kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2007 6:42:31 GMT -5
Thanks Joe! Yes, the 4 nails clamping the lower section rungs were more than adequate. The only weakness there, as you pointed out, is the nail locations so close to the edges of the rungs. The ladder is like a chain and as such is only as strong as the weakest link. In this case that weak link is the ability of the wood fibers to resist shearing along the grain (splitting) at the two lower dowel holes on the second section. That is what will determine the ladder's maximum load and it can only be expressed as a range, say 150lbs to 200 lbs for example. Of course with a very simple modification, Hauptmann could have eliminated this weak link. Some simple banding, wire, or a shear plate locate around the rail at the dowel hole locations would have done the trick. Still, the ladder did it's job.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 9, 2007 4:03:02 GMT -5
Here is a photo which Michael posted earlier as part of a collection of Lindbergh Kidnapping Evidence Photographs found at the site: (the link itself may provide a larger and clearer image) www.state.nj.us/state/darm/links/guides/slcsp001.htmlI had never seen this picture previously and I was immediately struck by its impact. I believe it speaks volumes towards how close Arthur Koehler was to pinning down the source of Rail #13 at the National Millwork and Lumber Company and how in tune he had become towards the appearance traits of the mill planing he was looking for. There are numerous similarities here and its worthwhile to focus on a number of these giving each one plenty of time to register its importance. How many of these types of concurrent similarities does it take before a positive identification can be made? Kel Keraga in his Rail #16 report, was able to identify a number of similar mill planing appearance traits found on the face and obverse sides within S-226 and Rail #16 as well as in the range of boards used in the Hauptmann attic. Again, how many of these concurrent similarites does it take before common sense demands a positive identification? With this added weight of circumstantial physical evidence, in addition to Rail #16 itself, not to mention all of the other tangible elements relating to Hauptmann's lack of employment and grandiose lifestyle in the face of repeated stock losses, this picture only reinforces the justness of the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2007 5:14:35 GMT -5
Who here knows what they are looking at? Something that appears to be similar? Maybe, then again, maybe not. Common sense has nothing to do with it. This is a very dangerous assertion. For one to "identify" something of this nature they would need to be an Expert in tool mark identification. At last check Keraga isn't and didn't use one in his report. Next, he uses pictures in an attempt to prove it and pictures cannot be used to prove such a thing. It's why, if you are going to set out to prove something, you need to do everything by the book. Keraga deviates from the forensic guidelines on this angle which leads exactly here and to this point. Limbo. Guessing. Speculation. Forensic evidence doesn't involve guesses. And so we're led down a path labeled "forensics" and told people who don't do this are, in essence idiots, yet this angle has nothing to do with forensics as it pertains to his report. He does here exactly what he puts down others for doing. Go to his conclusion within the summary report and see exactly what I am talking about. This type of "reasoning" (for lack of a better word) has a snowball effect which leads to an ending which could be nothing more then fantasy. That is not what I am looking for. By the way, Koehler himself believed he had been wrong about what he testified to concerning the Mill Planer Marks before Hauptmann was arrested. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1156626393The verdict - guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - of Murder - under the laws and rules of conduct as they were applied then - is completely unjust. Do I think Hauptmann had involvement? Sure. But who here can say his involvement, whatever level concerning which can be proven in their minds, shows he murdered Charles Lindbergh Jr.? It wasn't even proven that he was in Hopewell that night.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2007 9:10:43 GMT -5
I really don't know what you're saying here. What I'm looking at here as represented by the labelling, are side views of Rail #13 and a piece of 1" board taken from a scrap bin (circa 1931-32) located at the National Millwork and Lumber Company. As part of any comparison, I would certainly want to confirm this is an official photo originating from Arthur Koehler's ladder and wood evaluation. If this is the case, then there is no question in my own mind, these boards were planed at the same mill at approximately the same time, no tool mark expert required. You're free to draw your own conclusions here as is anyone else. If common sense has nothing to do with this kind of comparison, then perhaps an expert to decide whether or not this is a valid statement is required next.. Michael, I think you're tending to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here. You know as well as anyone that you needn't be led so strongly by Kelvin Keraga's personal conclusions. I look at the evidence here for what it is worth and decide for myself. From this I believe the planer defect marks that Kelvin discovered clearly indicate a relationship exists between Rail 16 and S-226 by virtue of the appearance characteristics, number, frequency and location along their respective lengths. Kelvin also make an excellent case for many of the Hauptmann attic floor boards having been planed by the same mill at the same time. The extra defect that Koehler couldn't quite come to grips with in no way negates his own belief he was essentially in the "same backyard" as the builder of the ladder. He just hadn't found the exact clone he had wrapped himself up into believing he must find. This was a case of Koehler being the perfectionist and true scientist. He didn't maintain that image at all times at the trial, but the man knew his stuff when it came to identifying similarities that could not occur otherwise by nature or machine and that can't simply be blown off.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2007 9:45:18 GMT -5
My two cents is that the whole issue of the wood id is a non-issue, or at least it should be. Yes, Keraga and Koehler are not forensic tool mark examiners. Yes, there are conclusions drawn by each that are beyond their expertise. And yes, if we are strictly debating the issue of the trial of Hauptmann one could certainly take issue with Koehler's testimony. But at the end of the day we are left with the evidence that the wood is inexorably connected to Hauptmann and his tools. You just can't escape that. If anyone believes otherwise I would suggest (as I have numerous times in the past) producing a report which would support such a claim. To this date I have not seen any such effort even though I have read so (too) many posts claiming the wood evidence is "phony" or inconclusive. It doesn't further any cause to constantly deride and dismiss the wood evidence without providing a solid scientific report to that effect. I will eagerly await this effort, though I won't be holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2007 10:28:13 GMT -5
This is precisely the type of thing that worries me. The only "proof" which seems to exist that he may have been right is that Hauptmann bought some lumber there. And if tool mark examiners weren't necessary - why do they exist and their rules and methods so strict? If an extra defect existed they could not have been planned at the same time.
We have a report that is supposed to be forensic proof of something. The Author has been slamming people for their speculation and tauting forensics for years now....therefore....if you read the report and don't know any better - you believe the report proves his personal speculations found not only in the conclusion but elsewhere.
For me, if the goal is to learn the absolute truth then I believe these things must be pointed out.
It did before Hauptmann was arrested. See my point? These external circumstances should in no way influence the wood evidence just as the fact Osborn shouldn't have been influenced concerning Hauptmann's handwriting conclusions after the ransom money was found in the garage.
While I see where you are both coming from, I can't help but point out IF this approach was taken earlier then it would still be assumed Hauptmann climbed into his attic and sawed his floor for Rail 16. Maybe I am taking this too far, I don't know, but I find that by trying to nail down the specific details with the least amount of speculation as the best situation regardless of what our general overall position is currently.
Something little, as we have already seen, can wind up being a big piece of the puzzle.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2007 11:14:12 GMT -5
Koehler knew he was close to the source, which in some ways is not surprising, in that the ransom money spending by that time was beginning to demonstrate the spender lived in the Bronx or vicinity. At the same time, Koehler didn't know Hauptmann bought most of his lumber at National Millwork when he was making his comparisons. I didn't say the two boards were necessarily planed at the same time. If we ourselves could see the kind of difference Koehler had intensified and magnified his search into, I believe it would reveal much about his personal obsession in finding that perfect match, which in the case of any two lengths of wood planed even within seconds of each other, will never show a perfect match. If it doesn't happen in nature, we cannot then compel perfection by machine.
This is not a report for general consumption by anyone without a pretty thorough understanding of what they're looking at. I don't agree with all of Kel's conclusions myself, but the scope and intensity of his work I think is second to none and he certainly has provided a strong foundation of research for others to continue. Like I've said, draw your own conclusions, despite the fact Hauptmann is already a dead duck here.
If you're saying the Osborns were influenced to the detriment of their professional opinion that Hauptmann was the ransom note writer, then I think you're on shaky ground, especially when taking into account the sources for such an assertion. I'm not saying they weren't influenced in part, but it's certainly no fait accomplis. The same can be said about the request writings and their "inadmissability." The evidence in no way points towards a coercion of will in forming letters this way and that and the bizarre and inconsistent misspelling of words.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2007 11:44:07 GMT -5
This is where the argument for an investigation by recognized and qualified experts comes into play, IMHO. There are still traces and evidence on the ladder which if examined properly could quite possibly explain or clarify some issues regarding it's evolution. I know of one in particular which might very likely put the issue of rail 16 as a replacement to an end.
I think that I have said this before, but in my opinion Keraga's "report" is very good but ultimately it only serves to preach to the converted. If the converted need reinforcement then it is a success. What bothers me is that so little attention gets paid to the design and construction of the ladder. This ladder, no matter what one may think of it, is the product of a human endeavor, just as any other work. As such,it reveals an incredible wealth of information about it's designer and builder. I have to laugh at some of the nuttier posters and their Samuelsohn claims. they obviously never bothered to look at Hauptmann's or Samuelsohn's other products. It's a signature.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2007 5:44:30 GMT -5
There's a science to this. An Expert can "match" these things based upon their skills and expertise. For me, I don't "expect" anything.... I look at what's said then cross reference it with other things. If they conflict I have a problem and need to know why and/or explained. There however, was another defect in one of the knives that dressed the same face which did not show on the ladder rail. Therefore, the ladder rail must have been dressed before this piece from the bin and could not have come from the subsequent shipment of 1 x 4" stock shipped 10 days later to the Queens County Lumber Company, Queens, even if some of it had been dressed at the same speed, although the relatively few pieces that we saw were all dressed at a faster rate.
This conclusion is made because defects in knives do not disappear as more lumber is dressed, and if the face knives had been sharpened the other defect in one of the face knives would also have been ground out. (Koehler 11-29-33) This quote above is not my conclusion - its Koehler's. Obviously, one cannot believe his testimony in Court if what he's written above is correct. For me, there's a lot which can be learned here and not just about the wood evidence. Did he buy most of his wood there? I don't think so. There's a lot I admire about it too, however, there's some major disappointments as well. Those disappointments hinge upon flaws and/or speculation which are absorbed into the report as if its absolutely clear & factual. It ain't. And again as I have pointed out... there's a reason to both know and understand the true situation of the matter. Knowing that Rail 16 came from the Basement (thanks to Kevin and Rab) we may now be able to trace the source for the "replacement" accusation. I think I may be able to prove what set of actions created other Police to begin the whispers which started it all. Others may say "who cares?" but for me it attacks the problem from the back door too which should eliminate all questions once its solved. What I am saying echoes Kennedy because he was correct. Dr. Gardner reproved it, and thanks to him I have the reports on the matter - so count me as a source too. Osborn Jr. said he wasn't the Writer. I don't view myself on "shaky" ground or otherwise for saying and making an example out of this because it is absolutely 100% true. If you're saying the Police replacing Rail 16 then that is a dead issue. This isn't to say the evidence wasn't manipulated but regardless it would still point to that home. Or are you saying a "replacement" as to when the builder made the ladder? I Yes and no. I've learned from it and I am not part of any "choir" or granfalloon. But you can see the difference as to the quality of the report as it moves along. As Joe says above....you can judge for yourself which is a comment I can appreciate. Unfortunately, the report in question doesn't give that option because we're fed specific information which doesn't include some things that would once again cause some turmoil in the certainty this report attempts to create. That's why it helps to have a Master Carpenter looking at this situation from a neutral perspective.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2007 7:35:04 GMT -5
False conclusion. This is an example of Koehler overreaching.
Let me clarify the statement I made that Keraga's ultimately only serves to preach to the converted. As I said prior it is very good and an very good example of diligent and time consuming work. However, like Koehler before him, it's primary purpose is to match wood from the ladder to Hauptmann. That's fine if anyone had serious doubts regarding that issue. I never did. Most of those who did, (not all) did so with the belief of a Hauptmann frame-up. In that case proof that the rail and the floorboard are one and the same is virtually meaningless, since they believe some sort of substitution took place. Not even the Springfield photo will change their minds. It's the grassy knoll complex where belief overshadows all else. All evidence is subordinate to that belief. Personally, I find the mysteries of the ladder's development far more interesting and revealing. I am still amazed that so much has been ignored in this direction. Regarding rail 16, I was referring to it being a last minute replacement during construction. There very likely is a way to prove/disprove this notion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2007 5:46:49 GMT -5
Which part? I can see a defect actually and gradually changing/worsening - therefore becoming different. The sharpening comment seems to be on the mark.
The genesis of which seems to have occurred due Police activity that was less then proper. It's why I am spending so much time trying to find out exactly what the Authorities did which caused their peers to believe something was fabricated. I think people lose track of this.... the accusation arose from within the ranks.
Any ideas? As I recall the position it was a "replacement" came from the fact the recesses didn't match its sister rail while, for example, Rails 12 & 13 did showing they had been clamped together.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 14, 2007 8:47:06 GMT -5
The problem with much of Koehler's testimony is that it is not qualified with any probability. His observations and deductions are based on certain assumptions which are in turn based on more assumptions. In the end he may be correct, but his testimony leaves the impression that it based on solid science when it is not. Perhaps there should be more responsibility placed on the defense here for not properly challenging him, I don't know how that balances out. Yes, you are correct, the "defects" or damage which is normal in the planing process will change and not for the better. New nicks will appear and the knives will eventually get duller. That condition is accelerated in large production operations and when planing wood with hardened knots, foreign objects and resin such as commonly found in Southern Yellow Pine. But there are other variables at work here which Koehler neglects to mention. The mill operator can and often does make changes to the planer knives as well as the feed rates in an effort to maximize production and quality. Typically spare knife sets are always on hand so that changing out the cutters can be accomplished more efficiently. Still, the process of changing planer knives in the older machines is a bit time consuming and down time is never something a production facility wants. So there are "tricks" or shortcuts that can be employed that postpone the complete replacement of the knives. An operator can change only one or several of the damaged blades. He can also hone the blades while they are still mounted in the cutter head. There is another trick which allows one to slightly slide the blades in the cutter head. This staggers the worse nicks so that the resulting raised mark on the wood is not as noticeable. Then there are feed rates, pressure bars and cutter head speeds which can vary due to adjustment, power fluctuations, and build up of wood resin. In other words the picture painted by Koehler of the milling process as an exact process which can be analyzed and determined with certitude is far from the truth.
Who knows? It may very well be that rail 16 was the first made and served as a layout piece. There could be many possibilities. I am only really questioning the theory that there was an original rail 16 that was damaged beyond repair during assembly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2007 18:42:01 GMT -5
What's your opinion as to why he did this? Was he misinformed perhaps? He did make the trip to the mill and did make a serious effort to learn about this. I could dig out these investigations if you think its worthwhile. The other factor is the quote I made came before Hauptmann so its coming at a time when there is no apparent agenda.
I do know that during his original inquiries he was looking for a specific amount of blades on the machine and one of the companies was saying he was wrong but he blew them off. And continued to look for the same thing without a hitch in his gettie-up. For me this shows a propensity to believe himself over others - even if they are the ones who manufactured the planers.
We also see his willingness to shift positions or invent things if need be as demonstrated at trial.
In my opinion, everything he did needs to be checked and double-checked and not taken at face value. Your post above simply adds more fuel to the fire - regardless of the reasons for it.
Is there anything I could look up and/or be on the look-out for in the material that might assist in finding out which possibility is the closest to the truth?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 15, 2007 6:52:31 GMT -5
That's a tough question to answer. I think Koehler was determined to find the kidnapper and in this capacity he was single minded. Remember that Koehler was not an expert in tool marks or mill work, he had to learn about these subjects and rely on others. I don't mean in any way to belittle him, in many ways he was a forensic pioneer. But I don't think he was completely objective, especially as more time passed without an arrest. I have a great deal of respect for his tenacity and the results of that work. There are many times, however when I wonder why he seems to ignore certain clues or aspects of the ladder that might be very revealing. I never could understand his dismissive remarks about the ladder's construction and it's unique design which in some ways was advanced for it's time. It's interesting that Koehler gets pretty close to Hauptmann in some ways, yet his conclusion regarding the ladder builder as "wood butcher" or an amateur has the opposite effect. I don't know why Koehler overlooked many important clues contained in the ladder that clearly indicate it is not the product of an amateur. I wonder what would have occurred had the police narrowed down the suspect pool to German carpenters from the Bronx.
Well he is a prosecution witness and one that has a heavy investment of time in this case. I think it's understandable and quite human to reinforce his position and perhaps negate certain other possibilities. That's why there is cross examination.
Thanks Michael. I have discussed this with Mark and I really just have to get some time to look at what I need to.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2007 6:16:48 GMT -5
One thing that bothers me the most is the change of positions that now Hauptmann is alone so no matter what evidence pops up its indicative of him flying solo. If, for example, someone close to him was involved it seems likely to me they may share certain resources.
The same sort of thing happened with the handwriting. It seems to me if someone didn't have a possibility of writing the notes, despite the conviction that multiple parties were involved, they would usually drop their attention on that person.
All the authorities who were involved in this case were absolutely certain there was at least (1) "lookout" in addition to CJ, yet, this person seems to be overlooked when it came to the nuts and bolts of the investigations. Nothing other then "look-out" seems to be attributable to him/them.
The ladder has the appearance of shoddy work, but some reports did refer to this ladder as "ingenious." Koehler's testimony was probably to reinforce the notion that Hauptmann had been the type who would go into his attic and saw S-226 leaving it "hanging" off the joist which no respectable carpenter would ever do.
However, Kohler did make this observation in his 3-4-33 report and probably felt Hauptmann's tools showed he was right or that it would be most acceptable to the Jury.
I have seen Newspaper interviews with Koehler after the trial and he always seemed to be wondering who else was involved. That is interesting if the Reporters wrote the articles accurately.
There was too much exculpatory evidence hidden for the Defense to do this. Even Big Ed could have kicked the crap out of them if he had the material they kept squirreled away.
OK.... If after looking you think you might be interested in what a certain report and/or person had to say let me know. I've organized my wood files recently so it shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 16, 2007 6:59:16 GMT -5
I know that Koehler can be puzzling at times, at least to me. I give him a lot of credit considering his position and the effort of tracing the wood. There are certain issues, however that seem to either escape him or in which he shows little or no interest. Still, it is strange that he observes mortise construction with little evidence of chisel marks then concludes the ladder is an amateur job. Same for the unique design. I still wonder what would have happened if the search for the kidnapper had been narrowed down to a German carpenter in the Bronx with a Dodge. I know what you are saying about the exculpatory evidence, but still Koehler could have been cross examined effectively and challenged on his testimony. I doubt it would negate his findings, but it might have opened some doubts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2007 19:00:16 GMT -5
Various auto-biographies attributed to Hauptmann include what he supposedly felt about the kidnap ladder. He is something from an original transcript I believe ultimately turned into My Life. This manuscript is dated March 1 thru May 4, 1935. I cannot express myself completely about the statement of this circumstantial evidence because in my present situation in order to make everything clear, I would be forced to use different words. I am a carpenter and am supposed to have made such a ladder? As an expert, i would truly be ashamed of this work. This ladder certainly never came from the hands of a carpenter. Not even one without any training. As a matter of fact, one really cannot call this wooden object a ladder and I myself am very much in doubt as to whether a person could even climb up and down this piece of wood. Also, the construction of this so-called ladder is contrary to the principles of sound construction. If anyone had slapped me in the face I would not have been as much surprised as I was th the assertion that this ladder came from my house. But this was not yet enough. The assertion that I tore out a piece of the attic floor of the house in which I lived at that time, borders on the unbelievable. if I want to construct anything, I always have enough wood in the garage. Also, there is a lumber yard two blocks from my dwelling. (p. 219)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 25, 2007 8:15:47 GMT -5
Stick with the wood, huh? OK It would be more surprising if Hauptmann had anything positive to say about the ladder that formed part of his noose, don't you think? Anyway his assessment of the ladder is too self serving to be taken seriously. He could have, for example, gone into some detail to support his claim that it was not the work of a carpenter, trained or untrained. Of course it might be difficult for him to explain why a amateur would employ mortises and possess the skill to rip a board down and plane it straight. This amateur would have to have the same knowledge, skill, and tools that Hauptmann had. It's always worth remembering that the famous ladder as we know it, and as the world knew it in 1935 was not the same as the ladder found at Hopewell in 1932. The ladder as found was reasonably put together and neat. You can see this in Kelly's photos. Successive disassembly, reassembly, handling, and inspections have a drastic effect on a piece constructed from softwoods and fastened with nails. Personally I find the claim put forth that the ladder could not be the product of a carpenter ( Hauptmann) amusing. After all, wasn't Hauptmann by his own claim more successful as a stockbroker? Would anyone be surprised that this ladder was built by a stock speculator? I can see a new book, The Airman and the Stockbroker. Then the argument would be that a financial investor could never possess the skill and tools necessary to construct the ladder. Anyway, I don't think that Hauptmann did himself a favor by dismissing the ladder offhandedly. His defense would have been significantly better had he offered a detailed assessment of the ladder and rebutted those issues pertaining to it's construction in detail. Unfortunately for him, I think this was not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2007 5:23:56 GMT -5
I think the problem was the State was portraying the ladder as a piece of garbage then decided to say Hauptmann was a terrible carpenter as a method to defend he built it. Of course he wasn't - and so developed this further "proof" he didn't build it by constantly agreeing with them about its construction. Your research destroys any position the ladder was built by an amatuer..... This is a very important point here as well as in other areas of evidence... Here's a neat little article by one of Rick's colleagues concerning wood evidence: www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2006/fpl_2006_wiedenhoeft001.pdfProblem with Hauptmann is that his Statements given after his arrest aren't always truthful. His testimony could have been influenced by his Lawyers, and then these Auto-Biographies are utilized to counter positions established during the trial. He is definitely being assisted when they're written and its not all coming from him.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 26, 2007 14:53:01 GMT -5
I know what you are saying, Michael. I still think that Hauptmann displays more of his ego when condemning the ladder, than anything else. If I were accused of constructing something used in the commission of a crime and knew I hadn't had a hand in it, I would explain in detail the reasons why. Perhaps I would exhibit items I did construct as a means of comparison. Simply offering the same simplistic assertion that the ladder is a work beneath his ability was not sufficient for those judging him. I doubt Hauptmann could do as I am suggesting since it would only show that he could have produced that ladder, and in fact did. In this regard I don't see what avenue was possibly open to the defense strategy other than attempting to keep the ladder from being introduced as evidence. Interestingly, there was evidence in the garage built by Hauptmann which, if saved, could have added further proof that Hauptmann constructed the ladder. Even the photos which survive give a glimpse at a similarity in construction knowledge and execution.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2007 9:36:27 GMT -5
A couple of quick questions Kevin. We may have discussed this before but I know ideas change as we develop new possibilities. 1. Where do you think Hauptmann built the ladder?
2. Do you think its possible he was assisted by someone else in its construction?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 28, 2007 11:19:57 GMT -5
Michael
Well, first I would break down the building into two distinct phases. First there is the preparation of the components which entails ripping(sawing), planing, layout, drilling, mortising, and cutting to length of the rails and rungs. Second is the assembly which is essentially nailing the pieces together. There is absolutely no reason why the two phases can not be completed at different locations. In fact you could complete phase one and store the components with little fear of anyone figuring out what they are. Was Hauptmann's garage where all or some of this was achieved? I honestly don't know. It is certainly possible as the workbench is the proper size. Probably the determining factor for me is the machinist's vise located around the middle portion of the workbench. I say this because I doubt it was used to clamp the rails while mortising and yet, if it was present in early 32 ( and I don't know that it was) it probably would have been employed.
Michael
I honestly see no reason for it, but as I said above, with two distinct phases of construction, I suppose it it possible.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 7, 2007 11:31:00 GMT -5
Why do you suppose that Hauptmann put so much thought into some aspects of the ladder such as, weight, portability, ease of assembly, and lack of traceability and yet showed little concern over strength, rigidity, and climbability? That given that the supposed design criteria should have weighed heavily on the task of carrying a live child safely down it. I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2007 18:57:25 GMT -5
I am with you on this one Kevin. He was never meant to be kept alive - there are too many circumstances which point to this in my opinion. He wasn't dropped, and the ladder was planned for and built exactly as they wanted it to be.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 8, 2007 8:46:31 GMT -5
Any mechanic is, by necessity, objective orientated. The ladder produced by Hauptmann was designed and built to meet those objectives. Since safely transporting a child was not one of these objectives, then what was the plan?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 9, 2007 0:10:09 GMT -5
Unfortunately I disagree that we can come to a conclusion the child was meant to be killed. Personally i don't believe it. Besides it would be a suicidal plan and leave nothing to bargain we have to consider other issues. We have to recognize the thumb guard was found where it was. What does it mean especially when it appears at least one or two came from featherbed Lane. Does the thumb guard and Anne's recall of car movement prior to the colonel's arrival hint of a more reasonable exit with a live child ? I think so. There are other things too that make my opinion.
I believe it was likely that there was a plan to maintain the child but never materialized because all fell apart. To proove or ever discover such a plan on our part is only slightly better than impossible because the need never came to fruition to tend the child.
If there was a confederacy or even inside help all would have to come to agree and know the child was going to be killed. Otherwise how could the hand that puts the child down be able to predict the sentiment of the others in the group when loyalty and strength would be so important to conclude the crime.
If you believe Hauptmann alone did this crime then I see the reason why one also believes the planned death of the baby. At this point NOT ME.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 9, 2007 9:37:35 GMT -5
I would find that hard to believe as well, it just doesn't wash. But having said that and coming to the same conclusion, we are left with a big problem. No one is going to convince me that the ladder was designed and built to safely spirit a child from a second floor. I built the thing and I have climbed it, I know it's limitations and more importantly I know how easily it could have been improved if the builder had such an inclination. One more rung per section makes the ladder much more climbable, especially on the descent. Now why would Hauptmann upon laying out the rungs on the rails choose such a wide spacing when he could make it anything? Why with the intended task ahead would he make such a choice? It's bad enough that a second floor abduction with a ladder is even contemplated, now the ante is arbitrarily raised with a compromised climbing device.
Here I would disagree. Every action leaves a trail. I read some of these posts and see every detail of peripheral ( at best) characters revealed. For Hauptmann to have had a means to keep that child alive for some time, there would certainly be evidence as well as an accomplice. Add to this the rather unusual nature of the notes which encourage delay over a quick exchange. If it existed it was well planned and well planned actions are notorious for leaving a distinct trail.
Yes, exactly. And you can add to that this: Anyone in that house who engaged in aiding the kidnapper by such a means as used would have been knowingly imperiling the life of that child in the same way as holding a loaded gun to his head. Take a sick child, silence him, stuff him in a burlap sack, and hand him out into the cold wet night onto an extremely unstable ladder, why not just shoot him and get it over with.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 9, 2007 18:59:26 GMT -5
Excellent conclusion Kevin! Fully worthy of an exhalt!
"Cause of death--skull fractured by external violence. The hole behind the right ear is consistant with a gunshot" Dr. Charles H. Mitchell--12 May 1932
Note added in proof--Joyce Milton/Loss of Eden page 250. ..Walter Swayze said "we searched for a bullet but none was found. We considered it may have fallen out when the body was moved?" (footnote NJSP Archived interview 1977) Now both Swayze and Mitchell considered this a gunshot wound? (2 for 2)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 9, 2007 19:35:34 GMT -5
Thanks Rick, but unfortunately I don't deserve an exalt as I made no conclusion. I merely made an analogy. Each can draw whatever conclusions they see fit. For my part it is fairly clear, murder without premeditation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2007 20:58:27 GMT -5
Personally, I believe everything that occurred at Highfields was by design. I do not believe there was an "accidental" death. Next, I want to resurrect an old issue... They stated that the adder would hold a weight of 150 lbs. (Relative to this it will be noted that memorandum submitted by Special Agent in Charge E. J. Connelley stated that the ladder would hold a weight of 125 lbs.). ( Special Agent Sisk - Memorandum for the Director - June of '34)[/blockquote] I have a feeling we went over this once before but for the record Kevin....is there any value to this? Over and over again throughout the source material this max weight for the ladder is repeated by all (3) Agencies as being between 120lbs. - 155lbs.
|
|