit. But he must have known the wood was from his house. So that brings us back to the point that you now seem to be hedging a bit -- that rail 16 might have been a substitute, and therefore the work was done in something of a hurry in order to get it finished. Would you agree that is your point?
And we are back, then, to earlier problems with the construction of the ladder. It would seem, at least to me, that last minute work had to be carried out some place (either his garage or another building close by) in order for the timing to work out.
The question arises, since such care has been taken to shake people off the trail with a variety of wood types, why not wait until another time? When you could get another piece that would not be incriminating? You feel that fingerprints were the issue -- but your own submission gives equal weight to boards from different locations, which suggests, at least to my mind, that he was being very careful there, too. What, after all, is so very urgent about March 1, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Rick2 Troupadour3 on May 13, 2006 7:06:27 GMT -5
OK Bill--I smite Thee! Lordy lordy. If the ladder builder "did not want the lumber to be traced by mixing and matching all the pieces of wood" (end quote) then Why Oh Why did he then cut Rail 16 out of his own attic and then leave the ladder and chisel behind??? I think it would have made far more sense to take the ladder, chisel and Charlie along and place them somewhere they could never be found.Like the East River?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 13, 2006 7:16:02 GMT -5
Yes, but that is not what matters. What matters is that he knew it was not aboard that he handled previously.
I am not sure I am hedging here, I simply don't know what actually occurred in the construction process that required the use of the attic floorboard. I don't think it can be said with certainty that rail 16 was a replacement, there simply isn't enough evidence to say for sure. As for completing the ladder in a hurry, as I have said before this ladder simply does not take long to construct. So the term hurry must be used in that context.
Once again, I am not sure how it can be assumed that it was a last minute job. Personally I believe that the ladder is designed with a number of parameters. We know it will fit into a sedan ( at least Hauptmann's) so the length is one parameter. So it seems likely to me that the width and depth are also determined by a specific parameter. I would not be surprised if that was set by the need to store this ladder until deployment. The issue of where it was built and / or stored is open for debate. Close to the kidnapper's house or close to the kidnapper's target?
It is not the variety of wood types but the prejudice in selecting them based on the knowledge that they were never previously handled by the builder that counts here. Once again, would Hauptmann or anyone for that matter, really believe that a re-sawn rail 16 from the attic would be incriminating? That would be even less doubtful if he had taken it from the basement and assumed it was just another scrap of would.
That is not what I am proposing. The primary need is to insure that the ladder absolutely contains no fingerprints from the builder. This, along with mobility and perhaps storage are the major parameters employed in it's design and construction. The combination of wood found in this ladder is a result, not a cause.
I will leave that to others to debate.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 troupadour2 on May 13, 2006 7:32:34 GMT -5
Bill/ I take back the smite. What was so important about Tuesday March 1st?
I think this summarizes the whole case in a nutshell. It appears to me as though some external driving force is pushing the whole day wierd. All I can imagine is that it must be related to Charlie?
Everyones actions or behavior is odd that day. Anne and Charlie should be at Next Day Hill. CAL should be at the NYU dinner. Betty Gow should be out on a date with Red. Something unforseen disrupts everyones day? Some outside threat? And it appears the ladder is required on very short notice.
Charlies health, safety or accident, or is he already missing?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 13, 2006 7:44:46 GMT -5
You are missing the point here. The ladder could be left behind with the security of knowledge that it contained no evidence linking it to the kidnappers based on their understanding of forensic identification. Think about it for a moment, the kidnapper(s) obviously felt secure enough to take the ladder down and place all the sections in place 75ft away from the house. This does not indicate to me that they were panicked. By your own argument previously the Nursery room is devoid of fingerprints as a result of being "wiped". Given that level of concern over prints would the same people leave behind the ladder if there was even a chance it contained their prints?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 13, 2006 9:37:46 GMT -5
I think all the questions raised are very important ones. It is hard to summarize where we are, because the issues cross over back and forth in a very coiled fashion. Kevkon's reasoning is, as always, lucid and effective.
Let me try posing the basic assumption and see where it leads: The construction of the ladder is designed so as to provide the most assurance possible (given limited knowledge of forensics by the perp) that the perp's fingerprints are not on the ladder. This is done by taking wood from a variety of sources not previously connected to the perp.
Query: Does the perp then wear gloves at every moment of constructing the ladder, from the moment of acquisition (purchase and otherwise) of the wood to the finished product?
Query II: What happens to Koehler's tracing of some of the wood to the NLC? Is it validated by this assumption, or does the glove issue raise any questions about the securing of the wood from this location?
Query III: If the ladder is stored some place, is it tested at any stage of the preparation and if not, why not? Given that this is the Crime of the Century. I seem to remember from one of Michael's posts that there have been traces of soil from other locations on the ladder.
Query IV: It is still for debate why, given all your careful (and I think accurate) reasoning on the twin issues of fingerprints and ladder, why pick a piece of wood from your "house" ? (Your comment to Rick that the perp(s) were not panicked re-raises that question, I think, in terms of taking the ladder 75 feet. He or they had prepared very carefully, but the board comes from BRH's house. I just can't feel comfortable with the way all this is fitting together. But I suppose we are in the realm of conjecture -- on both sides of that question.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 13, 2006 9:58:57 GMT -5
As always good questions.
Absolutely. This might also help explain some of the "crudeness" in the construction as gloves make some processes more difficult.
That is a good point. As I always try to do, I have imagined myself trying to undertake this task. I would probably feel uncomfortable wearing gloves at the yard, even though in reality it might escape all notice. But I would be very conscious of the fact that I am wearing gloves for a task which does not require them.
I am sure some "testing" occurred, but it is hard to simulate the actual conditions of the kidnap prior to the fact and take into account all the variables.
If a major criteria was fingerprints and not the forensic matching of wood I think it would be reasonable, especially if the wood came from the basement. For argument sake, if we assume that Hauptmann did in fact go up to the attic to retrieve that board there is something that could come into play. I have wondered why rail 16 was ripped from the groove side and not the tongue side. The tongue side is easier to plane square. Now, as has been suggested to me, it might be simply that the tongue side contained a defect. However, there is another possibility, though I admit a little far-fetched. The tongue side would be where you naturally grip the board for removal. Still I think it is likely that the board was removed prior and for an unrelated purpose and Hauptmann availed himself of it.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 13, 2006 13:10:42 GMT -5
Dear Kevin and Bill.....try not to go Brokeback Mountain on us?
I really think you guys are loosing it. Ever since Dr. Erasmus Hudson raised 500 or so fingerprints on the ladder with silver nitrate "and none were BRH's" there was of course the need for a typical prosecution excuse--but not "reason" sought despirately to reconnect BRH with the ladder building....since hes the Lone "Woof "Ranger?
Aha....I can see the headline now "Master Carpenter Admits to Building Kidnap Ladder With Gloves On"!!
Why, in heavens name pray tell, would anyone do this? Show me a singel case in history whereas a criminal was convicted for fingerprints on wood? There were 40-50 other fingerprints identified and photographed but NOT followed, sent to Wash DC or identified. The same goes for the ransom notes.....fingerprints found but not followedup/ Next you will be telling us that BRH wrote all the ransom notes with gloves on too? Yikes/ By Jove Youve Got It! Mabye thats why the NYSP & NJSP took Richards fingerprints dozens of times "hoping they would change" to match.
Let me remind you agin....its CAL that has the heebie-jeebies about all the fingerprints in the Nursery! If Richard is wearing gloves all the way from the Bronx to Highfields then whose finger prints up there need to wiped off anyways? And by Whoom? The Families.....or Strangers even from Engelwood?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 13, 2006 14:00:28 GMT -5
I can't speak for WC, but I lost it a long time ago.
That would be pretty incredible, can you imagine such a thing?
Are you serious???
Whose fingerprints needed to be wiped anyway? Does it make sense to be concerned about prints from those whose prints are expected to be there?
Please note Rick that I am making a concerted effort to leave your posts in the top ten.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 13, 2006 14:17:05 GMT -5
Rick3~I keep liking your organized thinking! How do we know that the attic board was an absolute and not more staging of the "evidence'? After years of wrestling with both that and the handwriting, my inclination if to just throw them both out. Re: the number of times they took BRH's fingerprints~ I read somewhere that if a person uses something like examining gloves to try to hide fingerprints that prints can still come through onto something. Am not talking about exam gloves in this case, but am wondering if they might have been trying to impose BRH's prints onto something incriminating? Yes I'm awfully suspicious of the authorities trying to make things fit against BRH. Though I haven't convinced myself of this, it crossed my mind to wonder if BRH might have bought "hot money" from Fisch (not knowing it was ransom money). Have searched without luck to find the date where it became public that the serial numbers were listed on the ransom notes. When this became known, would BRH have continued to pass notes so casually?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 13, 2006 15:19:48 GMT -5
I lost mine many years ago.
But to the issues. (What you should grasp, however, is that my comments do not necessarily reflect what I believe on any issue. I ask questions to clarify my thinking. If it seems muddled, then so be it -- somewhere down the line, things come together, or they don't. How's that for a muddled answer!)
The process that goes on on this board is extremely useful, and it would be hard to say how many things have become sharper in focus. I do think, as Kevkon seems to agree, that the average workman or carpenter would not wear gloves into the NLC to purchase wood.
How many pieces did Koehler identify as coming from the NLC -- certainly not all, because some had the "Henebrier" (sp?) notation or something else on them, did they not. Perhaps Michael can enlighten us on that point. My thought would be that the perps could simply wipe down the boards from time to time, and not wear gloves all the time. Hence Hudson's ability to find so many prints, but not BRH's. After all, we know the ladder was handled by many people. The real issue is why BRH's were not on it. For Hudson, that was key. But Kevkon has advanced another theory that warrants investigation.
As to Rick's point about fingerprints on wood proving a case, I would have no idea how many cases turned on that point alone. You are right, they printed BRH many, many times. But never got a match. The defense asked at the trial if they did every square inch, and the answers were vague and unsatisfactory. But they could not deny that they had not found his prints. Hence we have to ask why -- given the other evidence against him.
Curiously, while they found plenty of shoes to try out on footprints, they seem not to have found any gloves that they wanted to test against anything. Kevkon -- under what conditions would a carpenter use gloves? Staining wood? But also working with sandpaper? Why do you think we never hear about BrH's gloves? I think the police did not want to ask about his gloves because that would reveal to the world that they had no prints of his on the ladder, in the nursery, on the ransom notes -- anywhere.
If I follow Kevkon, perhaps BRH was sitting there are the trial -- fully confident that the "G-man" stuff of the day (and we know he went to movies, and listened the radio) wouldn't come up against him because he had been fairly careful about prints. And the wood? well, hadn't he picked it up from all sorts of places? That would stymie them. His reaction when Fisher told him that the prosecution had found a piece was to laugh -- wasn't it? But then the testimony gets going, and Koehler comes up with his grain analysis, and the nailing down, and suddenly " My God, this isn't going so well."
So far I can go. But as I have said several times in these posts, I get a funny feeling about the way he handles R 16. Maybe he just slipped up. But that brings me back to the carefulness of all the other preparation (except the ransom note itself - which is sloppy, and in a sort of pig-English leaning to a semi-literate foreigner). Then I put careful, and sloppy side by side and wonder.
Mairi, years of study have soured you on the idea that the handwriting and the ladder provide good evidence. I haven't spent near that much time on this case, but my first impressions were like yours. But now I have to factor in the ladder and the possibilities that it was forged. They seem to me to be next to none. As for the money, Fisch could well have brought the money back to BRH after seeing that it was hot. We don't know when the money was moved to the garage, do we? We have only BRH's word that it was in August 1934.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 13, 2006 16:15:42 GMT -5
I am glad I am not the only one who has lost it around here!
Good question. It is largely a matter of personal preference, but most including myself only wear gloves when it is absolutely necessary or prudent. We are lucky these days that there are so many varieties offered and such materials as kevlar are used. Still it is awkward at times to work with even the best gloves available. One also develops pretty tough skin and callouses which makes the use of gloves for all but the roughest jobs unnecessary. I am trying to discover what type of gloves would be available in Hauptmann's day, so far it seems to be a choice between cotton, linen, and leather. The latter are the most durable and appropriate for physical work, but carry a real penalty in that they are heavy and awkward when using hand tools.
I think the relevant question here is, would he have recognized this as a slip up prior to the trial?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Trooper too on May 13, 2006 22:39:59 GMT -5
Mairi~you are wise to disregard the wood and handwriting evidence, by no means does either represent an absolute. The Holy Trinity used to include the chisel too, but that has been so discredited that it begins to contaminate all remaining Koehlers testiimony. The primary reason the case hasnt been solved is that these iron-clad notions merely blind us to other theories, motives and evidence. Most of which doesnt fit together with the above? Basically the Trinity is a smoke screen. You are so right about BRHs prints. Hudson joined the Defence when he was asked how BRHs prints could be transferred to other evidence...rock, paper, scissors-- anyding? I think the ransom serial numbers hit the News shortly after the Payola in St. Raymonds while CAL was cruising the SEven Seas with Curtis. This probably didnt help Charlies chances much either--they were always slim and none.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 14, 2006 6:50:03 GMT -5
Yes, if your goal is to exonerate Hauptmann you have to disregard all evidence. Free from the constraint of reason and fact you can proceed to the business of finding alternates.
|
|
To belabour this point
Guest
|
Post by To belabour this point on May 14, 2006 8:04:31 GMT -5
Boys, boys, if RBH took so much care to build a ladder using gloves, why didn't he take a little time to build a ladder that wouldn't break? Rick is right, youve lost it! The ladder is only important if you believe it ties to Hauptman and that can only be if one believes it came from his attic and that can only be if it is belived that bormann found it on the 36th search of the attic. Please!!!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 14, 2006 8:58:39 GMT -5
Yes, of course. How indeed could any person be both smart and dumb at the same time? In such a polarized view of humanity one might also reasonably ask how could Hauptmann be so smart as to make money for 2 years without working through his investment acumen and yet be so dumb as to posses Lindbergh gold notes? By the same token , should we judge your reasoning by your grammar?
Do you really think so? That's a lot of wiping and an pretty unpleasant task with no guarantee of success. Personally, I would bite the bullet and put on the gloves.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Major on May 14, 2006 16:03:57 GMT -5
Kevin...the only bullet you even consider biting is the one with "BRH quilty of every crime in the Universe" on it? Even AG Wilintz did not accuse Richard of building a ladder "without using his bare hands"! (a felony in 23 states) But then AG Wilintz was always treating BRH with kid gloves? Of course full success would be quaranteed wiping down the ladder even with Dawn and water....just like the Nursery. Maybe if the NJSP boys would have tried harder they could have I>D. the fingerprints that were found. After all they nailed Bornmann!
Dr. Erasmus Mead Hudson " Youve got the wrong man"!
Lets remind you once again....BRH was doing just fine before the Kidnap Hoax of the Century. He had a car, a family, an apartment, friends, stocks, vacations and no USA criminal record. Maybe his buddy and business partner JFC, oops I mean Fisch, involved him in illegal activities without his knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by Colonel T on May 14, 2006 17:55:36 GMT -5
I agree with Rick and guest. didnt the rail board from the attic have to be planed down? why not just drive to a lumber yard you didnt do business with? opps, sorry about that grammar kevcon, wilentz would have us believe tht hauptman was all of the place especially new jersey.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 15, 2006 6:16:26 GMT -5
Really? You are sure of that? And what would be the point of all this washing anyway? Didn't you previously state;"Show me a singel case in history whereas a criminal was convicted for fingerprints on wood"?
I couldn't help but notice that you left out a "job". Too bad BRH didn't take up writing, I could see a bestseller in the offing; "Richard Hauptmann's Guide to Investment Strategy " or "How I turned $500 into $50000 In The Depression"
BTW Isn't one "Rick" enough?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on May 15, 2006 11:30:04 GMT -5
I don't post here often but I have to say I don't think we can ever have too many ricks.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 15, 2006 16:12:17 GMT -5
It is true, when we think of the top gangsters of the 1930s, ones you could imagine having the sangfroid to carry out such a crime (Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson) none of them had the stability that BRH has with his family and friends.
When there was an effort to show that the perp had been in a mental hospital (Dr. Shoenfeld) or was gay (again Dr. Schoenfeld) it seemed that was in error as well.
So we have a hard time fitting Hauptmann either into the mold of a gangster or a "deviant" of some sort.
He seems just ordinary. Someone who snuck into the US (like many immigrants today) but who seems to have lived a quiet life trying to eke out a living. He is frugal and thinks of himself as a potential investor in the American dream.
But like his friend, Isador, there are apparently two sides to Hauptmann's life and activities. His financial activities display a cunning that experts say at the trial seemed dedicated to confusing anyone who wants to look into his situation closely. Etc.
If he wanted to keep fingerprints off the ladder, he could figure out a way. I'm not yet convinced that he did. It could be that he did not believe he needed to, having assembled the ladder from a bunch of different pieces of wood.
It is also true that he did not have a job on March 1, 32, but he had the promise of one later. No one that I know of disputes that he went to work that morning, thinking he would go to work that day. Here's the problem with the "official" narrative. If March 1, 1932 was "K-Day," why did he go to the worksite that day? If he was put to work that day what happens to the plan? And, from earlier posts, I gather Kevin believes there was some aid down at the Lindbergh House -- how, even more, could the group be assembled with the possibility that Hauptmann would be at work?
Remember also, in this instance, that the police have to keep pushing the old geezer Amandus, to make his sighting later and later to accommodate that admission that Hauptmann showed up for work.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 15, 2006 16:43:59 GMT -5
Very well stated WC. The continuing mystery, one of many, as to the events and reasoning behind "K-Day" are for most of us hard to fathom. I doubt any answer is forthcoming either. It is difficult, nay impossible, to say with certainty what occurrences and conditions were cause for the timing of this event. As for the enigmatic Hauptmann, I can only wonder. As the son of a German immigrant and a carpenter, I thought at one time that I could identify with him and hence understand him. But I have since learned that this is impossible for me. Whenever I seem to think that I am approaching such an understanding, I realize that he has eluded me once again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2006 18:31:29 GMT -5
Kathy, I wish you did post more often because I miss your perspective on things...
This is such a great thread that I somehow feel as though I should not invade it with my thoughts... Heck, I would have paid money to read this up till my post! Its been a great exchange so far and hopefully we can keep it going.
I will try to be brief and simply inject the basics of my "two-cent."
I think Kevin's theory should be applauded. It's new and shows careful thought and consideration of all the facts. I want it kept in mind that it is very easy to assault someone's theories but very difficult to come up with a coherent position that is immune from, and cannot be attacked.
I think we tend to get caught up believing if Hauptmann is involved then he must be in Hopewell climbing the ladder. I disagree with this philosophy.
As to the finger-prints on the ladder.... I think gloves could be a possibility although very unlikely for the multiple reasons that tend to come up. Gloves would be needed everywhere. Additionally, I don't think you could believe that gloves were employed AND this was a last minute decision. What Kevin is suggesting tells me, if it happened this way, this is a very well planned and thought out event.
What we do see is Bornmann's finger-prints surviving (apparently) after he picked it up and moved it indoors, and that several hundred also did but none of them matched Hauptmann or those known to have handled the ladder. We assume this means Hauptmann did not handle the ladder or that he constantly wore gloves but there could be another explanation. Consider this - the ladder was left outside in the rain. As far as prints go, (2) sections of that ladder consisted of old used wood - it wouldn't be surprising to me that - if some had existed - they might be gone after being subjected to those circumstances. I am more interested in those print(s) found where someone couldn't touch without taking the ladder apart.
The other issue reminds me of Condon's bogus story concerning the ransom box being made of different kinds of wood in order to be easily identified. Is this another weird coincidence?
If someone literally goes scouting for different types of wood to avoid finger-print detection and/or in order to throw off the Police from any potential trail then I submit their original intent is not to leave it behind in the first place. That is the simplest solution to the problem this design is meant to protect against. And so, if this theory is correct, then what we have is a "backup" plan of sorts and this crime is boiling down to one of the most intelligent prepared for events ever.
WC's question concerning rails 12 & 13 origin being from National is also a real problem if we are to accept Kevin's theory. Personally, I believe Koehler disproved his own testimony in Court (that he did trace these two rails to National) in his prior reports and memos which reasoning he seems to abandon after Hauptmann's arrest. He's close, but of course that only counts in horse-shoes and hand-grenades. However, its uncanny that Hauptmann did little jobs for National and at the times it would be necessary in order for this wood to have come from where Koehler testified it did.... But the point is if Kevin is right then I don't see these pieces coming from National. Certainly other pieces of wood could also have been purchased there but not just these two pieces of yellow pine, in fact, the more various sources, the more places one could stumble upon therefore defeating the purpose. That is, if you buy from National, then buying everything from National eliminates any tracing unless they come to National. And if they did, then using Rails 12 & 13 have already gotten you caught. And if its only the desire for the wood to be free from prints, how does this explain a purchase at National for only (2) pieces? Furthermore, if one is so worried about prints, I wouldn't think they would buy from a place they worked at - just in case.
I fully agree with Kevin that there really is no proof Rail 16 was a "replacement" piece. There are only circumstances which suggest it was done differently. This of course could mean a different person, a different time, or a different place - none of which suggest "replacement" on face value.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 15, 2006 18:57:08 GMT -5
Thanks Michael What I am attempting to do here is make sense of this ladder. You know it is not uncommon to find a well thought out idea poorly executed and conversely a well executed product that was poorly thought out. But it is much more uncommon to find something that is at the same instance both well and poorly though out and both well and poorly executed. This is , to me the enigma of this ladder. That it has elements of good design is obvious as are it's deficiencies. How does one make sense of this? For me the answer lies in attempting to discern the criteria employed by it's creator. And yes, I hope we can keep it going too. WCollins is an excellent foil, as are you.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 15, 2006 23:06:26 GMT -5
Perhaps I prefer to be an epee or a rapier instead of a foil -- even a sabre in my fantasies!
I do think it would be interesting to keep working with the wood. Why, if this is to be a "disguised" job would we have to worry over much about the ladder being at once crude and clever? Does that give too much credit to the builder? I thought we were approaching consensus on the idea that the ladder was meant to be left behind. By doing that one not only saves the problem of being stopped by the police with it sticking out all over, but also distracts pursuers from the idea that this was done by a good carpenter.
There are many cunning people in this case -- a plethora of them. Whited is cunning. Fisch is cunning. Condon is either super-cunning or round the bend. Why not BRH, too?
We could work the Samuelsohn angle in here as well. Why is his story dismissed? Is it because it is disproved, or because it is inconvienent to both sides? I think the latter. What if Samuelsohn had told the police that he recognized some of the others who came in ---- what then? And the same is true of other stories as well. Many of them are not disproved, but simply not followed up for certain reasons. Were any of the servants taken to see BRH after his arrest to see their reactions? Why weren't more questions asked of the household after Violet's death? Do you think that would happen today?
We can be too hard on the police, as someone said, but we can also be too easy. There is absolutely no indication of a fall from the ladder. No impression in the mud, only CAL hearing a snap like an orange crate falling off a chair. That is remarkably specific. Who followed it up?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Trooper2 on May 16, 2006 4:23:03 GMT -5
Why carry the ladder in, use it, move it 75 feet and "then leave it behind"? Something doesnt add up? My first guess would have to be: " to create the illusion of a kidnap"? Sure charlie is gone...but as we know the dogs always chase the bones and the squirrels always chase the nuts. Where was Charlie hiding for 72 days?
Why go to all this confusion with the scrap lumber? Some matches some dont? left handed cuts/right handed cuts and then it breaks? For a union carpenter to hire a cabinet maker into the ladder game is crazy? Brilliant but crazy? If you are going to leave the ladder then leave the ladder--up? If you dont want to get "caught" and you dont want to get the "chair" then you dont leave the ladder behind unless you have no choice? The ladder is to confirm that Charlie went out thru the warped shutter and NOT down the stairs and out the front door? But the ransom note, thumb quard and chisel says different!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2006 5:45:39 GMT -5
I still can't get past the purchase of only (2) pieces at National, or any for that matter if the idea is to avoid finger-prints. I would think consideration would be given that, for example, yard foreman Miller left prints all over these boards. If someone is so concerned about prints then they would simply have to worry that Miller's (and others) prints could be traced back to the yard.
Obviously I tend not to think the ladder was left behind as a matter of planning for it. I would think they may expect road-blocks if the Police were called in which case having Charles Jr. is worse then having a ladder. The focus on the ladder seems to be because it was left behind in the first place. Leaving it at the scene of the crime makes little sense to me especially if you buy into the fact Charles Jr. was left at Mt. Rose on March 1st. It would be easier for me to swallow if it were "ditched" elsewhere but not there.
Kevin's point they didn't seem to be hurried is also a very interesting observation to which I tend to agree. It's another sign of pre-planning in my opinion. I can't help but refer to a letter I read written to Schwarzkopf suggesting those footprints in the nursery going only toward the crib could be explained that whoever left them "re-traced" their steps backwards toward the window. This makes perfect sense until -
- you consider they wouldn't have been able to see the prints they left in the first place unless a light was on.
|
|