kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 10, 2007 8:46:35 GMT -5
I don't believe there was an accidental death either.
Regarding these maximum load amounts, I have no idea how these figures were determined and I really would not place much stock in them. There are basically two ways of determining the max. load the ladder can carry; by calculation or by ( destructive) testing. Since the original ladder was already broken and I have never heard about a replica made for a destructive test, that leaves structural calculation as the only candidate. There is a problem with this ladder, however. You can determine the strength of most of the components individually readily enough, but the ladder as a whole is a different story. There are so many variables at work here. As I have said in the past, the angle of inclination is a major factor. The more this ladder is set away from the vertical, the weaker it becomes. Then there are the variables of the wood at that joint. I did not have a break on any of my ladders until I started a "split" artificially. Unfortunately I never did an ultimate strength test either. So I know it held my weight (185lbs) without induced failure. I also know it held around 200 lbs of weight hung from it in a static test. But I don't know at what point it would have failed. It really doesn't matter either, as it wouldn't prove anything regarding the original ladder.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 10, 2007 10:36:39 GMT -5
I still hold my position and I'm sure thats fine with most of you. kevin you've done a great job on the study of the ladder. I have no reason to doubt its on the money. Let me add though you probably know the ladder and its limitations better than the builder. This is my case in point. If the weakness would not be inherit until an artificial flaw how could you assume the builder would make this same discovery?
I still believe the escape route from the front entrance shows a plausible attempt to leave with the baby alive. How would the killer determine Lindbergh would be so passive paying the ransom without a definite proof the child was alive. Only looking at it in hindsight we find it wasn't much to overcome.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 10, 2007 12:08:52 GMT -5
Perhaps Gary, but I am not focusing on the weak link here as much as I am on the basic design. It's fine for a quick entry and descent solo but extremely flawed ( for no good reason) as a vehicle to carry a child hostage away safely. Again I ask why is this?
Gary, I have heard this proposed before and I think it possible. I have a real problem with scenario, though. If our kidnapper was able to deal with the risk of a front door exit ( and that is quite a risk) then why wouldn't he just forgo all of the trouble with the ladder ( construction, transportation, climbing risk, identification, etc) and just use the front door? If he has already accepted that risk for an exit, why not for an entry as well? Look at it this way, the man who used that ladder to enter the Nursery was someone comfortable with that method of entering a house. He obviously favored this stealthy method over a possible confrontation. Would the same individual now change his spots and risk discovery on an exit though the house? I can't see this, it's out of character.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2007 6:27:54 GMT -5
Just to play devil's advocate here....
What is stealthy about the idea of breaking through slide bolted shutters and a locked window? Does this mean you agree these Criminals knew those items were open and/or unlocked?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 11, 2007 8:41:12 GMT -5
Michael, you a devils advocate. I am shocked. It is a good point, there would be noise from this method and obviously it would range depending on what actions had to be taken. Still, it could be mitigated to some degree and we know that B&E's occur in a similar way all of the time ( with the exception of a ladder). I guess the main point I am getting at is the overall MO used. Let's face it, the kidnapper(s) could have driven to the front door and used force( guns) to subdue the occupants and safely remove the child. And that is regardless of whether CAL was home or not. Instead the method chosen was a rear assault from a concealed position. This indicates the mindset of the criminals regardless of whether such an action would actually go undetected. I don't see the same person attempting to go in or out of that front door even if it was a better route.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2007 6:28:56 GMT -5
Let's keep going with this.....
Don't most B&E's occur either when the occupants are not at home or if the Perpetrators are confident they either won't be heard and/or have the ability to overcome those who are?
I was communicating with Rick via email and the subject of Garsson came up. Garsson seemed to believe someone simply walking in the Nursery could be heard to those downstairs. The NJSP did not address this issue and it seems to me they didn't want to insult Lindbergh by and through the insinuation of the matter since his wife was home and he had been defending his servants.
I think I asked this before but I'll ask again just in case - wouldn't the pressure from the wind be felt to those in the house once the Nursery window was opened?
Next, what if someone entered via the door and exited the window OR entered the ladder and exited the door? What if no one utilizing the ladder never entered the house at all? Aren't these all real possibilities under the circumstances?
Let's face it..... There seems to be a real plan in place and it shows they were prepared for everything that happened. If not, then we're dealing with people who are either crazy or extremely lucky.
Judging by the ladder design neither of these things apply here.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 12, 2007 9:48:21 GMT -5
Yes, it should be continued because it is essentially the key to the crime.
I don't have any stats on this, though I would guess that to be true. However, there are plenty of examples of criminal actions which seem to defy common sense. Who in their right mind would enter a bank in midday and rob it? Yet it happens all of the time. Anyone even contemplating a criminal act against Lindbergh has to have a few missing brain cells.
One thing to remember here is that the house was relatively new. That means the lumber was still somewhat "green" and not as dry as later. Floors comprising of wood joists and flooring in that fresh state would not necessarily creak and make any noise. Also this house was no doubt built extremely well. So my feeling is that unless someone was in the Library below and the intruder was making heavy steps, I doubt any noise would be discernible.
I don't know how readily this would be detectable, especially since the Nursery windows were already partially open.
Once again, I would accept these scenarios as possibilities but I think they are inconsistent with the MO. Someone who has gone to all of the trouble and risk involving the ladder does not seem likely to me to then use the front door. Some thieves break into a bank to rob it while others walk in the front door. I doubt the two would switch their methods.
Or both. And no matter how hard that is to believe, we have to accept that it is possible, just as Sherlock would say.
I think that is the primary reason I am inclined to lean toward something other than a planned kidnapping. The ladder is a physical manifestation of the mind of it's builder. As such it reveals much about his intentions. You simply can't deny that or ignore it, this ladder displays the intentions of it's creator. It is light, compact, and made for a fast climb. It is not the stable platform one would expect a man to utilize to safely conduct a hostage away. And remember it was built from scratch. That means the builder had a free hand to construct it in any number of possible ways. Since ladders have been around for thousands of years and the formula is well known, I would have to assume that this ladder deviated from the norm because it was the intention of the builder to do so. That deviation from the norms of strength and stability shows that he was willing to sacrifice those elements in favor of weight. Why would an builder of a ladder whose single purpose is to facilitate the removal of a hostage from a second floor make such a choice? That's the 50k question that everyone should consider.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 12, 2007 15:37:37 GMT -5
Michael--I think you are on target here:
"Next, what if someone entered via the door and exited the window OR entered the ladder and exited the door? What if no one utilizing the ladder never entered the house at all? Aren't these all real possibilities under the circumstances? "MM
Answer YES: based on the spotless Nursery I would have to conclude that the climber climbed up, looked in the window and only then realized that Charlie Jr. was long gone. eg the cupboard was bare and no-one climbed in....eg Al Dunlap. "Bungling the Lindbergh Kidnap Case/ Startling Detective Adventures.....a footnote pp 420 Gardner.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 12, 2007 17:24:10 GMT -5
Spotless? ??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2007 6:39:35 GMT -5
Certainly not spotless but far less then one would expect to see from an Intruder coming through that window under the circumstances we are expect to believe he/she did.
The wind, rain, mud, and complete darkness - into a situation of a room filled with obstacles foreign to whoever the Culprit(s) were supposed to be. Nothing knocked over, no finger prints, and very few "smudges" supposedly associated with footprints (that in Thayer's report attributes to Anne).
Isn't this supposed to be the person who trekked all the way from Featherbed Lane through the woods? Wasn't this person cold? Wasn't this person wet? Wasn't this person muddy?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2007 12:05:05 GMT -5
Some of the neatest things to be found at the NJSP Archives of those items which appear to be unfinished, unreleased, and/or confidential. I have some notes I found within the Hoffman Collection that appear to be rough drafts of some sort of press release in response to something Prosecutor Hauck apparently said publicly: I am somewhat amazed and amused at the statements attributed to Prosecutor Hauck, particularly his expression that I am trying to make a 'laughing stock' of the courts. Mr. Hauck is the young man who told the Hunterdon County Jury that he was going to prove that John Hughes Curtis actually had contact with the 'gang' that kidnaped the Lindbergh baby. He proved it, and then he later participated in the trial which proved that 'Bruno Richard Hauptmann committed this crime single handed'.
Mr. Hauck was so confused and so incompetent that the latter trial, although conducted in Hunterdon County, was taken out of his hands and conducted by the Attorney General, for whom he was permitted to act only as an errand boy.
I am wondering what prompts the sudden and zealous protection of the famous ladder and floor boards. Every one knows that this ladder has been pulled apart a dozen or more time; that certain sections of it have been replaced; that it was sent to Washington for examination and that it was mauled around by every police officer and reporter who visited Hopewell, and that hundreds of fingerprints were found upon it - the fingerprints of nearly everyone but Hauptmann. It is too bad that Prosecutor Hauck did not have sense enough to see that what might have been important evidence was protected at a time when his protection was necessary.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 16, 2007 16:41:19 GMT -5
It's another example of spending (wasting) too much time on linking BRH to the ladder ala wood and not enough time simply asking about the unique qualities of the ladder and what they reveal. IMHO
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 16, 2007 18:04:33 GMT -5
Re: abandoning the ladder. Someone on the forum had the thought that maybe after the break in it that it wouldn't nest back together, therefore they had to leave it. Seems like a good possible to me. Any comments? I can't forget the neighbors dogs setting up a ruckus either/leaving the ladder. Does anyone have any thoughts about other access (by car) to the Lindbergh house? Doc Ashton mentioned one which CAL sometimes used. Unless it's the same one I think yet another way in was mentioned.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 16, 2007 19:53:57 GMT -5
Mairi, even with a split the ladder could still be "nested". I have also heard someone claim that the dowel was "jammed" and thus the sections could not be separated. More nonsense. This ladder is not stout enough to resist any effort to separate the sections and stack them for transport. The reason for it's abandonment lies elsewhere.
Don't know any other way into Highfields besides Featherbed and the driveway.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 24, 2007 16:53:09 GMT -5
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!
Let's hope Santa doesn't need to make a ladder!!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 28, 2008 18:09:30 GMT -5
I knew the ladder still had some secrets to reveal. It now seems likely to me that it was originally only 2 sections. Why an alteration was made and a third section added I do not know.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2008 9:10:16 GMT -5
A major observation Kevin (to say the least).
Despite being a skeptic about almost everything, anything you say about the ladder has my full attention since your points have proven to be very sound. And on top of it all they are completely unique...meaning no one has been able to see these things before. Being a Master Carpenter has its advantages over the rest of us.
Now, if this ladder was originally built to only be 2 sections what does that tell us? This is something we need to brainstorm all the possibilities then try to figure out what might fit into this scenario.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2008 12:47:36 GMT -5
Hard to say. It might be meaningless, a simple change in the course of a work in progress. Since this ladder is unique and probably wasn't built from design plans, there would naturally be a learning curve. That's typical for one off projects. It might have been an alteration to facilitate stowage in the Dodge. Then again, it might have been that the third section was deemed necessary. In that case I would strongly suspect that some experience revealed the need for a higher ladder. I think it is important to remember two things here. One, if that ladder was originally two sections with an 11" longer first section then it would be much more appropriate for an under the window scenario. Also the use of the 2nd and third sections would be much safer as they are more rigid and the hinge is stronger since there are two locking rungs. Second, it is obvious that concern for weight was a paramount factor in the ladder. So much so that structural strength was compromised in favor of lightness. Given that, why would you build and carry three sections if not needed or intended for use? You could save almost 40 % of the weight by only using 2 sections. It is an interesting dilemma. I have always wondered why the first section is so different than the following two. Why does Hauptmann switch from mortised construction to non-mortised? In a ladder that has little strength that change is quite substantial. Why does the joint between section 1 and 2 differ from that of 2 and 3? Another major degradation of strength. We know that the rungs on section 1 and 2 were cut from a single 6" wide board which yielded two strips 2 3/4" w by at least 58 1/2" long. What is interesting is that the rungs from section 1 were all cut from one of these strips and the rungs from section two cut from the other. So it is possible that these two sections were built at different times, though probably within a close time frame. Could it be that a previous attempt was made and the need for more elevation was deem necessary? I wonder if the need to offset the ladder to keep out of the line of sight from the Library window was the cause? That seems very likely to me given the room layout and the ladder marks off to the left as opposed to the right. Another possibility could be that the original target window was the casement set over the patio. Two sections there bring you right to the sill. But that window is directly over a French door in the Library. Once again I think that only a nighttime visit would reveal the light patterns and vulnerability involved.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2008 8:42:32 GMT -5
I should have stayed with an earlier instinct, it's not the car the ladder is meant to fit in.
Hint; What do the Nursery note, the "packet", the hollowed out 2x4 for the gun and money, the buried crock, the oil can, the folded money,the trunk on the Dodge, the tool chest, the space behind the door molding, the ladder sections, and the notebook sketch all have in common?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 20, 2009 21:43:41 GMT -5
MORE TASTE/LESS FILLING: 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. while you are all "waiting for Godot" please consider this: I showed Dr. Regis Miller/FPL-retired, one of these many posts about ponderosa pine VS yellow pine....and he said just this morning: "It seems rather unlikely that the ladder rungs would be ponderosa pine or Western pine in NJ or NY? He thought they would have to be Southern Yellow Pine which would be difficult to distinguish from ponderosa anyways" end quote. Note: although Dr. Miller is one of the leading wood anatomist in the world--he has never laid eyes on the Lindbergh Ladder? i will forward him this post...Who said it was ponderosa pine in the first place? Koehler? Was this to counter the Samuelson claims of origination?
|
|