kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 23, 2006 16:52:26 GMT -5
I believe the two pieces of wood here are the Samuelsohn scraps. Now what I find interesting is that the two pieces were ripped apart from a single board to their final width. Why? Because Samuesohn says he started with 3 or 4 pieces 14 ft long and 8 to 10 inches wide. Now to make the ladder he would need 6 pieces 6'- 8 3/4" long by 3 5/8" wide and 11 pieces 2 3/4" wide by 11' to 14 1/8" long. To do this you would simply cut 2 of your 14' long boards in half and then rip 3 of those into the 3 5/8" widths. The remaining boards would then be cut up as required for the much shorter 2 3/4" rungs. Yet here we have two pieces 2' 10-3/4" long ripped to the rail width (+/-). Why would this have been done? It may seem insignificant but remember this is during the depression and wasting wood or anything isn't done. Samuelsohn would have 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 boards 14' long to make the rungs, in fact he only needed the 1/2 ( 7' long) piece to get the rungs. All in all it is another puzzling element of this story which to me, anyway, indicates that whatever he was supplying to his customer was not the ingredients of the kidnap ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2006 19:11:34 GMT -5
Good observations Kevin.
This is the same report I quoted earlier and we both seem to agree it represents what Samuelsohn turned over. Now, I agree wood ripped like this wasn't found in the actual "kidnap" ladder, but it does show Samuelsohn got the species wrong in his affidavit and it shows he is obviously acting in good faith.
You may disagree but I just don't see the purpose of turning over wood if you KNOW its not a match.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 23, 2006 20:50:46 GMT -5
The problem I have with the Samuelsohn story is that there are so many things wrong about it. Now I add to the list a 2' 10 2/4" length of wood that shouldn't have been cut and wasted. Maybe I am too close to see any other possibilities. So let me ask you and anyone else for possible explanations to these anomalies. Why does the job cost so much? Why does Samuelsohn order enough wood for two ladders? Why does he order 1" x 8"s or 10"s when 1"x 4, 6", or 12" s would be more relevant? Why does he end up with these two unnecessary scraps? Why does he supply 24 pcs and not 17? (19 w/ dowels)
What are some ideas here?
Oh yeah, reports of the demise of the Samuesohn affair are greatly exaggerated. ;D
|
|
Live from the North Sea Fiords
Guest
|
Post by Live from the North Sea Fiords on Jun 24, 2006 13:33:44 GMT -5
Hi <kevin- it looks like the Samuelson Wood Saga just keeps getting more complicated:
1. <in September |934 AS gets two blocks of wood that dont match<- But did he know or not know from whence they came<-? Wouldnt he be intriqued by thier source? Are they marked as evidence from "AS the cabinet maker "?
2. <he soon becomes the Prosecutions most serious ladder witness, oops, only ladder witness. So, if there was something they all did not want to reveal or something that confounded AKs tracing of the ladder wood from South Carolina mills to <national well then.....just deep six it and begone-
3. But then in late 1935 or early 1936 <oursler from <liberty magazine gets into the act when JFC Condon takes him to meet Samuelsohn. Then <oursler finds out that AS still has even more ladder wood scraps and buys 2 from him on the spot. This he sends to Hoffmans and then maybe AK to be checked against the real ladder? Whjat happens to this wood of <ourselr?
All in all, AS is having a great deal of problems tieing his story to the real ladder after so many putative changes of wood. How can any of this be confirmed....Koehler should have heard about AS by the time of the trial, and in his numberous articles on his total sucksess at tracing the ladder wood AS should have gotten an honorable or dishonorable mention. Surely AS was a known quantity to AK and visca versa if AS went to the Trial. In fact they should have met over ladders and tea.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 25, 2006 6:46:06 GMT -5
Rick, I don't know about the the other parts of your post, but I also took note of the omission of the source of the two pieces of wood Koehler is examining. I have only seen one other report where he is not specific regarding the source of his wood and that was relative to the attic discovery by Bornmann. Of course I don't believe for a second that Koehler didn't know in both instances. He was much too curious and thorough not to have. And I too, find it hard to believe that AK and AS would not have met. But once again we have a situation which will be viewed in several ways depending on the respective position of the viewer. Is it cover-up or cover-your-ass? In any case I would still appreciate any help with the questions I posed regarding the "order".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2006 9:21:43 GMT -5
Koehler did know who, what, and where upon receiving the items taken from Hauptmann's attic. The only problem was that S-226 and the existence of it wasn't known to him at the time as evidenced by his continued speculation as to where Rail 16 came from.
Bottom line - it hadn't been found yet or for some reason its existence hadn't been shared with him.
Samuelsohn's scraps seem to be a different situation. He makes no reference to their origin. It's interesting because these memos aren't intended to be read by anyone other then Officials so I truly do wonder whether or not, at the time, the NJSP wanted Koehler to know where they were coming from.
I personally don't think they ever did. When Samuelsohn made his trip to the Training School Koehler was still in Wisconsin. I haven't seen any reference to another trip there by Samueloshn and no reference to Koehler even thinking about a trip over to see Samuelsohn when he is back in the Bronx.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 25, 2006 21:15:32 GMT -5
And don't you find it odd that the intrepid Mr Koehler who left no stick of wood un- turned on the East coast would not pursue the Samuelsohn issue the minute he got wind of it? Would not Koehler be familiar with the various ladder re-creations and the respective creators?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2006 8:17:01 GMT -5
Its hard to say....It does seem to contradict the NJSP actions. I mean - they tell Samuelsohn to be quiet, ask him to change his story to having only Hauptmann, alone, coming into the shop to order the material, and have him build (3) replicas of a ladder they were saying he had nothing to do with before asking him to build them.
Did the NJSP keep this from Koehler or did he blow it off? Aside from the memo we both (which you quoted above) I simply don't have enough to say. Perhaps they did meet. It's pretty hard for me to accept Koehler wouldn't have looked over the replica Samuelsohn made and brought to the Training School, yet with all the reports I have discovered I have nothing to prove it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2006 8:54:26 GMT -5
Here is an odd thing that I have wondered about. How exactly weret hese replicas built? I mean th only plans I have ever seen were by Koehler. They are very accurate, but they omit some crucial information needed to actually build the exact ladder. Were these replicas, including the ones made by Samuelsohn built with another set of plans which I have never seen or from the actual ladder? And would they leave the actual ladder, a crucial piece of evidence, with a non- law enforcement agent?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2006 9:03:42 GMT -5
This is a very good question that I believe will be answered in the near future.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 3, 2009 15:21:51 GMT -5
The Samuelsohn connection remains quite fuzzy around the edges for me. Years back I read that he said either "two ruffians" or "two rough looking" men picked up the ladder/ladder parts. Then more recently the part where there was something not quite right about the order. Did the pick-up men wait for the correction or did they leave and then come back for it? Did Samuelsohn build the ladder- or did he just cut the wood for it? I've seen it described both ways. I don't trust what Bornman was about in that attic. Not at all. Any one else see any weaknesses in the rail 16 origin?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2009 15:49:39 GMT -5
Mairi, you may not trust Bornmann, you may believe him capable of all sorts of treachery. I don't know the man so I don't honestly know what he would or wouldn't do. What I do know is that he could have spent 6 months in Hauptmann's attic and still not have been capable of making a "substitution" that would pass even a casual inspection. It's one of those things that I hear offered as a possibility in regard to a "frame-up" of Hauptmann , but in fact is far more difficult task to achieve than some may think. To do it without anyone taking notice would be an impossible task. At the request of highly respected historian, I explored the possibility of making some type of switch in the ladder components. I simply couldn't find any plausible way of pulling it off unless it was done immediately after or prior to the crime. Like it or not, the ladder found at Highfields was comprised of the same parts as the one shown in court with the possible exception of some of the nails. The Samuelsohn story? Who knows what that's all about. It certainly is not about the actual kidnap ladder.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 4, 2009 7:44:31 GMT -5
If it would be of any interest to anyone, I would be happy to post a complete list of the exact steps and requirements necessary to make a substitution on the ladder. For those who are truly open minded on this issue it might be helpful to understand exactly what would be entailed in such a task. Just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Oct 5, 2010 22:29:52 GMT -5
i found some samuelsohn stuff i had, acording to this statement samuelsohn built two replicas of the ransom box, and a minature reproduction, two feet long of the ladder for study by the investigators. reilly commented on samuelson saying "just another sunday night blast, let us have facts and not rumors, let us have admissible evidence and not statements of irresponsible persons seeking the limelight." according to samuelson he was "never so positive" when he gazed at hauptmann in the courtroom
|
|