|
Post by deester on Apr 28, 2007 10:59:44 GMT -5
Yay! I registered.
|
|
|
Post by deester on Apr 28, 2007 11:05:05 GMT -5
How much did the ladder weigh, when all three pieces were "nested"? Just wondering if someone was capable of carrying it under one arm.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2007 19:30:29 GMT -5
Good question. While there's no doubt in my mind they did check I haven't seen anything in writing. There were some reports concerning St. Raymond's that were verbal and that's it. Of course we know the casted print at Hopewell existed only because of Dr. Gardner's book. If it weren't for Gov. Hoffman's request we would never have known about it. I do believe both prints were smaller then Hauptmann's foot/shoe. I don't understand why one would consider this mainly due to the fact all the evidence doesn't point to Hauptmann. The footprints are just one example. Some evidence was tampered with but to varying degrees when considering which piece is being discussed. Additionally, there was an omission of certain pieces of evidence as well. Condon originally said he was Scandanavian. The Look-Outs appeared to be Italian. The voice in the backround of the phone call was Italian. The Lady at Tuckahoe was Italian. The Needle Salesman and Scissors Grinder were Italian. The man who came to see Breckenridge was probably Isador Fisch according to Breck. This is not evidence of anything. It was an normal ladder. Our kidnap ladder is very special and complex in its design to specifically reach the window and fit into the shutter all the while being able to fit inside a car. He explained that Fisch gave that to him. Aside from Barr, no one claims to see him spending it until after he claims to have gained possession. Rab's research hurts this, however, I still think there's more to iron out here. He quit his job at noon on April 2nd before the money was paid. He didn't subscribe to that paper. Additionally, it seems to me someone knew Condon was going to write that and had a response prepared armed with this knowledge. I don't know off the top of my head exactly. Mark Falzini might know so if you want the exact weight let me know and I will ask him. I have lifted it while nested and its not heavy so to speak. It would be a chore to walk the 6/10 of a mile to Featherbed Lane carrying it. That's not considering the pitch black and other items being carried as well. That is of course if the walk was from Featherbed. BTW - I added your total posts to your profile so you don't loose your deserved rank
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 28, 2007 20:17:00 GMT -5
My files are in the shop but I think the ladder weighed about 49 lbs. The ladder is easily carried in one hand while all three sections are nestled, however there are some issues to consider. The distance, terrain, and weather would obviously have a great effect on the handling. What's lightweight for 100yds can get awfully heavy after a` 1/4 mi. Don't forget that in addition to the 3 ladder sections the kidnapper also had to carry tools and the two dowels ( lose those and the ladder is useless). Think about this in real terms under the conditions faced that night at Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by deester on Apr 29, 2007 11:14:15 GMT -5
I guess I should make my position clear (my current one, anyway).
1. I think Hauptmann built the ladder, designed it, and built it with wood around his house. It's possible that he "disguised" it because he didn't want it traced back to him. It's also possible that he designed it for a smaller person to use, someone other than himself.
2. I don't necessarily think that Hauptmann himself was the person who used the ladder at Hopewell, but I do think the ladder was used, the dowel was broken during use. But if the baby was taken from that window, using that ladder, then the ladder was successful in its task.
3. I think Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes, perhaps all except the first one (which he may have written, too).
4. I don't think Hauptmann should have been executed for killing the Lindbergh baby. There is no evidence tying him to the baby's death, and kidnapping (at the time) was a much more minor offense than it is now. Even if we concede that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes and made the ladder, the most we could get him for is kidnapping and extortion, not murder. (I'm not for capital punishment, in any case). If Hauptmann hadn't been executed, this mystery might be solved by now.
5. I don't believe Charles Lindbergh had anything to do with the baby's death, or a coverup of some family calamity.
6. I think a small conspiracy is very possible, and even probable, and that Hauptmann was not the ringleader at all (not bright enough). He may have been asked to build the ladder for others to use, which he did for a piece of the pie. Then, when the baby died, the others suggested that the game was over, but Hauptmann wasn't so sure -- he thought they could still get the money.
7. Contrary to point #6, I think it's perfectly possible the kidnapper smothered the baby in his bed before taking him out the window. Which leads me to:
8. The kidnapping and small ransom were not really the point. The kidnappers had rage against Lindbergh, and the destruction of his family contained some personal humiliation for him, since the father that "allows" his own child to be brutally murdered is in some ways impotent and weak. If rage was the reason, and the death of the child planned from the start, then the exchange of the ransom money was just salting the wound.
P.S. I think rage is also apparent in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, not ransom. The cases are similar, in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by rick for deester on Apr 29, 2007 12:20:52 GMT -5
Your point about vengence is well taken. Who then would shoot Charlie behind the ear (external violence) and toss him out along side the road to be eaten by scavengers? Who has the rage?
|
|
|
Post by deester on Apr 29, 2007 13:36:21 GMT -5
I don't know enough about Lindbergh to guess at possible suspects of a vengeance killing. I have ordered the Berg bio "Lindbergh" to learn more about him (and this case, too).
But I suspect an authoritarian attitude, easy access to fame and money, and some fairly peculiar ideological viewpoints would make Lindbergh the enemy of many people, even people he never knew personally. He wasn't easygoing, in any way. One could almost refer to him as a "Nazi," in that modern usage, as an obstinate, if dignified, person.
And some of this was a conscious cover-up for him (for his real personality), since I think he had little discipline in his personal life, and a roving eye for women, for instance.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 29, 2007 14:11:14 GMT -5
The problem I have with all of this is we have to remember to think as if it were early 1932 and if there is any truth to " kidnapping was planned a year already" statement then we are looking at 1931. What was the public view of CAL at that point? Personally I think anything CAL did to give cause for the kidnapping would be more in line with Schoenfeld's thinking or perhaps CAL's business dealings ( an avenue often ignored). Still I find a troubling void regarding Hauptmann's involvement. I don't think anyone can rationally disregard or excuse his involvement. Attempts to do so create more questions than answers. But where is the evidence of Hauptmann's obsession with CAL or his anger? Is this crime really Hauptmann's first American foray into crime? If so, he certainly reemerged in a big way. The key avenue to answering this mystery, imho, lies at the intersection of Huptmann, CAL, and whomever else was a confederate.
|
|
|
Post by deester on Apr 29, 2007 14:58:19 GMT -5
I also think that Hauptmann is a key figure, though it's difficult to make a case for him either way, since he is long dead, and his secrets died with him.
I don't think Hauptmann was the ringleader, nor do I think the "rage" that I have mentioned came from him. I think Hauptmann went along for the ride, i.e., the money. In fact, he may have been somewhat hoodwinked, himself. But it is curious that he never implicated anyone else. If Fisch was the only other person in the gang, then his death gave Hauptmann no out but to proclaim his own innocence.
P.S. I'm perhaps remembering incorrectly, but I seem to recall (in one of the books) Hauptmann remarking on his surprise of finding out Lindbergh was a Swedish name, not German.
The Nazis came to power in 1932-33 -- just pointing this out.
|
|
|
Post by deester on Apr 29, 2007 15:30:14 GMT -5
From something I just read about the Berg bio:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 29, 2007 16:49:03 GMT -5
You could go back to 1919 and the DAP but the point I am making is what the public perception or knowledge of CAL was in 1931. I wonder if CALS TWA involvement at a time of economic upheaval might not be more relevant, particularly on an individual basis.
I guess that depends somewhat on what evidence you look at and how you do so. I don't see anything implicating someone in particular, but I see plenty that implicates another.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2007 22:09:04 GMT -5
I agree with Rick that your point about vengeance seems to be an answer to the questions that rise up from the circumstances of this whole thing. But then rising up from that gives way to Kevin's point.
Bottom line is that something ain't right.
Reading all of the reports I have about Hauptmann I am convinced he wouldn't risk all on this impossible scheme to get even with CAL. Hauptmann? But, if someone approached him with a proposition to make some easy money who he could trust then I can see him being interested.
Concerning the Berg quote.....
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind he is wrong. CAL's own eyewitness account at St. Raymond's proves that.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 30, 2007 11:41:57 GMT -5
lets conjecture, just for the sake of argument that there actually was a kidnapping, planned over a period of say, months? Wendels confession says Charlie "fell outta bed and bumped his head" and Jones says Charlie "died of exposure/pneumonia 10 days later". Both tragic, yet unforseen accidents? BUT how about the bungling and delays on CALs part and then the coup de grace of "serial numbers recorded on hot gold certs"? This might raise the ire/anger/ rage of the gang past the boiling point? disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=34544;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20Forum
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 3, 2007 9:39:02 GMT -5
December 10th 1934 is an interesting day in the LKH: - see page 235 of Gardner (TCTNDies) for details:
- Walter Winchell reports a news leak that a piece of lumber from BRHs house was found nailed to one of the ladder supports?
- The Milwaukee Sentinel reports that one of the ladder rungs matches some lumber found in the pantry hall closet?
- AG Wilentz and Koehler deny all these reports ?
- So, lets do the math...Dec 10th minus Sept 26 = ~72 days?
- Conclusion, 72 days after discovery of S-226 we are still trying to nail the ladder to the house? Better hurry up!
- Whats the big secret? Noone else is permitted up into the attic until after the Trial of the Century is over?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2007 11:57:15 GMT -5
Better late than never I would be exceedingly grateful to anyone who believes the wood evidence was falsified to provide a detailed step by step explanation which details just how this could be done.
|
|
|
Post by deester on May 3, 2007 13:05:14 GMT -5
I don't think the wood evidence was falsified.
But just because the wood matched some wood in Hauptmann's attic, and he was a carpenter, and had wood and nails, does this prove he built the ladder? And even if we can conclude that he built it, does it prove that he was the one who used it? Does it prove that he was the one who killed the baby?
I still believe the only thing that Hauptmann could legally be punished for was having (and spending) some of the ransom money. In other words, extortion. I do believe that he built the ladder, and he continued with the ransom notes where perhaps others had stepped away. If there was a gang, one that wanted vengeance against Lindbergh, then the death of the baby was really the point and the ransom money wasn't meant to be collected. And Hauptmann decided he wanted the money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2007 15:37:44 GMT -5
I have no problem with your position, Deester. Although all things considered, it seems unlikely to me that Hauptmann didn't take part in the ladder construction. The wood, nails, plane, notebook sketch, and saw kerfs ( I am leaving the chisel out since it really can't be attributed to BRH) are pretty convincing circumstantial evidence.
It would just be interesting to hear in detail how the wood frame-up process works from one who proposes that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by deester on May 3, 2007 15:47:54 GMT -5
I completely agree. I can't imagine how the completely disorganized police departments of New Jersey (and New York city) could have pulled that off (replacing rail 16 with another rail, and replacing a matching piece in Hauptmann's attic). It's just too much.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2007 17:56:12 GMT -5
They definitely did something they shouldn't have.
The something is still unknown but its what led to the speculation that Rail 16 was replaced. They lied, back-dated reports, told conflicting stories, created fictitious exhibits, AND kept Special Agent Wright out of their conversations eventually locking him out of the house altogether.
Again - they did do something they shouldn't have or none of the above would have occurred.
Before the Klein-Purdy theory became the front-runner in my mind for explaining this situation - it was that S-226 was the replacement. To me it is pretty obvious the Springfield photo proves Rail 16 is the original.
I wasn't going to post this but then I thought to myself that its not my job to decide things for people. That people should be provided all the information and let them decide for themselves what they believe the true situation actually was. And so I will share that Police did buy a piece of board after Hauptmann's arrest which Governor Hoffman suspected was purchased for framing the ladder evidence.
What was it and why was it purchased?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 3, 2007 18:08:12 GMT -5
Just curious ~~ When were the saw marks and plane marks first presented or otherwise documented? (documented in a way we can fully trust)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2007 18:40:39 GMT -5
Michael, right after I made that last post I thought to myself; maybe I should make it clear that although I see the wood evidence as solid, I don't necessarily rule out the possibility that some funny business did occur. I knew you would make that point. Anyway, what I am still asking how exactly would one go about fabricating the attic connection? There are a lot of factors to take into account here. For one and since Michael brought it up, the idea of going to a lumber yard and getting a board that matches rail 16 is not possible. Even if you could somehow get a close match with the grain and figure, the color would be all wrong. Yellow pine loses it's bright yellow hue and contrast after time and any replacement board would stand out markedly. If you try to add a new first course incorporating rail 16, you will end up with a floor with 2 face nailed starter courses. In fact, if that was the intent, rail 16 would have probably been "added" to the other side of the floor. It just goes on and on........ Mairi, I am not sure what you would consider trustworthy, but there are photos and reports by FPL and others pre-dating the arrest which detail the various tool marks, nails, and wood. I personally wouldn't convict Hauptmann on any one of these points individually. But the sum of all of them is pretty convincing.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 7, 2007 10:56:43 GMT -5
Kevin...here's my best effort: - Trace the origin of T and G Rail 16 to its origin = The Mill, the town, the State (NC?) (this may have already been done in 1933-34)
- Scour the mill yards and lumber yards for a grain match by tracing routes of shipment--find a second board from same tree
- Take your best 6"T and G match...nail it up in the attic
- take Rail 16 and nail it down two inches away
- Viola! (this is not a proposal--its merely hypothetical?)
- Question 1--why are we verifying Rail 16 using newspaper archives--eg where are all the NJSP photos of Rail 16?
- Question 2--where are all the closeups of the 4 nail holes from 1932/1933/ early1934? Why did Dr. Erastus Hudson recall only one hole?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2007 13:16:15 GMT -5
Rick, thanks for putting your ideas out for debate. It's good to see someone willing to make a concrete proposal that can be discussed.
The problem with this is that unlike the bottom rails which were 1"x4" surface on 4 sides, rail 16 was re-sawn and hand planed on the two edges. That takes away the distinct combination of the 4 sided planer which allowed Koehler to identify the lumber mill for those bottom rails. Essentially you would only have the knife configuration and speed used on the horizontal or face planer to go by and as such there could be hundreds of possible mills.
Not being able to find the mill ( from above) would make this like finding a needle in a haystack. Can you believe that even if one could expend the amount of time needed that it would not have been noticed?
You would have to do so with the complicity of quite a few people. Say this was possible, would you remove the existing starter (face nailed) course? Will you now have a floor with 2 starter courses? What about the coloration and contrast between this new wood and the older existing floor? how would you know before the Hauptmann arrest that the rail 16 board was once a 1"x6" tongue and groove floorboard? In other words, how before the fact could anyone know the type of original board from which rail 16 was fabricated?
That really is the only thing that I could say is possible to do.
There are other photos and I am sure that enhancement would show up more detail. Regardless, the Springfield photo is the best photo showing rail 16. There are also written reports which clearly identify the nail holes in all of the rails which had them. So to create new holes to match the Hauptmann attic, one would have to somehow make the original ones disappear.
I don't know what you mean by the first part, but Hudson;s remark is in contradiction to every other that I have read as well as the photos.
In short, to fabricate the match with the Raush attic, one would have to find a remarkable match to a mate (S-226), know prior to the Hauptmann arrest that rail 16 was originally a 1"x6" floorboard, remove an existing 22' board, know that the joists were sistered at that location, match the color to the aged dry existing floorboards, have the exact same tongue, groove profile as the rest of the floor, and do all of this with the complicity of everyone involved. I wouldn't say that it is 100% impossible to achieve, but does any of this sound remotely reasonable? Wouldn't it have been far easier to just nail up one of the pine boards that had nail holes in Hauptmann's garage? Same effect and a helluva lot less work.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2007 19:40:34 GMT -5
Tracing lumber back to its Mill, even then, was impossible - or at least impossible to say so conclusively. Before Hauptmann was arrested Koehler conceded that he didn't trace Rails 12 & 13.
However, for arguments sake, let's say he actually did. He was assisted with lumber that was still at the Yard that supposedly came from the same shipment as Rails 12 & 13. A shipment which was about 2500 board feet shipped in 1931.
I'd say if you can accept this, then you'd be willing to accept the same as it applied to Rail 16. That is, you find out where Rail 16 was purchased and if the yard wasn't too big, you search their supplies from lumber which may have come from the same shipment as Rail 16. Mixing can occur at large Mills but if the Mills were small then the odds of Mixing goes down considerably.
The snag here is that if you don't accept Rail 16 was the other piece of S-226 or that S-226 wasn't an original piece of that attic flooring - how in the world does one assume they would find this information out?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2007 20:03:19 GMT -5
I would say that the snag with rail 16 is that you would not know what to trace. Yellow pine was a staple of the building industry and was available in many dimensions and profiles (such as tongue & groove). At least rails 12 & 13 were known to be 1"x4" S4S, meaning that they were purchased in their final dimensional form (excepting length). That gives you a big advantage over rail 16 since you have the production size and 4 sides of planer blade marks to compare. Where would one even start with rail 16? Basically you can only narrow it down to the Eastern U.S.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 8, 2007 15:24:02 GMT -5
Kevin and Michael:
Michael: there seems no reason to prefer au contraire to "on the contrary":
Letter from Arthur Koehler to Gov. Harold Hoffman:Nov 17, 1937
1. In 1933 I traced two of the upright pieces, or rails of the ladder to the mill in South Carolina (Dorn) where the lumber from which they were made was manufactured, and from there to the National Lumber and Millwork Company in the Bronx ( where BRH had been employed in December prior to the kidnapping).......AK
2. In March 1933, when I carefully examined the ladder at the request of the NJSP, I discovered that one of the NC pine rails and ten of the ponderosa pine rungs were planned on the edges by the same hand plane, which left numerous ID ridges due to the nicks in the plane........AK
3. In March, 1933, I also noticed that the rail referred to was planned by hand on both edges and still was as wide as the other 1 x 4-inch rails. From this I concluded that the piece had been a wider tongued-and-grooved or ship-lapped board and in order to cut it down to a squared-edged board of the same size as the other five rails, which were standard 1 x 4inch stock, it was necessary to rip and plane both edges. .......I told the NJSP to look for low grade tongued-and-grooved boards in the interior of a building like an attic, shop, warehouse or barn". AK
CONCLUSION: AK IS LOOKING FOR T AND G IN MARCH 1933?
QUESTION: Whats the big deal with the invasive study of the ladder wood? Wood anatomy is a microscopic science...not gross anatomy? Doesn't this smack of the family removing the DNA?>Even the Vatican coughed up small bits of the Shroud of Turin for carbon dating?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2007 16:40:44 GMT -5
Yes and no. Koehler noted the fact that rail 16 was resawn from a wider board and both edges were dressed. From that and the square cut nail holes present it is a reasonable conclusion that the board was once part of a floor or wall. That still doesn't positively id it as once a 1"x6 t &g floorboard. It could have been a plain plank or a shiplap board. Koehler also realizes the futility of searching for the origin (mill) of rail 16. Instead he alerts the police to look for any possible missing boards from any suspect's location. Interestingly, Koehler seemed to think that the dowels would be the best bet for tracing the ladder.
Why is there any need for this? I mean if the State of NJ would allow it and someone were willing to pay for it, I say fine. But is there really any doubt about the rail? What if an absolute test were performed and conclusively re-affirmed that rail 16 and s-226 were indeed one? There would still be a small group who would either ignore the evidence or claim that both pieces of wood were somehow planted by the police. There is nothing to be gained here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2007 19:55:59 GMT -5
I've posted this elsewhere but I'll post it here again...
As most of us know, the NJSP conducted it own "review" of the Case in the 1970's. Most people don't know that Koehler had conducted invasive study of some of the ladder lumber. Wood was removed by the NJSP during this period and given to Dr. West, a Wood Expert from both Rutgers University and the FPL. The result? Determination couldn't even be made as to whether or not the pieces were ponderosa or southern yellow pine. (Dr. West wanted larger pieces).
For me, I can't understand why they wouldn't allow Dr. Hoadley to conduct the tests he said were needed when both Koehler and the NJSP had already done so themselves. I really couldn't imagine anyone disagreeing with Dr. Hoadley if he performed such test and concluded the two matched.
But if they did, I think they could be promptly placed into the "Allen" category. All the Experts I consulted claimed the invasive study would result in a conclusion.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2007 21:00:03 GMT -5
I can understand that confusion if we are talking about slivers, larger pieces would be obvious. Southern Yellow Pine (pinus palustris) is quite a bit different from Ponderosa Pine ( pinus ponderosa).
Identifying the species, however, is not in any way a confirmation of a match between rail 16 and s-226 as you know.
I can. Look at what has been done so far to prove a match and I still hear disbelief. I don't understand how any "planted" evidence scenario can be rationalized. How could the multitude of variables required for such a task be accomplished? Color, wear, moisture content, species, planer knife marks, planer feed rate, thickness, width, density,t & g profile (s-226), grain orientation, grain orientation relative to the tree ,figure, nail hole spacing in 2 directions, type of nails, all of these are factors in the floorboard match. Does it really seem plausible or likely that we have a fraud here? It's the ultimate LKC rabbit trail.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2007 7:19:37 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't really know what has been done until recently. Let me explain.....
It's my style to exploit weakness in any argument regardless whether or not I am leaning towards or believe something to be the true situation. For that certain "elements" try to label me from time to time.
The idea is to leave no stone unturned and, in essence, be sure of the situation.
What we have here is a scenario where Police did something they shouldn't have but we don't know exactly what that was. The circumstances all point to something illegal. There are certain variables that intensify this fact, such as the alienation of the FBI during these events.
Next, we have a very unlikely and improbable (if not impossible) allegation that Hauptmann went into his attic then cannibalized his attic floor in order to build the ladder. Personally, I can't understand any normal person accepting this as a true version of events if one considers everything in its totality.
So when the best Experts in the world say to conclude S-226 & Rail 16 "match" then invasive studies should be done then I think it may be a good idea under the circumstances that existed.
Now, there is the matter of Keraga's report. It's important for me to note that I have only read what's title his "Summary" report. There's a lot in it that is important. However, I would not assign it the weight CourtTV apparently did nor the weight Keraga himself seems to assign it by drawing that wild conclusion at the end of it.
The report itself boats forensics and science yet only some of it is actually backed up by either. It's important to dissect it in order to see what the might be true and what might not be. It's important to ask questions such as why did he do this or why didn't he do that, etc. It's my opinion he set out on this research in order to prove they matched. I base that upon at least one email mistakenly sent to me which clearly indicates bias.
When you came onto the scene and independently suggested what Rab had suggested in the past I listened. Here you are with expertise and perspective that Keraga seemed to possess but ignored. You had no agenda - only to try and solve the situation from a neutral position.
And the result lead us to what appears to explain the entire situation. A quick look at both S-226 & Rail 16 clearly supported your position. That is, S-226 had the joist shadowing and Rail 16 did not.
How Keraga would miss something so obvious is a mystery - or is it?
In other words, until you came along and added this coherent explanation backed by both facts and expertise - then the situation was sitting in a position of uncertainty.
|
|