kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 16, 2006 6:54:40 GMT -5
Well you certainly have a razor wit.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, what we may interpret as crude may have been the product of a design criteria that we are not aware of.
Isn't this action almost proof that the ladder was meant to be left behind? If as your suggesting, it is a prop then it would simply be left in place at the wall.
Yes and no. What if. like the attic floorboard, our ladder builder is unaware or unconcerned with the origin of the wood and preoccupied with the knowledge that his prints are not on it. In other words the criteria is that it cannot id him alone. As National is a major supplier of wood in that area tracing the wood, if Hauptmann even considers this, would only bring you to the Bronx. That destination is obviously compromised by the ransom negotiations anyway.
I can't agree here. The ladder is a single purpose limited use tool. It is expendable and , if my theory has any validity, contained no clues to the id of it's builder/ user ( known to them). Why risk carrying it back and disposing of it? Why take the time and effort to remove it and place it 75ft from the house?
Well I thought that you are convinced the body wasn't dumped on Mt Rose that night? Regardless, how do you see the two actions connected ?
Does anyone else see a pattern here?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 16, 2006 9:55:02 GMT -5
What pattern are we talking about? Here's what I see. The ladder builder selects his wood from a variety of locations. He builds (or they build) a ladder that can be transported effectively, and used effectively, except for possible flaws in the construction that may be inevitable for the type of ladder they are constructing.
* The problem is -- this is the crime of the century even before it happens. Why build such a ladder? On the other side, presumably it was "tested" in a location different from Hopewell or BRH's house. Do we agree on that?
The ladder is built in a way to disguise its origins, and/or fingerprints of the builder(s). It is discarded as a result with some confidence it cannot be traced.
*The problem is: After going to this trouble, why take a piece of board from your own house (either the attic or the cellar)? Does this indicate that "K-Day" had to be March 1, 1932?
I do not see these as insuperable problems, and, it may be, that we are simply unable to put ourselves in the position of the perp(s) because we over-intellectualize the whole issue. Still, this almost has to be a one-time performance. One cannot keep coming back to the area with a ladder without undue risk of being seen and really id'ed by people. That means the ladder was meant not simply for a one-time climb, but that the one time had to be picked very carefully when all the criteria met in a constellation of perfect order.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Trooper 2 on May 16, 2006 9:56:30 GMT -5
I think we need to get a handle on the Samuelson timeline.
Who mentions him first and in what year? 1934? What context. Does he turn himself in "before JFC"?
He should have recognized the ladder in 1932....kindof like BRH should have noticed the ransom note serial #s in the Bronx Home News his favorite paper?
Why wasnt Samuelson asked to a lineup? Was his fingerprints taken? How about The Extradition and Trial of the Century.
Its as iff Samuelson is an extension of Curtis, Condon and Means all of whom "meet the whole gang" in one form or another?
Moving the ladder 75 feet is an important consideration? Why move it at all? Why move it a short distance? Why put all 3 pieces nearto one another and the chisel? where do you set Charlie down whilst moving the ladder? Why not just keep going? I submit that the "leaver" has to know that one board comes from the German Carpenters house? Just One? With the years of planning and list after list of precautions....this tends to be a Major Oversight? If you forget where the board came from you might just forget whose fingerprints are on it/.
|
|
|
Post by From Ronelle Board on May 16, 2006 10:21:52 GMT -5
bob mills for dena that @$XX##%& ladder! Wed Aug 3, 2005 12:30 24.151.85.50 The whole ladder business is still a mystery to me, Dena. The replica Kelvin showed us on the bus tour was beautifully made and looked plenty strong enough to have held a kidnapper and the Eaglet without cracking. The ladder produced in court (from photos I remember) was shabby looking, nothing like Kelvin's EXACT REPLICA. I can't figure it all out, really. I've stopped trying, though I strongly suspect the ladder produced in court wasn't the ladder found outside Highfields that night. Can't prove it, of course. But can the cops prove it was the same ladder? Hauptmann said derisively in court (the ladder) "...looks like a musical instrument." Did you make it, Bruno? ANSWER (again derisively): "I am a carpenter." He could have simply said, "Absolutely not." Instead he ridicules the ladder...and by implication, the person who made it. Himself? Does Bruno Richard Hauptmann seem like a person who would put himself down in public? Don't know if the rungs were too far apart for a person Hauptmann's size. Others could weigh in here (no pun intended disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=31888;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20Forum
|
|
|
Post by LindyKidnap3139 on May 16, 2006 10:41:18 GMT -5
I'm still not quite clear on the box construction but here's some thoughts:<br><br>Five-ply veneer is basically a stable plywood with two faces. The faces can be high quality or low; there are further grading systems for both soft and hardwoods and each face.<br><br>I find it hard to believe that the box builder glued together the faces of two or three pieces of plywood and made the box out of them. I think it's more likely he glued together different pieces of plywood for each side, or that he glued together three pieces of thinner veneer to make a side, maybe something quarter inch or 3/8, like you might see on the thin side of an old radio cabinet. Not too hard to then cut and work the wood once the glue sets up.<br><br>Seems to me that Condon is not necessarily the most dependable source re a description of the wood. Wonder if Samuelson ever talked to the Bronx Home News about it after the case broke...is that paper on microfilm anywhere?<br><br>By the way, I found in the Hoffman files a receipt from Webster Lumber Company, 2369 Webster Avenue. "Sold to (handwritten:) Samuelson<br>Address...(handwritten:) shop<br><br>Handwritten: "(mark) 14- 1x12 clear $3.08. Paid." a few other words scrawled on it unreadable. Dated 2/22/32.
[Antlerbones 2002]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 16, 2006 10:48:28 GMT -5
Is this not unlike the events to follow? Almost obsessive care in the undertaking of certain tasks to the oblivion of others.
Yes , I think some "testing" likely as perhaps a remote site for construction.
Why not if you feel it is innocuous and it is handy.
I assume the kidnapper was only planning to stage this event once, but I wouldn't say one climb by any means.
Who knows what the impetus for that move was? There could have been any number of events/conditions present that night that we are unaware of. The only things I feel we can discern from the move is that the kidnapper(s) had time to do it and that it almost certainly would not have been done if it was a "prop".
Bear in mind the extensive handling, dis-assembly and wear that the kidnap ladder was subjected to.
Funny, I almost get the opposite feeling that Hauptmann's remark was somewhat rehearsed. I can't say for sure, as I have never been in the position he was, but I would like to think that my response might have been more specific in regard to the construction. It is obviously a ladder. Hauptmann also dismisses the ladder as" more of a rack" in a letter to his mother. As a carpenter I can the ladder as both ingenious and flawed, but I sure don't see it as a musical instrument.
I think the issue of the rung spacing is a bit overemphasized. It is not as comfortable as a standard ladder but certainly climbable. Interestingly, the very awkward spacing at the second to third section gets little notice.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 16, 2006 15:26:18 GMT -5
Kevkon dear~ I started out believing BRH did have guilt in the kidnap. The longer I read of the case I began to question the wood and handwriting as being valid "evidence" These among other things. I am purely devoted to reason and fact, this is why I began to explore the possibility that BRH may very well have been innocent.Guess I'll forge ahead with that until or unless I find myself evolving into another turn. As to moving the ladder away from the house~perhaps that's being overworked. Could it not be something as simple as" Lest someone come out or glance out the window and see it before we can make a safe escape, we'd best just move it away some. Maybe it will also just be overlooked as some remaining debris from the house construction".
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 16, 2006 16:29:25 GMT -5
Mairi, I am not sure what you are getting at with your post. That you believe Hauptmann completely innocent is surely your right, though. For me there is far too much evidence to the contrary to ignore. I really don't care where my ideas on the kidnap lead to, nor am I concerned with whose theory it might help or hurt, I will leave that to others.. I am simply looking at the mechanics of what occurred and trying to make sense of it, if that's possible. Yes, as I said earlier, there are many factors which could have determined the need to move the ladder. It just doesn't seem to me to be an act undertaken in haste or one meant as part of a hoax. But if your predisposed to the hoax theory, then you would probably disagree. BTW if the Samuelsohn ladder issue is still in play, I believe there is a way to readily determine conclusively if any of "his" wood is present in the kidnap ladder.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 16, 2006 17:11:32 GMT -5
Kevkon~What I am "getting at" is responding to yours of, Reply # 16 on May 14th.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2006 21:38:15 GMT -5
I am looking at it from the finger-print perspective. So many people had a criminal record that I am sure Hauptmann was aware of this fact. Why then would one assume those working in the yard, and leaving prints on the lumber, couldn't have their prints traced back to this yard where they, and Hauptmann - worked? I do see Rick's point, although I also tend to agree with you (Kevin) somewhat that someone may not hesitate to leave it behind (if necessary). However, I don't believe it was the original plan unless it was done so out of need. Moving the ladder "X" amount of feet away in at least (2) sections shows me it was done in an attempt to take it along, or its left behind as a ruse. If its a "throw-away" at most its taken down where it is and left behind there in my opinion. I don't think we ever determined with 100% certainty that sections 1 & 2 were separated but if they were then all (3) sections were placed there. Was this a nested carry? I don't believe so if one looks at their placement so were talking about a difficult task. I am convinced Charles Jr. was returned but others who aren't need to reconcile this fact - that's why I mentioned it - because if you have multiple things you want to get rid of you do it all at the same time in my opinion. Again, I believe the attention to the ladder is drawn because it was left behind. ...destructive testing, silver nitrate, and the fact the wood is at least 75 years old now. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this as well as anyone else's. I tend to believe him and wonder what all of these other pieces of wood were for if none are present in the "kidnap" ladder. Could it have been a (4) sectioned version maybe? NY Times - 2/5/35 (Excerpt): Chuckles at Board Story. Hauptmann chuckled - the only time during the interview his demeanor was not serious - when asked about the attic board from his Bronx home, form which the State contended a rail of the kidnapper's ladder had been sawed.
"That was the most ridiculous thing," he said. "I got so many boards in my garage I don't know why I should go to the attic [/font][/i]."[/blockquote]
|
|
|
Post by rick2 Skeptic3 on May 17, 2006 2:08:42 GMT -5
kevin..I disagree/ sorry I cant make all them fancy little quote boxes that have become the latest fashion?
You said "mystical circumstances could have been present the nite of the kidnap. Many we cant even imagine. How are we to know why anything happens? Apparently the kidnapper(s) had time to move the ladder and thus prove no plant?" end quote
What circumstances we cant imagine led to the moving of the ladder over by the driveway? One possibility is that the ladder was made for someone lite and CAL weighed 50 pounds more...or Wendel? or John Gorch. Are you suggesting that we have no idea whatsovever who went up the ladder, who held it and who moved it? The wood evidence is absolutely fascinating but the Ladder does not steal Charlie all by itself like in Fantasia? Is there any way to prove the ladder broke on the way up? Does moving it prove 2 or more? It would quickly become unwieldly carrying a baby? And increase the chance of getting caught. Why was there so much extra time?
It seems to me if there are two persons? And they are not CAL and Anne. Then two persons could carry out the ladder and the babe and retain them in such a way they could never be found? No problem. Unless you plan ahead of time to Kill Charlie and beat it back to the Bronx or Detroit or Philly before the roadblocks are set up? And then negotiate for a corpse/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 17, 2006 6:38:12 GMT -5
Do you really think that Hauptmann or anyone would be that concerned with that possibility? I think you are also looking at the fingerprints and the wood as a means of detection. Since what we are all doing here is detective work, that is natural. But my central point regarding the ladder is that is was constructed with preventive methods to deny identification. There is a fundamental difference. I am reminded of the "unabomber" (Theodore Kaczynski) here. As you know his bombs were constructed with individual hand made components which denied the investigators a means to trace their purchase. However once apprehended, like Hauptmann via another means, Kaczynski's cabin was found to contain unique evidence linking him to the bombs. In other words this is an example of a criminal being concerned with detection at the expense of identification.
Once again, not having a time machine handy , I have no way of even getting a vague picture of that night and what specifically occurred. All I can do is look at what evidence we have at hand and try to make sense of it, but that sense is going to be based on some assumptions that are probably incorrect. I just don't see any point in taking the ladder along with you. It has served it's purpose and you are confident it contains no clues to your identity. Moving the three sections away from the house gives me the distinct impression that the kidnapper(s) were composed and un-hurried. Why move it at all? If it were a ruse you absolutely wouldn't bother moving it. I think it was just a prudent action by the kidnapper(s) based on their understanding of the domestic time schedule pertaining to Charles Jr and not wanting the ladder to be seen before.
The easy way of determining whether Samuelsohn wood is present in the kidnap ladder is to look at the edge treatment of the rails. Mill supplied wood is produced in a fundamentally different way than wood sized in a cabinet shop. As for more sections, I really don't know, or for what reason it would be necessary.
I have never seen any appropriate size boards in the half dozen photos I have of the garage during the search and demolition, nor have I seen any on the inventory. There was a lot of household junk.
Rick, you use the navigation boxes in the add tags section above. Right click to highlight the text and then use the " insert quote box" ( bottom row second from right)
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 17, 2006 17:20:34 GMT -5
How is this Kevin??? Now I forgot my question? Oh, yes Web Tv doesnt even have a mouse?
here is the real deal....after all the huge hulabaloo in the Nursery about fingerprints and all the worry about the notes and the ladders/ and now the gloves and the wiping and on and on....
"Fingerprint evidence played no role whatsoever in the LKC" BRHs fingerprints were not on file? He was never printied until it was too late. BRHs prints did not match. Everyone elses prints were burried so deep, including Charlies set of 13, that noone will ever see them again!! Were Fischs prints on file at the BOI? So what? Doesnt really matter now does it?
The CAse Without Fingerprints??--when unknown prints were found they were folded, spindled or mutilated!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 17, 2006 17:32:57 GMT -5
Excellent!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2006 21:06:30 GMT -5
I got you... I do see where you are coming from but I think someone who is thinking this way may also be predisposed to be very cautious in more ways then one. It's a judgment call I suppose - based upon how the personality is perceived by the person passing judgment. Personally I don't think either fit Hauptmann's mold, after all, the guy is aware the serial numbers were published and being checked yet spends a gold $10 for less then $1.00 worth of gas - in his own car without disguise. I am not one for buying into the "lazy" or "sloppy" theory behind this purchase. I don't like the example because Ted was a hermit living out in the middle of nowhere. The time machine "fantasy" is my 2nd most favorite. Assuming the confidence is there that it possesses no clues. But for me, the ladder itself is a clue. Without it where would we be? Heck, with it - it seems unlikely but yet that's what it is telling us. Yes, I agree - why move it at all? And just who, in their right mind, isn't in a hurry under the circumstances? A group of Amateurs going about this in a slow methodical fashion all the while both unfamiliar and lucky? Why not take in down and lean or leave it under the window? No one would see it there unless they were walking outside - where they would see it where it was left anyway.... Agreed. It is all we can do. Let's take a closer look.... I look at the area where the (3) sections lay scattered. I also see the chisel is there too. My first impression is this may be a "staging area." However, when looking at the footprint evidence there seems to be none leading from this area to the house so this eliminates that theory and seems to indicate a route taken upon exiting the scene. It's a burden to take these (3) sections to that spot especially supposing the child in also in the hands of those heading in this direction. The items being placed or dropped there tend to support a reason was done for doing so. Now we must come to a conclusion as to what that reason was. It seems to me we have (4) options: - Either they were disturbed or surprised.
- They were over-burdened.
- It was planned to leave them there ("throw-aways").
- They were left there as a ruse to imply they were left behind for one of the above reasons.
Well this is 2-1/2 years after the crime. Who knows what was in or around his garage prior to March 1932. Perhaps Hauptmann had taken multiple pieces and scraps from that basement and used them for a variety of things.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 18, 2006 5:53:58 GMT -5
Well I trust your understanding of Hauptmann, so what mold does he fit? Granted, I was looking for well known example. TK was also on an anti-technology trip. Still the point I was trying to make is that the product produced in both cases was the result of the primary objectives and relative fears of each builder. Is the first "post-able" ? Perhaps the movement of the ladder was perceived by the kidnapper(s) as a worthy expenditure of time. That may seem logical, but perhaps the kidnapper(s) had a different sense of the ladder's visibility. This subject is one where the lack of photos or diagrams showing the exact positioning of the ladder sections really hurts. That is especially true of the lower 2 sections as I have my own theory on the splits which a photo could prove or disprove. Yes that is true, but Hauptmann was using the present sense and he wasn't exactly doing a lot of carpentry in that period of time. It just seems like another instance, like the "musical instrument" reply where he is being unusually smug with his response.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 18, 2006 9:05:34 GMT -5
<<Well I trust your understanding of Hauptmann, so what mold does he fit?>>
In the case of spending the ransom money after the date he said he found it, he fits the mold of someone who doesn't realize there is anything "wrong" with the money beyond its status as gold.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on May 18, 2006 10:31:32 GMT -5
I think the discussion about spending the gold certs without due caution needs to be looked-at practically. I mean, if neither you or the Missus wants to work, and you are sitting on a pile of money--you gotta spend it sometimes. Michael, the dude pays for a buck worth of petrol with a 10 dollar gold cert--he now gets nine bucks of safe money as change--that will last him for a good bit w/o taking any more chances. Risky indeed but, as my hero Peter Falk-Columbo would say, "And so is murder......."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2006 11:01:58 GMT -5
As Rab has previously deduced, we know that Hauptmann claimed to have separated the soaking wet gold notes after he also claimed to have broken open the hidden box on the kitchen closet's top shelf, with the butt end of a broomstick in the middle of August, 1934. (I'd love to have seen that miracle of physics in itself) The separation of the wet currency was necessary as he explained, to dry them out one by one.
It would seem to require a monumental leap of faith to then believe these same gold notes, having been separated, dried out and re-assembled, would also appear in the same sequence in which they were originally packed by the Morgan bank. And for fully documented bill passings which went back to early 1934, a full eight months before the "discovery" in August, 1934, and continued in the same original serial number sequence right up until September, 1934?
The simple and most logical answer is that the Fisch story, at least relating to his "discovery" of the shoebox in August, 1934, is a crafted Hauptmann lie. He knew exactly the origin of the gold notes he was spending, regardless of how brazen or innocent his actions may have appeared at Boccanfuso's Market or the Warner-Quinlan Station.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 18, 2006 12:28:36 GMT -5
This is the pattern that I see as consistent throughout the crime. A certain cunning and limited wisdom coupled with an willingness to take extreme risks . The ladder is a manifestation of all these elements. It is designed and built with mobility, storage, and, I think, perceived anonymity in mind and yet requires a certain daring to use.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2006 12:48:16 GMT -5
No argument at all on those points Kevin, although I would add one more characteristic which I believe was critical to Hauptmann's desire to succeed at all costs. That is an unparalleled, calculating ability, not necessarily to always see danger coming his way, but to adroitly sidestep it with grim determination at the expense of normal human reaction and even basic logic, and without compromising an engrained agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 18, 2006 20:56:28 GMT -5
He just doesn't strike me as being that smart. His actions concerning the purchase which lands him in jail tells me he is acting independently without direction.
Carmen Electra of course....jeeze, I surprised you had to ask.
Obviously it was perceived by someone as a worthy expenditure of time. Exactly why is important don't you think?
It would seem this would be the first point they'd be wrong about all night wouldn't it? Don't forget, by daylight, the ladder was visible from the window where it was left but it wouldn't have been if it were left settled under the window.
His reaction in Jail was the exact same and this is when he is talking with Fisher and being eavesdropped on so I don't think it was scripted. Don't you believe it possible that he really did think they were "full of it" because, as your theory indicates - he took this piece from Rauch's basement?
I agree that it does, however, I can't (at this point) believe he is oblivious to the source of this money. He seems reckless here....something he couldn't have been earlier or he would have been caught. It appears to me we can almost immediately see when Hauptmann starts to spend the ransom, which of course tells me - among other reasons - he wasn't the one spending it earlier. Of course it could be that Hauptmann had been involved in other ventures and believed this stash came from one of those.... There are many variables to consider.
It isn't consistent with the moves of those engaged in the crime itself - that's my point. If someone is taking every precaution to avoid prints on the ladder why on earth is he spending the ransom in this manner?
Additionally, there are and were several ways to launder money without using your very own car without disguise. Obviously previous methods were successful so why does Hauptmann seem to abandon them and start handing out money in this way? Heck, grow a beard and ride the subway all day buying tokens with $10's and $20's at each stop.
We know that money found in Hauptmann's garage had indeed been wet. So with that in mind how did Hauptmann dry it if you don't believe what he testified to in the Bronx? Remember, Condon told Police that CJ took some of the money out of the box before they parted ways - wouldn't that disrupt the packing order?
It could be that Fisch had spent some then Hauptmann took a number off the top before the box became wet. Additionally, only these bills have ever been shown to appear in sequence - no other bills do, in fact they showed up out of sequence. How does one reconcile this fact if not showing someone else was spending them.
Knowing what I know about Hauptmann.... He is in that box the minute Fisch goes out the door. But really applying what I know....he already knew what was in the box.
P.S. I posted a new file in the Members section. Be sure to download and add it to your collections.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 19, 2006 6:03:03 GMT -5
He is certainly limited, but he does have his strengths.
Roger That!
I am not sure how important it was in the scheme of things. It might have been an almost reflexive action or it may have had a particular purpose.
Yes, but that could be understandable. This issue, not unlike the ladder placement should have been explored by the police via a night time re-creation. Factors such as internal illumination , the reflectivity of the bright white exterior, and sight lines could then have been determined.
Yes, and if true what an irony. The more I think about the attic floorboard the more I am convinced it was found by Hauptmann elsewhere. I am sure that if Hauptmann made the trip up to the attic for that rail he would have taken the remaining floorboard ( s226) with him as well. Personally I just don't buy the last minute replacement theory, especially in regard to a result of nailing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 20, 2006 8:46:29 GMT -5
One of the linchpins of Hauptmann's story is that the box was soaking wet and the water was running down his arms as he removed it from the kitchen closet top shelf. What we do know is that the ransom bills had picked up an odour that indicated they had become damp at some point. But that in itself does not mean the bills would have had to have been individually separated and dried out. The bills could very well have become damp from any number of storage related conditions and remained in their original sequence without the need to separate them. We know that the ransom bills passed between January and September of 1934 were in their original packing order, and so the odds that these bills had been separated and reassembled in the same packing order seem next to nil.
As far as CJ pulling out some of the money in front of Condon to see if it was OK, it seems clear he didn't disturb that particular, relatively small, but very telltale sequence of bills passed in their original order, between January and September of 1934.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 20, 2006 9:27:15 GMT -5
I can believe that Fisch had left Hauptmann a box of very hot gold certificates before he left for Germany, because I feel certain Fisch was very much involved and actively laundering ransom money for both of them from April of 1932 onward. This in itself could well explain the lack of original packing sequence in bill passings you point out. Hauptmann's post-Fisch spending pattern of 1934 indicates he was careless and brazen and perhaps not taking the precautions previously shown, not to mention the fact he was probably close to being out of legitimate money.
Could it be that Fisch's presence and astuteness as controller / auditor in the laundering operation, which until that time had been successful, were now sorely missed?
I agree he would have been well aware of the contents, although I cannot believe Hauptmann would have even entertained putting this same package on the top shelf of a closet he knew was constantly waterlogged. If a shoebox handoff did actually occur in early December of 1933 as Hauptmann claims, it's unlikely he placed it there that night. If he did, it was not there in the morning, more likely in the garage.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2006 10:50:40 GMT -5
I agree. It's obvious something is missing and things are different. It could be Fisch's absence, some other variable, or both. Remember that Fisch's ticket was round-trip so he was planning on coming back.
I am still not sure the leak existed then. There was more then one leak in the house and I think they tend to get confused. I agree knowing a leak existed there Hauptmann wouldn't have kept or forgotten about the box after placing it there. Again though - we don't know when this leak is first complained about AND we have to figure out how the box got wet. Then we must decide why Hauptmann made up the story about the box being placed there instead of the garage.....I mean....what's the difference? Closet or garage? The placement could still be explained as not knowing what was in it and that it had been forgotten about.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 20, 2006 11:44:21 GMT -5
I agree but not because of water. Look at the degree he goes to to conceal the money in the garage. No way is he leaving a box of money lying around. One thing that I have learned about Hauptmann is that he has a knack for concealment, specifically fitting or placing items into spaces. You can see numerous examples of this trait at work. That is not something that everyone is good at. It is the major reason I suspect the ladder dimensions are not only the result of the need to fit it into his car but also to conceal it somewhere.
Michael, regarding the "razor sharp" 3/4" chisel found at Highfields:
Regarding all those prints on the ladder: [ftp]http://www.imagecabin.com/?view=11481605159c388ba86fc735907864733d2f7f019a[/ftp]
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2006 18:44:52 GMT -5
From all accounts I recall, the kitchen closet leak was one that Anna had complained to landlord Rauch about on many occasions. The jist of the exchanges seemed to focus on her constantly reminding him it was his house, his responsibility and that structural damage might occur if the leak was not fixed. I think there is some reference to a visit by a plumber on March 1, 1932, although I'm not sure if it had to do with the closet leak. What other water leaks do you know about, Michael?
I'm not clear why it's necessary to determine how the shoebox got wet, when it's the money itself that could have just become damp in any number of ways. The soaking wet shoebox is a Hauptmann fabrication as far as I'm concerned and I place little faith in the previously-mentioned logistics of the kitchen closet top shelf explanation to begin with.
He never shifted from his claim about discovering the long lost shoebox there. Perhaps he felt the litany of lies he had spilled to that point, would not allow him any more variations on the theme with what must have been some exasperated investigators, or possibly that the the next revelation might be an outright confession. He obviously chose to ride out the storm, despite the ridiculousness of the claim it remained hidden and forgotten for nine months, even after Fisch's death.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2006 18:51:45 GMT -5
Agreed. He was a concealer, and he was also very wary and secretive. The basic premise about a friend and business partner's posssessions entrusted to him to be placed in a "tight, dry" place, and having been forgotten about for nine months, even after Fisch's death, seems ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by susancandy on May 22, 2006 21:10:52 GMT -5
I think we need to get a handle on the Samuelson timeline. Who mentions him first and in what year? 1934? What context. Does he turn himself in "before JFC"? He should have recognized the ladder in 1932....kindof like BRH should have noticed the ransom note serial #s in the Bronx Home News his favorite paper? Why wasnt Samuelson asked to a lineup? Was his fingerprints taken? How about The Extradition and Trial of the Century. Its as iff Samuelson is an extension of Curtis, Condon and Means all of whom "meet the whole gang" in one form or another? Moving the ladder 75 feet is an important consideration? Why move it at all? Why move it a short distance? Why put all 3 pieces nearto one another and the chisel? where do you set Charlie down whilst moving the ladder? Why not just keep going? I submit that the "leaver" has to know that one board comes from the German Carpenters house? Just One? With the years of planning and list after list of precautions....this tends to be a Major Oversight? If you forget where the board came from you might just forget whose fingerprints are on it/.
|
|