kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2007 8:31:52 GMT -5
Michael, I see your point and agree. I certainly have no problem with challenging and exploring all evidence to the fullest degree. No one seeking the truth could possibly see it otherwise. If the evidence is solid, it will stand up to repeated scrutiny. I think rail 16 and s-226 have done this. I also have to remember back to a time when the several feet of wood related reports were not in my possession, a time when all I had to go by were the accounts from several books recounting the attic find. Armed only with that information, I was highly doubtful of Hauptmann's culpability. The scenario so often repeated in mantra like fashion of a Sunday ladder build resulting in a broken rail and the subsequent wood hunt in the attic just didn't work for me. Frankley, as a master carpenter, I found it ridiculous. Now, thanks to you, Mark, and other diligent researchers I am far more aware of the facts regarding the wood evidence. The point in this rambling is simply this; if one doubts a particular piece of evidence or a scenario, there are many means to go about in seeking more answers. That, of course, is if the person in question is actually seeking the truth as opposed to seeking to re-affirm a prejudicial position. When I hear or see posted statements that simply dismiss ( or affirm) the wood evidence without any further explanation, I have to believe that this is a result of working back wards. By back wards I mean starting with a theory and then looking at the evidence to prove that position. In my last post my chief objective was to list the incredible amount of factors which must be in agreement in order to prove a match between two pieces of dressed wood. Overlooking any one of those items may result in a superficial match, but one which will not stand the test of time. As for Keraga's report, I greatly respect the amount of time and effort put into it. Do I concur 100% with it? No. But still I think even if you look only at the photographic evidence he supplied you will see why any "substitution" of evidence would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. What would be immensely welcome here, IMHO, would be if anyone who actually believes falsification was the case would step up to the plate and do the work as opposed to simple denials without the commensurate research and work. I won't hold my breath waiting, though. Unfortunately, I think DH and Col. P have a point here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2007 5:50:58 GMT -5
I have always said Keraga's report is something to be appreciated. However, the ugliness occurs when Keraga attempts to force-feed us certain things without the scientific support he constantly hits people over the head with. This of course implies his entire report falls within this standard but it clearly doesn't. His pictures are really nice. But in reality, they are simply better versions of what already existed. On the ring sequence, he has Experts nodding in approval. But, if one communicates with these Experts you may be surprised to hear certain things they say. Additionally, there are certain things he left out. Was this intentional or oversight? Regardless, why get angry when its brought up and/or pointed out? There are many other things that could be important which Keraga did find. But the minute you point out the possibilities these things hold to support something other then Hauptmann crawling into his attic to steal part of the floor-board guess what happens? Forced into a corner, Keraga's response was, in essence, he didn't "think it was necessary" and that he thought people "would get it." Oh I get it all right. Once again, its called "selective observation." Why didn't he point out the shadowing on S-226 but not on Rail 16? Did he think we would get that too? Or did he miss it? That I do get. Omission by negligence, mistake, or malice should always be searched for - and followed up on, and I am not just talking about Keraga's summary report. I think when we talk "falsification" and "fabrication" then it must be mentioned there are varying degrees of it. I think what's gone on with this particular evidence as it has always been "all or nothing" and we're finding out, thanks to both you and Rab - that's simply not the case.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 7, 2007 7:02:08 GMT -5
I am surprised that a recent occurrence (or perhaps attempt would be more precise) at Highfields has not generated much interest. It should, since it is revealing in several ways. It's the little things that mean the most!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2007 15:57:35 GMT -5
I hadn't been aware of anything previous to your post. I'll wait to see the feedback you get before I jump into the 'mix.'
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 7, 2007 16:39:17 GMT -5
im on sue campbells computer since my web tv dropped dead. kel, me and a few others put kels replica ladder against the hopewell house in two sections. i took alot of pictures, its not hard for one person to get in that window
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2007 18:32:12 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Steve but.... ....in 2 sections???!!!! This doesn't make sense and I am willing to bet some variables and/or circumstances were not replicated. In fact, I would put money on it. - Was someone holding the ladder?
- Was it an exact replica?
- If not, what were the differences?
- Did someone go in and out of the window?
- Was the window open?
- Did someone come out with a (simulated weight and bulk of) a child and place the note on the sill then shut the window at the same time - unassisted?
Look, I've seen bias in stuff like this before. I've seen omissions, and dare I say - 'fudging.' Hey, I am in pretty damn good shape and that walk from Featherbed to Highfields was a hike w/o a ladder BUT I've seen Kel say something different - believe me - he isn't in the shape I am. So forgive me if I say I am skeptical.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 7, 2007 19:07:22 GMT -5
First take the grade height into account, it's substantially different than it was in 1932. I checked this at Highfields in April. Those added inches make quite a difference when considering the two section entry. So does the exact location of the ladder legs. I would be glad to compare these dimensions with whatever ones were used. Still the greatest obstacle for a lone climber with two sections is getting on and off the top rung. Even someone with only a small model ladder can demonstrate why this is so. And what was learned from the split?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2007 18:48:25 GMT -5
This is excellent! It's a perfect example why someone neutral without an agenda must be a part of such an "experiment." I am quite sure this wasn't taken into account.
I was especially referring to doing it by oneself with an exact replica in the dark on a wet and very windy night after having carried this ladder from Featherbed Lane.
Of course. I can't imagine anyone doing this experiment without placing the legs in the exact spot. Well, unless you count Allen but I am assuming he wasn't there.
Absolutely. That's why its so important to use an exact duplicate and not one claimed to be with "safety devices" on it!!!
My guess is that you just make someone's S*** list. It happens when you call out people making mistakes who claim they are above making mistakes.
I've learned that anyone can, with a reasonable amount of research, call into question or flat out disprove something supposed "Experts" assert.
Take Script for example. I've proven so many of his assertions to be flawed that I feel sorry for the man. Next you have Keraga's report. It's tauted as Forensic "proof" when some of it doesn't follow the forensic guidelines and the conclusion (which should be the most important part) is based upon his own personal fantasy.
Debate is a good thing. Thank God it exists here even if it doesn't elsewhere.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 9, 2007 8:46:24 GMT -5
In this case you are always on someone's s***list. I guess that is the nature of such a polarized case, especially one in which personal prejudices transcend reason. Bottom line, you are either pursuing the truth or you are acting out a predetermined role in a predetermined story. Attempting to set up a "replica" ladder at Highfields is an act in a play. Too much has changed and the limitations don't allow much to be learned. Even the walk from Featherbed is different today. I know this because I had given much consideration to making a reenactment at Highfields. In the end, between the changes at the site, lack of shutters, a different window, and increased grade height below the sill it became obvious that such a reenactment was not viable. The only thing at Highfields that I believe could be rewarding would be a sight line check from within the house, especially at dusk or night. Perhaps one other item as well. If you happen to be there and have a ladder which happens to split, see what the hell happens when the thing fails completely!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2007 9:09:00 GMT -5
I promise you that even under the conditions today, if we sent Steve Romeo from Featherbed, in the dark of night, to that window, with an exact replica of that ladder, placed in the right position according to the records, in a wet and wind storm, with the windows and shutters closed.... The minute he put his weight on that top rung and attempted to reach over to that window the ladder would "scissor" and he would get seriously injured. And it doesn't have to be Steve - it could be anyone who was there at the time of this supposed "experiment." If its so easy for anyone to do they should all want to jump at this. Remember, no safety measures on the "replica." That means no metal brackets, etc. It must be built exactly as the real one was. In fact, why don't we put money on it?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 9, 2007 14:04:25 GMT -5
I suppose it will remain an eternal mystery to me as to why this case has such a radical following. It seems almost reminiscent of a religious fervor that causes some to reject any re-thinking, no matter how minor, of what actually occurred prior, during, and after the crime while at the same time an equally intransigent group rejects nothing short of a Hauptmann acquittal. So much wasted time and energy. Take the damn ladder and climb into a window. Push the envelope and observe the results of a complete failure. Look at the remaining evidence and learn. Don't ignore. Don't mimic. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2007 14:59:12 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more. Frankly, I believe I have it figured out. I find that some of those who you refer want to teach people. That is, they aren't on the boards to learn - they seem to feel that is somewhat beneath them. So, in essence, they want to be teachers (in one case a Professor) and view those showing them other possibilities to the information they embrace as a challenge to their "authority." That's why they get so damned angry when you come up with something they can't answer, show them flaws in their positions, or prove they just made something up. Suddenly now you're the Enemy because you've come between them and their "students." It's also why they stick together so tightly. Congratulating each other when its clear they could be wrong. Take the recent post from a very intelligent newcomer over there. This Poster clearly showed Script the flawed logic within his post and what does 'Spirit' do? Ignores that Poster and congratulates "Script." That's not the board to kick around ideas. You either listen and learn or thank and congratulate. It's like a Scene from the Night of the Living Dead, or a chapter from Alice in Wonderland. I was always taught, in both College & High School, that when you debate you choose a side and then argue it out to its logical conclusion. I kind of did that when I first started to post but felt that its worth, as it relates to this specific case, had wound down because no logical conclusion could come from it. What I do now is argue a point - if there's an argument to be made. I've been taught that if a point is solid that an explanation can be made to overcome its challenge. If so then of course that would sure up the situation. If it cannot then it leaves the door open for other possibilities. Everyone has their own personal positions - including me. But if you've noticed, I'll even argue against that position IF I have something bothering me about it and no one else seems to have that issue. I won't take a deep breath and say to myself " thank God no one sees the problem that exists here." But this and other forms of it are done elsewhere aren't they? Ever notice these same people are NEVER wrong about anything? Ever. Heck, I still chuckle to myself when I think about Allen telling Rab he'd give him his copy of the Snatch Racket if the Reliance payrolls for March 1st ever showed up (or it may have been the time books for that date). He used to tell everyone one (of these things) never existed and the receipts for such weren't receipts but requests. Little did Allen know Rab & I had those payrolls and the Front Hall March 1st page from the timebook for about 2 years before that exchange occurred. And so when the payrolls and that page from the timebook became known publicly, thanks to Dr. Gardner's book, Allen never conceded but acted as though he never made such a claim. A normal person would have admitted their error. By the way, this wasn't an isolated incident. And he still hasn't sent Rab the book. Any more, anything coming from them is taken with a grain of salt. We have the best minds right here and we challenge each other with logical and coherent thoughts. The day everyone agrees with me about everything I'll shut the board down. That would mean I'm perfect and I'm adult enough to admit I'm not. Enough ranting (for now)..... ++++++++ Kevin, What is your personal believe concerning how the wind, wet, and darkness may have effected the climb....even with (3) sections. Is there any way (1) man was able to do all that was done under the circumstances in your opinion?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 10, 2007 7:24:27 GMT -5
It's a tough question to answer and the subjective nature of the weather reports make it more so. I don't see the rain as an a real issue pertaining to the climb, that is unless it was a heavy downpour. Certainly the resulting wetting of the soil would become an added burden on the ground, but I don't see it effecting the ladder climb too much. The wind, on the other hand, could be a real problem for several reasons. The ladder is so light in weight and lacking in stability that it would be easily knocked over by a wind gust while unattended and without a climber on board. Not a good situation if you are a lone climber who has already entered the house. Wind would also be a problem regarding the shutter. Once opened it is going to be a sail in the wind if not secured in some way.
Could a lone perpetrator have scaled the ladder, entered through the window, exited with a body through the window , descended on the ladder, left a note, and closed the window that night? I think to be fair, I would have to say it is possible. Possible that is, if the ladder was deployed in three sections with multiple ascents and descents. Please don't misunderstand me, you asked if I though it possible not if I thought it likely. With only two sections deployed I would state with first hand experience that it is not possible for a climber to enter and exit that window from an offset position without benefit of a footman at the ladder base. I have tried this maneuver and would challenge anyone else with a replica to do the same. The results are always the same. The ladder's lack of mass, laterally instability, and minimum point of contact area at the top and bottom add up to a skittish situation. Any climber induced force exerting outward or sideways force ( such as getting off or on at the top) can not be resisted by the ladder alone and it moves accordingly. Notice the numerous photos of the NJSP reenactments and when you see a climber aboard you will see a trooper at the base ( excepting the three section ladder "locked" in place by the shutter). One might get up that two section ladder and off of it without aid, however the climber will be in for a nasty surprise when upon exiting he attempts to find the top of the ladder with his foot. That's because it won't be there.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 10, 2007 11:57:00 GMT -5
I can only pretend to have the depth of study you have on the ladder but I find it more difficult to believe it could be done "alone." Did he climb with the chisel at hand? Did he have his revolver? Did he bring rags or cloth ? Did he bring any chloroform up the ladder into the room? An inventory like this seems likely and above one to do for me.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 10, 2007 12:53:42 GMT -5
Hi Gary. The items you listed, a pistol, chisel, rags, and chloroform would hardly pose a challenge to a determined abductor. They are not cumbersome nor heavy. I was asked by Michael whether a lone assailant could make the climb. Like it or not, it could be done. That's a fact that has to be admitted. Do I believe such an act was committed without any assistance? Absolutely not. But I won't allow a personal belief to keep me from stating a known possibility. Anyway it wouldn't be the baggage carried by the climber that gives me cause to doubt the possibility of an unassisted climb. In fact as I have said, it is not the climb itself which is the problem. It's everything else. Getting in and getting out, that's where the trouble lies. And that difficulty is compounded when one sticks with the two section offset ladder scenario. Ask any fireman, getting into a second floor window with all of your gear and a Scott air pack is a reality faced and overcome all of the time. So is exiting with a victim. However, lower the top of that ladder 30" and off to the right and you have a whole different situation on your hands. Even a heavy aluminum extension ladder will want to kick off to side if you try to get off center. Now add, as Michael pointed out, wind, rain, and darkness and that already difficult maneuver has just been compounded several times over again. In the end it boils down to this; if you are prone to doubt that a single person committed this crime and believe it must have been the result of a highly organized group then I doubt that you would ever believe a single act of the crime, such as the Nursery entry, could be committed by a single individual. But the truth is that though it seems highly unlikely to me that the abductor acted alone that night there is, given the right combination of actions, that possibility. And I feel that it would be irresponsible for me to deny that slim possibility exists.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2007 12:58:41 GMT -5
I know we've been through some of this in the past so forgive me, but I've learned so much since then that I need to go over the details once more. I see the "wet"(ness) as a problem due to the mud it produced as well as the fact someone has "something" over their shoes. I think we all assume it was for the purposes of deadening the footfalls within the nursery and not allowing for the occupants to hear. This of course creates a new can of worms which I still feel is important and that is the dog. There's preparation for one thing but not another.....but was there? Regardless, it might make for a slippery ascent and descent with muddy and wet feet with "something" over the shoes (socks???). Perhaps the socks were put on after the climb? But then we have mud "smudges" in the nursery. Are these from hands? So, forgetting about the window area being wiped down for a minute, why didn't the ransom note show evidence of being handled by wet and/or dirty gloved hands? On to the heart of Kevin's post. I agree with him. In theory it is possible. And while it doesn't make sense that anyone with the amount of planning which obviously took place would have to rely on luck to complete his mission the fact remains that what Kevin says is true. I think my problem is time and that this person must possess certain key pieces of information we wouldn't expect them to have. This person would have had to (assuming he/she knew both the shutter and window were open - exactly how they knew I don't know): 1. Use (2) sections.
2. Climb to the window and open the shutter.
3. Climb down.
4. Add 3rd section and raise to the side of the house against an open shutter which would obviously be banging around in the wind.
5. Climb ladder open the unlocked window.
6. Step through the window avoiding the stein, woolly dog, and ark which blocked the window.
7. Walk over to CJr. without him crying out.
8. Somehow place him into a bag.
9. Walk back.
10. Exit window by avoiding these same obstacles.
11. Place ransom note on sill w/o it blowing off.
12. Close window.
13. Climb down ladder.
14. Disassemble 3rd section.
15. Carry ladder to where it was found then discard it and chisel.
16. No light source to perform these acts.
17. Walking back nearly 1 mile in the dark back to the car. (disregarding the thumb-guard for a minute) Did I miss anything or - did I embellish or create an unnecessary point(s)?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 11, 2007 6:24:55 GMT -5
There could be less steps involved with the ladder, then again there could be more. I guess what is important here is the time involved and that is where it can be hard to determine and allocate an actual time for each specific movement. I know that under good conditions the ladder can be set up, climbed, and broken down in around 4 to 5 minutes. It is light and simple, after all. As for whatever time it took off of the ladder, I don't know.
It is interesting to me that you think the baby went into the bag at the outset. I have wondered about this many times. It seems like a wasteful exercise to me and not one that gains an abductor much that I can see. If you believe the child was taken alive ( I don't) then what would the difficult and time consuming process of stuffing him in the bag achieve? You would have a kicking and screaming kid in a bag. If he was dead, or drugged, what do you gain with the bag? Why stuff the child's body into a bag?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2007 15:51:34 GMT -5
Again, this assumes one person only is involved....
I am not sure if he was alive or dead at the time he was removed from Highfields. I do believe the end result was for him to die however, and whoever is involved here must have known about the rumors concerning the child's health since they were widely publicized after his birth. There was no sign (smell) of ether in the Nursery but considering I believe Ellis Parker was correct, and that the "removal" occurred @ 8PM then its possible the smell dissipated by then.
Alive I believe the child would have to be unconscious....
Therefore, placing the child in the bag would give the benefit of possibly being able to place the bag around one's neck or grip firmly the top of the bag in one hand. It just seems to me to be an easier handle. Plus we have the benefit of knowing there was a bag used. Lupica saw one (or more) in the car he saw, and we know there was one found at the burial site had been used in bring him there some time later.
I personally do not believe one person was doing all of this by themselves - of course.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 11, 2007 16:15:02 GMT -5
The burlap bag is interesting to me. as well,,but mostly at the other end/gravesite. If there is a drugged/ dead baby at the nursery, it is limp, dead weight, floppy. It seems to me it would be very much easier to carry in the bag, --run with it if necessary. Perhaps the child wasn't placed in the bag until outside(?) As to sock covered shoes--it makes little sense to me. There would have been little walking to do inside the nursery. It seems to me that sox would have picked up/absorbed more of the mud and had more tracking inside. Have wondered if the bag was on ground at ladder at some point and the kidnapper stepped on it thereby giving a footprint impression of a loose woven sock(?) Somewhere I saw a photo that showed just how small that nursery window was. Seems awfully small to do the to-ing and fro-ing. I keep coming back to the child being handed out the window--which would seem then to bring back the "insider" help. And back to the two section ladder matching the marks on the wall. Am not prepared to R/O other possibilities, though. As to the body being placed at Mt Rose, as previously discussed, it goes from kidnapping to murder. Who, if anyone, may have placed it there without having been involved with the crime? It also seems to me that if ether/chloroform was used on a cloth or one glove it would have made a dandy wipe-down substance in the nursery.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2007 7:06:29 GMT -5
I would say think about the purpose of the bag very carefully. If you were abducting a child from a second floor via a ladder would you stuff a body in a bag? I think this is a perfect example of one of those little points that get taken for granted in this case and thus cemented in our minds. But really why? Do firemen carry victims down a ladder in a bag ? Placing that child's body in a bag actually makes it more difficult to transport since you have less control over the weight distribution. And that would be a critical factor in the egress from that room. Yet a bag was employed at some point after the kidnapping. Here again I think it beneficial to step away and think about it. Who puts a body in a bag and why when this occurs is it usually done?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 12, 2007 16:01:23 GMT -5
My mind is still swirling from the last episode of the Sopranos. I can't figure out the cat yet although I have a theory, and I am still working on all of those things happening in 3's at the end. Obviously, Tony's worst nightmare of being dead and nothing existing afterwards (as he oft confided in Melfi about) OR its a dream.
Masterfully done and a great end to an awesome series!
++++++
I think it honestly depends on how the bag was utilized. If it were used like a backpack perhaps... But again, I am trying to envision this being done by (1) person....something I do not believe happened. For me the obvious answer is the child was handed down to someone else or taken out one of the doors.
What's on your mind? Concealment perhaps?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2007 16:28:46 GMT -5
The Sopranos cat is a great example to give! It is tempting to over think it's significance. Yet it is there and obviously it has a purpose as a symbol or metaphor. I am always amazed at what people can come up with in these situations, creative thinking is amazing. I read a blog comparing this seasons episodes with Dante's 9 circles of hell! Regarding the bag, I don't think it was used in the room or to take the body down the ladder ( with or without a rope). It's too time consuming, too awkward and I don't see the point. I do think the bag had a very specific purpose, one which I think answers several questions. It's part of what I want to discuss at a sitdown.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2007 19:31:14 GMT -5
I am up for the "sit down" so just let me know what's best for you and the others....
BTW - One of the reasons Agent Sisk believed Hauptmann hadn't acted alone was due to the ladder. He believed the 2 sections was too short, as did every NJSP I see referenced in the source material, so it would required assistance. Another reason was that he believed someone was helping him launder and spend the ransom money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 19, 2007 6:45:42 GMT -5
The ladder is a quandary to be sure. Two sections puts you about 30" down and to the right. That may not sound insurmountable until one considers that we are talking about the top of that section, which in this case also happens to be the top rung. A common extension ladder's rails extend past the last rung. Now it's not recommended practice to ever stand on the top rail or step on any ladder. Like most of those who work with ladders I have on a few occasions ignored that advice. It's not a pleasant experience , though. You are plastered against a wall and usually have no handhold since your past the ladder rails. Now consider the LKC ladder where you are standing on the very tip of the ladder. Unlike a typical extension ladder where the last rung is down a foot from the ladder end and therefore out from the wall, the LKC ladder's top rail is only about 3" away from the wall and is only 3/4" wide. Standing on that top rail actually puts your center of gravity behind you. Now think about this precarious position and what must be accomplished next. You are literally face to face with the cold wet stone wall of Highfields and must reach the window and slide it up. That task is even made more difficult since the windows are sash weighted doublehungs which tend to bind when opened with an off center force. If you get this right the next maneuver is a head first entry through the window opening which would require all of your upper body strength. Also remember that all during this time that ladder (and your 3/4" foot hold on life) is flexing and bending. I won't even bother with the exit.
I am trying to find a good time to get together, soon I hope.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 20, 2007 21:16:16 GMT -5
Unfortunately the primary device of observation used by many in this case is not the prism, rather it is the mirror. Recent posts elsewhere regarding the ladder are a prime example.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2007 17:28:28 GMT -5
Here's a Jpeg from old film footage. At first I thought this was of a "re-enactment" of the ladder entry but it appears to be at the 1st floor window so I am not sure what's going on....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 23, 2007 20:11:07 GMT -5
Doesn't look like anyone in the photo knows what's going on either! BTW, It's not Highfields.
Actually, this isn't too far from the maneuver required for a two section entry sans the extra helping hands. It can be done. But who in the world would even contemplate such an entry knowing an exit with a passenger was required. I will never understand the reasoning, if one can call it that, of those who deny the possibility of a ladder entry nor those who advocate a lone kidnapper using two sections in an offset position for entry and egress.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2007 14:35:36 GMT -5
I created a "Sisk" folder and was going through it recently looking for any info on the continuing investigation into the possible Ellerson/Baker relationship when I saw him mention the NJSP determined the ladder would only hold 155 lbs. and the Bureau had determined 125 lbs. These weights seem precise, that is, there are no ranges of weights (e.g. 125 to 135 lbs.)
How did they independently determine this, why are their figures different, and why do they change to 180 lbs. after Hauptmann's arrest?
Kevin, I know you did some experimentation with a replica....do you or anyone else have some thoughts on this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 25, 2007 16:23:03 GMT -5
I can't help but laugh at all of these maximum load calculations that keep coming up. Primarily because there are so many variables at work here. To start with, the ladder's relative degree of inclination has to be determined. As I have said before in the vertical or near vertical position the wood rails and joints are primarily in compression. Start inclining that ladder, however, and these components are subjected to tensile and compressive loading. That's where things get complicated. The specific parts of the ladder are not in any way consistent. Add to that the extremely minimal design of the joints and we are talking about probability. One knot or defect can become the straw that will break the camel's back. Then there is the issue of how one climbs this ladder and what they do on it. Once again, the minimal design is great for transport but don't try any fancy acrobatics on it. Load one side of the ladder and you are likely to find the breaking point. I can tell you that I weigh 185lbs and climbed two of the replicas I built without a break, that is until I intentionally caused a break by jumping on a rung. Both of those ladders were built exactly like the kidnap ladder and with similar wood. Similar is the key word here because the low quality wood used in the ladder contains numerous defects which can greatly affect the strength depending upon their location and severity. Basically I don't see how anyone can make anymore than a ballpark estimate of the kidnap ladder's ultimate strength. Any structural calculations and determinations given must be accompanied by the criteria used in the calculations in order to have any validity. I should add that one element of the ladder's strength can be readily determined. That would be the shear strength of the common nails on the lower section where the rungs are not mortised or "let in" to the rails. I believe that each nail has a shear strength of 70 lbs.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jun 25, 2007 21:52:12 GMT -5
Great post Kevin and well expressed. I've always been surprised at how such precise numbers were stated so emphatically by investigators when they must have realized there was no precise way to duplicate the actual kidnapping climb. I'd be surprised if Koehler didn't have a thing or two to say about the seemingly low numbers. A shear strength number of 70 lbs. for the PPG nails sounds about right. With four of them nailed into each rung, the theoretical load would be 280 lbs, right? Not that the wood itself would support that weight around the nails, but at least we know those nails for their individual part in the equation, were up to the job.
|
|