Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jul 24, 2008 6:08:08 GMT -5
I think it's doubtful that any of the misgivings on the part of law enforcement and prosecution would have come into play if Hauptmann had told the truth of his involvement. He was given more than adequate chance to do that and give up any accomplices. Instead, he seemed simply more determined to shake his adversaries through sheer denial of the weight of evidence against him. How then does one unequivocally compare the lack of fair play on either side of the equation given the brutal nature of this crime? The result may not have been arrived at in the best way, but I think Hauptmann got what he deserved and justice was served. Knowing what we know today, I wouldn't have lost any sleep having been in Robert G. Elliott's shoes.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 24, 2008 7:07:57 GMT -5
No doubt about it, Hauptmann was his own worst enemy. Just his response to the question of building the ladder exhibited a certain arrogance which no doubt helped the jury determine the death sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2008 7:29:24 GMT -5
Here's something interesting, or not, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.... One of the things I've learned over the years of researching the case is that sometimes Police learned, investigated, and conducted interviews without these items being written into an official report. Why I don't know. But it puts the assertion they actually happened in doubt when no written report can be found on it. So one of the things I have done over the years is to search every possible source outside of the Reports. One such avenue are the teletypes. Most are boring and very hard to read, and its a very time consuming endeavor. It's very easy to give up on them, however, every once in a while you find a "gem" or something which compliments and/or adds an important fact or two to a certain investigation which is in the reports.... Having said this, here is something I just found during my last trip to the NJSP Archives.... Very early in the investigation Mr. Hullfish went to Highfields and inspected the following: "Ladders, found chisel, saw brace,& bit hammer plane, dull bit, fine hand saw or hack saw, and 'nicked plane marks.'" Apparently Mr. Hullfish concludes: "Marks compare on all pieces of wood used Looks like crating light wood on ladder number 3 used pine roofers other pieces are bastard pine commonly used in crating looks like lime burns on ladder number" Naturally the question becomes whether or not these other items listed above where actually left behind by the Kidnappers, and what the "Lime Burns" observation is all about. What color do "Lime Burns" leave behind? What is a Lime Burn? +++++ By the way.... A new search engine at the bottom of our site. It's called Footnote and I am very impressed with it. Anyone who thinks they are too far from an Archival Site to do research can't say that now. On top of that it's interactive and allows you to annotate, connect, add a story, etc. to any document. Additionally, you can upload documents which can be shared. I've uploaded a few myself already. I highly recommend it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 16, 2008 9:28:51 GMT -5
It's a little difficult to understand what exactly he is referring to in his description. As for "lime burn", that can mean several things. Commonly it refers to the process of burning limestone in a kiln which produces lime powder. That was commonly used as a plaster or whitewash as found at Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2008 8:03:21 GMT -5
At the same time, a superficial view of the attic has left me somewhat puzzled by the condition of the joists upon which Rail 16 was asserted to have been nailed. There is a certain illogical element here, which I shall be prepared to discuss far more fully later when my men run down the person who laid those floor boards. All I can say now is that my early examination of the attic boards have revealed a few apparent discrepancies which I would like to have explained. [Lt. Hicks, CAH Magazine, 2-29-36] Could anyone of these things be the major point/observation you made Kevin?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 22, 2008 16:47:23 GMT -5
Not knowing what logic he is using makes it tough to comment on his observation of the joists. If I had to guess, I might say that he is referring to nail holes which may have been made during the framing and prior to the floor installation. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 2, 2008 16:36:39 GMT -5
Kevin,
Once again I am trying to "pick your brain" concerning the ladder angle....
Now I may have asked you this already so hopefully I haven't but I wanted to ask you a question concerning your theory.
Now assuming the 2 sections are used to climb up and open the shutters. Next, the ladder is brought down and the 3rd section is added then climbed to gain access to the room.
One question I have is if you think the window was closed with the 3 sections in use or is it brought down again to be utilized with just 2 for this?
Next, was the child still handed out to someone on the ladder or do you think the person going in brought him back out?
Finally, when do you think the crack in the ladder occurred?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 2, 2008 20:30:31 GMT -5
The marks on the whitewash suggest the two sections were used at one point, at the very least. And I think Kevin has made a strong point that all three sections were used to gain entrance into the nursey in light of the shutter insert being conveniently used as a kind of top stabilizer for the ladder. I can confirm from my own experiments there were two ways in which entry could be achieved from the third section.
I wouldn't hesitate to add that if this was a one-man endeavour, the top of the ladder's third section could easily and quickly have been "tied off" through the right shutter's louvers with a piece of wire to effect a much safer entry and exit, where the lateral force required is significant. And as Allen has previously posited, the child could well have been lowered from the window sill in a bag by rope to elimate the need for anyone else on the ladder.
Add to this that the likelihood that the shutters would first have to be pushed back, suggests that two sections were initially used and then three. If this were the case, it would seem like a pretty poor plan to have to then disengage the third section for the sole purpose of placing the note on the radiator sill and closing the window. Yet, the ladder was found with the third section disconnected. Could this have been the result of an abandoned attempt to remove the ladder from the crime scene?
Of course, the whole plan might well have shifted positively for the kidnapper if the shutters, due to their inability to be positively closed by the household occupants, were actually found by him to be in a position that allowed all three sections to be used right away. So why then the second section marks in the whitewash?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 3, 2008 6:44:43 GMT -5
When attempting to explain the exact steps followed that night there's no doubt that we all do so by combining facts with our own view of the crime. There is just not enough evidence to determine what happened and in what order. Having said that, my opinion is that the ladder was staged and climbed more than once. I believe all three sections were used once and that two were used probably last when placing the note and closing the window. The location of the often forgotten second dowel provides a clue here. No, I don't believe the child was handed out to another. That's a lot more difficult than it sounds. As for the ladder rail split, I would say the available evidence points to this occurring at some point after it had been climbed, perhaps at the end of the final descent.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2008 15:14:02 GMT -5
So I suppose you are saying the place it broke was weaker with the weight on it using 2 sections instead of 3?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 3, 2008 16:50:14 GMT -5
No, not necessarily. Those joints are at the limit of stress in any configuration. My reasoning regarding the time that they split is based on the available evidence, or lack of as it may be in this case. There is no evidence of splinters or wood debris at the house. There is no visible disruption of the ladder holes nor any indication of collateral damage on the house. Therefore I believe the evidence suggests two things very clearly. One, that the splits did not occur while the climber was at any appreciable height off the ground. And two, that the splits rendered the ladder unusable. The obvious deduction here is that the splitting occurred on or after the last use of the ladder. I happen to believe that the ladder was used with two sections in a final climb to leave the note and close the window. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it. It's just as likely that the splitting occurred not from the weight of a climber but in a hurried attempt to remove and collapse the ladder. Those joints are that precarious.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 4, 2008 7:41:28 GMT -5
We may never know for certain exactly how the entry by ladder took place. I believe there are very strong indications though which ultimately will produce the most logical sequence and this is one area I would certainly encourage towards that more than any other. How does this scenario sound? - Kidnapper assembles two sections, places ladder slightly to the right of the centre line of the nursery window to ensure he is not seen from study
- Climbs up and opens shutters, which he realizes are not locked, tests window and also finds this unlocked
- Climbs down, adds third section to ladder which is placed in the same two ground indentations, top section of ladder is positioned in the north shutter insert
- Climbs up, ties off top section with wire through shutter louvers for lateral stability, enters nursery
- Child placed in bag and removed from nursery by lowering to ground by rope, ransom note left
- Kidnapper exits nursery, slides window closed, removes ladder tieoff and climbs down
- Removes ladder from house, gathers up child and ladder and walks to a safer location seventy five feet away
- Begins to disassemble ladder at which point lower section splits, making further disassembly a problem
- Decision is made to abandon ladder, with chisel also being unintentionally left behind
The reason I have the kidnapper leaving the note on the sill before he exits the nursery is due to the absence of any forseeable wind cross-draft effect here. If one of the nursery doors had been open, then yes, I would be able to understand the need to leave it on the inner sill immediately before the window was closed, ostensibly from the vantage point of two sections. Also, there remains the nagging question about whether or not the note was actually left in the crib per Condon's account of his meeting with Cemetery John at Woodlawn. It should also be noted that as Corporal Wolf looked out the window, the right hand shutter (south) was open and the left hand shutter (north) closed. I see a possible answer here in that the night's strong north winds swung this shutter into a closed position, while keeping the south shutter fixed in an open position.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 4, 2008 9:35:25 GMT -5
I know we differ on the note placement, but as I said this is all conjecture on our point anyway. Who knows? On the issue of the ladder abandonment, I feel a bit more strongly. I really don't believe it was ever the intention by Hauptmann to take it. It had done it's job and was now only a dangerous and obvious piece of cargo. I believe that's why he took care when selecting the wood and constructing it to do so in a manner he thought would leave no link to himself, ie fingerprints. I doubt wood forensics and tool marks were issues he ever contemplated. It's an oversight that he might have gotten away with as well had it not been for Koehler's involvement. Also, though the ladder's rails had split, the ladder was still transportable. The relative location of the bottom two sections to the top one indicates strongly that packing this thing up and taking it home was just not a priority. The chisel is another story and one in which I don't think we can make any solid conclusions. In all fairness I don't see any substantial evidence that even links it to Hauptmann. On the whole though, I believe it probably did belong to him or an accomplice. Recently I have been going back through all of the reports and analysis regarding the ladder in an effort to try and understand one thing that puzzles me more than any other regarding it's construction. That is, why is the construction of the lower section so fundamentally different from the upper two? One thing occurred to me, what if Hauptmann did not have a sharp chisel to mortise the rung recesses on the lower section? I guess what I am saying is perhaps that chisel was lost at Highfields on a previous attempt with two sections? Anyone think that this is plausible?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 4, 2008 10:02:50 GMT -5
Kevin, if the kidnapper might had previously attempted the crime I have to wonder how certain he would have to be to be able to eliminate all thoughts from his mind that his unsuccessful first attempt had gone completely unnoticed by the household members. Under those conditions, it seems like one hell of a risk to come back.
As for the chisel, Hauptmann did own a Buck Brothers 1/4" chisel of approximately the same vintage in addition to his full Stanley set. If this is correct then would it not raise the likelihood that the 3/4" chisel found at the scene was also his in light of the corroborating ladder and handwriting evidence?
I'm not sure I share your urgency around the non-mortised lower section. To me, it represents a means of allowing more depth as the second and third sections are nested within. The two upper sections appear to me to have been mortised in order to maintain a desirable handhold width requirement of the fully nested three sections. Maybe I'm missing something here but whether the bottom section is mortised or not doesn't really bear any importance to any of the ladder's overall logistics or efficiencies when fully assembled, or does it?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 4, 2008 15:10:11 GMT -5
Well Joe, as you know there is precious little to go by in any attempt to explain precisely what happened and why in this crime. As a result we all tend to look very hard at what is at hand. Of course the down side to this is that we may err in looking for meaning in every detail. Having said that, it seems you don't find the different construction employed in the ladder in the same way I do. Although you are offering a rationalization for why the bottom section is not mortised, I have a hard time believing the 3/4" in depth would be important to the maker. Once again , who knows? I will readily admit a prejudice here, I naturally look at any design and construction with the view that consistency is usually always present in any product of an individual. All things being equal, I would expect the ladder to be built in such a manner and all of it's details should reflect this consistency in much the same way that we look at those notes. Remember also that it is not just the lack of mortises on that lower section that make it stand out from the upper two but also the joint, the rung spacing and the use of virgin pine for the rails. In such a relatively simple device, does it not seem very strange that so many differences exist? Would not some serious questions arise if two of the notes were written on completely different paper? So from my point of view the mortises and lack of them on the first section has little to do with structural integrity but rather a strange deviation from a concept which included them. As for the chisel, I think all things considered that it was probably Hauptmann's. However I did want to point out that it really can't be linked to him forensically or independently. A Buck 3/4" chisel is almost as common as a dollar bill. For me the more important questions are why was it at Highfields and why was it sharp? The latter is more interesting as that chisel has an edge unlike any of Hauptmann's others. In fact I doubt he could have cut those mortises with his other chisels. That fact led me to wonder if it might have been missing from his tool box when the lower section was made. BTW, would you apply the same logic regarding a previous trip to Highfields by Hauptmann to his transatlantic voyages? Don't you see a similarity?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2008 7:45:44 GMT -5
[ AP Photo] When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. (Sherlock Holmes [Arthur Conan Doyle]) I think previous to Kevin's theory about this ladder, I have always believed most scenarios were impossible. So taking his ideas into consideration, I believe it is possible to start the elimination process. 1. 2 Sections were used to gain access into the Nursery. All persons, investigators or otherwise, especially prior to the trial - said it was impossible. I've heard of an attempt by a group of people to prove otherwise through some kind of "experiment" but from what I can see they didn't use the proper ladder placement, didn't take into consideration the grade and/or height of the yard now as opposed to 1932, AND didn't use a comparable ladder. If anyone stepped on that top rung with 2 sections being employed, it would have scissored on itself. Kevin has PROVEN that and I have seen it with my own eyes. It's why we have to be very careful of agendas and bias. We all have some so its important to recognize that. My main issue with Kevin's idea about the ladder being used with 2 & 3 sections to achieve different aspects surrounding the crime was the time factor. However, if this ladder was used as the only way to perpetrate the crime then he has to be right in my opinion. If not then someone is handing the child out, it wasn't used, or someone is exiting out the door - or a combination thereof. And so, if you believe the ladder was used to both enter and exit the Nursery then we must eliminate the historical accepted version that 2 sections only were used. For me, what comes with this is the fact more time was needed. Could you and Joe give me your thoughts on the note placement differences? I must have missed something here. The only indication it might be Hauptmann's is that staged event in Flemington. Otherwise, there is nothing. In fact, as you mention Kevin, the blades sharpness is so very different from his other tools that I believe you could make a case that it wasn't his. And while I believe this could be possible I wonder how long that chisel would remain there without anyone having seen it. I believe there is evidence of "trial runs" involving two cars. The next impossibility: 2. This Crime Was a Spur of the Moment and Last Minute Decision This crime was planned. All evidence points to that. All of it. It's altered only when trying to fit Hauptmann into the "Lone-Wolf" Perpetrator. If its planned then Hauptmann needed help, but they couldn't have that issue confusing the Jury since they only had him and he wasn't talking. They needed Capitol Murder and if Hauptmann wasn't the only one who could have killed the child they wouldn't have gotten that conviction. Going to the ladder entry..... The 3rd section is near the other two. The bottom two are connected but the top is not but very near. There are footprints leading to this area but only away from the house. Female footprints from under the window lead to the back of the house. What do we do with this evidence? I say we take a closer look with Kevin's theory in mind as being the truth and see what happens.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 5, 2008 12:21:50 GMT -5
A few thoughts to clarify things. As for the time required to stage repeated climbs, I think many vastly overestimate how much this would take. It's a very simple and lightweight ladder, it goes up and comes down quickly. A time of 15 minutes would be more than ample to get everything done. Regarding the chisel; what I find odd is that such a sharp chisel would be brought along. On the issue of how long it might have been between attempts I am certain that if a prior attempt was made, it probably was within days of the actual kidnapping. My thoughts regarding the note placement are based partly on belief and partly on logic. It just seems to make sense that this was the final act.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 6, 2008 6:48:50 GMT -5
I agree, Kevin it's hard to form concrete conclusions here, but I also have a hard time believing Hauptmann, no stranger to shortcuts as he was, would go to the trouble of mortising a ladder section he had entirely no need to.
Are you talking about the degree of sharpness or the specific means of preparing the cutting edge for the 3/4" chisel? Is it reasonable to believe at this stage in these twilight years of Hauptmann's carpentry career, the 3/4" chisel was the one he had used almost exclusively for some time and that he felt there was no need to sharpen the others with the same intent? Again, I'm sensing a shortcut kind of mentality here, or perhaps more kindly, simply an elimination of the non-essential.
I believe Kevin has proposed that the kidnapper, after exiting the nursery window, removed the ladder's top section and then using the bottom two sections, climbed up again and placed the note on the radiator sill and closed the window. I have to wonder why he couldn't have done this as he exited the nursery window, as it seems to me a precariously unnecessary step. I also consider the information as related to Condon by CJ, that the note was actually left in the crib and not on the window sill.
That area where the ladder sections and chisel were found strikes me as a scene of organized confusion where the decision to abandon the ladder was made. And the chisel found nearby an indication it was dropped inadvertantly during this process. I have great difficulty believing Hauptmann would have removed the ladder seventy-five feet from the house with the baby in tow and whatever else, if he had originally intended to leave it behind.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 6, 2008 7:19:20 GMT -5
Why was there any need to mortise the upper two? There really wasn't, in fact that actually weakened the ladder. Yet he did go to the trouble. So why deviate? If it's the depth, he could have done two things that would have reduced the overall nestled depth another 3/4". He didn't. You are also concentrating on the mortises (lack of), what about the different rung spacing and joint? Anyway you look at it, this bottom section is vastly different from the other two and given the traditional scenario of it's construction, that just should not be so.
Both [/quote]
You seem to be addressing the issue of ownership, I'm more interested in why someone would bring such a tool along to the crime. This is like carrying an open knife, you don't put it your pocket. Also, it really has no utility that I can think of for breaking in to a house. If you are saying that this was his chisel of choice, which is odd given the handle, why would he risk losing or damaging it ? How did he carry it to the crime , in a bag? If he did then how would he then carry the bag, the ladder, and the kid away? Too much inconstancy here, way too much, imho.
I don't see confusion here. He removes the ladder sections out of view . I'd do the same. As I said above, if he intended to take the ladder home then two questions arise. Why ? I mean what's the point of lugging this broken ladder home if he believes it contains no clues to his identity? How is he to carry a child, the ladder and the bag which must have contained the chisel?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 7, 2008 10:49:57 GMT -5
Kevin, you seem to question why this tool was brought at all? Does its proximity to the ladder sections not strongly suggest this? Would a fairly wide chisel like this one serve as a good lever to snap through shutter louvers, or is there abetter universal choice? If it was me, a durable shoulder bag or tool belt would almost be a given accessory in order to free up hands. And I look at that blunt-tipped saw from Hauptmann's toolchest and wonder if it might have been brought along to slide between the windows, had he found them locked, and rotate the sash catch.
If he had first intended to leave the ladder behind, why haul it 75 feet away when you can lay it down right beside the house and know it's not going to be seen? Should there be any concern about it being seen there on an overcast night even if someone strained to do so, from the lighted interior of a house?
I'm not sure I could say he believed the ladder contained no clues towards his identity, although at the very least, he considered at some point it would only hinder his escape. As for leadving it behind, Kevin I do consider both possibilities here, just trying to explore it some more, while opening up some other ideas.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 7, 2008 16:36:37 GMT -5
Yes Joe, I do question why it was brought. A very sharp 3/4" chisel is just nit the tool to be carrying around in the woods let alone on a flexible ladder. You want something which is blunt, thin, and has some leverage. Otherwise just use a rock and break the window. I do agree that it was probably brought along, it just doesn't make much sense. As for a tool belt, sure that's a good idea except if it wouldn't be so great when entering through the window. Question is, did Hauptmann have one? Was one ever found in his possession? My main point regarding the chisel is tangential, though. If it was brought along, and that does seem likely, then it almost certainly was carried in some sort of bag or case with some more appropriate tools. That would make sense. However, this poses a real problem. You could carry both a bag and a ladder over that terrain and distance, but you are not carrying both of them and a child. So, either Hauptmann never intended to remove the ladder or he never intended to remove the child, or he had another person there helping. Pick whichever one you like, but only one is a winner here.
Joe, I think you are perhaps making a bit much of the relocation issue. On the other hand maybe I am. To me the act of removing the ladder sections away seems natural. I do it all of the time out of habit. In any case it seems like a good precaution and not one that takes much time or effort. One other thing, and I know I have said this before, we all seem to have a different perception of just how dark it was that night and what could be seen and not. Honestly I don't know how any of us can rightfully say for certain. Between the t light, the light streaming out from the lit rooms, and the very white and reflective coating on the exterior of the house, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the area adjacent to the house was illuminated more than many think. Look at where the chisel was found, that's a clue that there may have been a real need to stay away from the house for fear of being seen. Also remember that Hauptmann's eyes would be more accustomed to the darkness and as such he would naturally perceive that others could see what he could.
I'll go along with that, I'm all for opening up new ideas as long as they are founded in evidence. I hope that is what I have been doing. My feeling regarding the ladder and his belief that it was bereft of clues to his identity stems from the use of dissimilar and both new and used materials ( never a first choice for a carpenter), the lack of his prints, his seemingly lack of concern over it as a major piece of the prosecution's evidence, and the observation by Koehler regarding the odd removal of a sliver of wood perhaps due to a bloodstain. None individually are entirely convincing I admit, but together they strongly indicate to me that he felt confident that no trace of his identity could be gleaned from that ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2008 6:07:41 GMT -5
I thought the chisel was found closer to the window?
Regardless, it appears to me that it should be considered as a "throw away" tool. Leon Ho-age after reviewing the evidence said, in essence, that everything was done on purpose. The ladder itself being left behind was done on purpose if you ask me. Now the question is: "was this planned for?" (like this crime was). If so, then we have to ask 'why'?
For example, with what clues we have - we must ask 'why' they are the way the are. Why only footprints leading away from the house? If there was a "double set" of men's prints leading to the discarded ladder does that not suggest two people carrying separate items to that place? Might that not explain how "1-man" managed to carry all of these things (including Charles Jr.).
We also have to remember this was all perpetrated in the dark. Everything. There were no cyclops NV goggles back then, and even then, we have to ask ourselves would we have been able to do what was done there that night in the way in which it was done....
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2008 10:59:46 GMT -5
Kevin, is there any way of determining from the mortise cuts of the second and third ladder sections, if this chisel was likely to have made them? I had thought this particular chisel with the "round" taken out of the handle to prevent it rolling off a workbench, would have represented one which had more common and everyday use associated with it. Is that a fair statement? I would think a bag or something to hold the required equipment and tools is pretty much a certainty here, regardless of the question of accomplice help.
Perhaps for someone used to using ladders on the job. Hauptmann claimed he never used them and when he hung windows, he worked from the inside. It could have been a line but I would have to think investigators could have discovered the truth, if otherwise, quite easily.
By the time, Hauptmann was asked to look at the ladder, he had had ample opportunity to digest the impact of Koehler's asserions that he was the builder. I think what you're seeing in the trial footage with Reilly tossing lob balls for him to bat, is Hauptmann in his most deceptive form, well removed from his prior status as courtroom observer, when by all news accounts he was sullen but spellbound during Koehler's testimony.
The chisel location is one of those "which window was open?" scenarios for me at times, although I've got that one straight now! I had thought it was found by the ladder, or was it near the window? There seems to be equal accounts given for each location, so let's put that one to bed.
If Hauptmann acted alone, then I can believe the ladder was meant to be left behind. Now if the chisel had been brought in the same bag that the child was removed from the nursery in, assuming for a moment that to be the case, perhaps it too was left behind in order to keep keep the outgoing utility of that bag simplified.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 8, 2008 17:05:56 GMT -5
Koehler thought so, at least in court. I'm not so confident about his conclusion though, as I think he was out of his depth here. And as I'm sure Michael would point out, he at one time claimed that there were no marks that could be identified with a particular chisel. A trained tool mark examiner might be able to, if the chisel was still around. I made an exact duplicate of that chisel for the NJSP Museum so I know it fairly well. The handle was split with a piece missing from being struck with a hammer. That's not how those chisels are meant to be used. You may use a wooden mallet, but never a hammer. The 3/4" wide socket chisel is really the workhorse of any woodworkers stable of hand tools and as such it usually sees the most wear and tear. To make those mortises in those rails , particularly rail 16 given it's character, I think it would probably be the tool of choice. Had Hauptmann built the ladder in a more traditional manner, he would have laid out all of the mortises in such a manner that they could all be cut ( or at least most) at the same time. He would also have chosen to use an identical species of wood. In that case he would be cutting and cleaning out the mortises for all 6 rails and would have 4 1/2" of depth. That would be best dealt with with a mortise chisel which is longer.
Well, he certainly used one when he built the infamous garage. I have heard that window story, I won't say it's impossible, but it's pretty hard to install a window from only the inside unless it's just a sash replacement. In any case, it's not something specifically limited to using ladders. You work in one area and keep your equipment and materials nearby but away from the work area. It's just common practice.
As I said, it's not any one of the things I mentioned, it's the combination. I'm not so sure I agree with you on Hauptmann's attitude regarding the ladder and it's ability to convict him. Before Reilly when he was arrested he knew the police had that ladder and yet he seems strangely unconcerned. I really don't think he fathomed that despite the lack of fingerprints it still held clues to the identity of it's maker. I'm certain he was comfortable with leaving it behind since he lacked the knowledge of forensics. Today, DNA would probably have done the job and look at how many criminals were caught and convicted because they didn't understand it's implications.
From the official NJSP survey map the chisel was located several feet from the third ladder section which was about 6 ft SW of the other two sections.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2008 19:00:48 GMT -5
Does anybody think a flashlight was used? If so when? And if not how does one account for the ability to see outside of the house and inside of the Nursery?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 10, 2008 16:31:10 GMT -5
Have tried to do a bit of reviewing on the ladder discussion. Sorry I can't read through all of it--still have to read/type with one eye closed. It may have already been R/O and i just didn't find it. That is, could one section-likely bottom one-have been built (or otherwise come by) well previous to the rest of the ladder? Something not originally planned as a three part ladder? It is just so peculiar looking to me- it does rather remind me of (the one part) a rack.
***********
Re: flashlight? Can we be fully sure there was no light source upstairs on that end of the house? Hall light? Bathroom light? Does it seem likely that all that area would have been absolutely dark? Also, would the nursery door have been closed with all the other people so far removed? Seems to me if the baby cried that with door closed no one would have heard him. Did the french window have closed shutters, as well, (and by then the kidnap shutters were open) so that no outside light source showed in?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 12, 2008 6:37:09 GMT -5
Was there enough secondary source lighting to prevent bumping into the items in the Nursery? Allow the flawless entry? To approach the house with such precision? What did Betty claim to do when she didn't hear the child breathing?
Just questions concerning a major problem I have been wrestling with for years...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 12, 2008 7:23:48 GMT -5
I think there definitely was ( not just secondary lighting, natural as well). It wasn't pitch black out. The house is bright white . Most important is that the kidnapper(s) eyes would be accustomed to the darkness. Inside the Nursery would probably be the most difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 12, 2008 9:22:03 GMT -5
So let me ask both you, Mairi, or anyone else this....
If you believe the ladder was used with both 2 & 3 sections, as I now do, then how do the Kidnappers get the bottom of the rails in the exact same spots in the mud on at least 2 occasions....maybe three? We're talking people supposedly working fast and pulling the ladder down to both add and remove sections, yet, the ladder posts up in the same exact spot in the mud on every occasion.
====
BTW:
Since I find researching this case almost as interesting as the Case itself I wanted to share, and probably bore you, with a little story. I've been doing Archival Research for over 8 years now and I still continue to find new things. My last trip revealed a Statement by Bolmer which I have been overlooking for years, and here's why.....
After Lewis was "let go" by the NJSP he went to work for the Meade Detective Agency. Once Hoffman hired Meade, Lewis was brought on board, in fact, it was probably part of the reason Meade was brought on board. Next, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office "loaned" their Detective Mustoe to Hoffman. Mustoe worked directly with Meade when making investigations and filing reports. Lewis interviewed Bolmer and filed the report under the Meade Detective letterhead. And so for years I was skimming over Mustoe's interview of Bolmer because it too was filed under the Meade Detective Agency's letterhead - thinking it was Lewis's interview.
And so now here I am, years later, with a brand new Statement to evaluate and cross reference.
Hopefully anyone intended on making their way into the Archives will read this and learn from my mistake(s). In all honesty - Mark Falzini has always & several times warned me this would happen to me so everytime it does I avoid telling him so he doesn't gloat.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 12, 2008 9:25:07 GMT -5
Maybe we should think about the divider screen in the nursery(?) What was it's use(?) To screen out a draft-- or to screen out light in a nearby area(?) Betty had just come from a lighted area--maybe eyes not yet adjusted--although she did manage to turn on heater. While she was paused there to warm her hands was the screen standing between her and the crib at that point(?) She couldn't hear the baby breathing so she moves right to the crib and feels around inside. That is, if she did that--recalling CAL's description of the blankets still being mounded in the shape of the baby's body.
|
|