kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 12, 2008 17:33:43 GMT -5
But there aren't just two holes in the ground. Another thing, look at the survey or photos and take a good look at the location of the walkway plank where the ladder stood in relation to the other planks. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2008 6:19:50 GMT -5
Mairi, I think we're on the same page here.... Kevin, can you refer me to a picture of the boards in relationship to the house? I know there is one but can't seem to find it. Once I find one, and I think I remember to what you refer, what do you make of it? Do you think this was done purposely?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 14, 2008 7:01:32 GMT -5
Re: Three ladder sections used
I seem to recall that the "kidnap" shutter wasn't retained in evidence and don't remember seeing any record of close exam of the shutter. With gouge marks left on wall with the two sections wouldn't it be likely that the third section against shutter would have left marks/scars? Beam me in on this, Kevkon.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 14, 2008 14:03:59 GMT -5
That's a very good question, Mairi. Here's all I can tell you; regarding the issue of the shutter there is some confusion regarding it's condition and eventual disappearance. Quite honestly, I don't know who or what to trust on the whole issue. Having said that though, I will assume that no marks were visible. The main reasons I still feel the 3 sections were used is because; 1) it makes sense and is workable, 2) The police continually used 3 as well as 2 sections in re-enactments. That makes me believe that they were still open to the idea and had no evidence which precluded it. 3) When this ladder is used with all 3 sections the angle of inclination is extremely steep. Essentially that means that the majority of the load or the force the ladder exerts is primarily vertical, not horizontal ( imagine it being almost perpendicular to the ground). There isn't much force exerted against the wall or shutter. 4) The shutters were closed or at least mostly so. That means the third section was on the stone wall and as per item 3 not much force is against the wall. Bottom line, while two nice marks on the wall behind the shutter would be nice, but the lack of them doesn't rule out the use of all three sections,. If it did the police would never had bothered setting them up over and over again.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 14, 2008 14:37:56 GMT -5
Thanx Kevkon,
I see what you mean about most of the weight load being almost vertical. Pressure against shutter not being that great. Loooooong time since I've been on a ladder of that height! Appreciate your know-how.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2008 17:40:36 GMT -5
That's why Kevin's observation concerning the 3rd section fitting perfectly inside the shutter for stability is so damn important! Nothing in the reports about it, but again, Kevin takes notice of the various pictures which show the State Police retracing the Kidnappers steps, using the three sections, and it showing that section fitting inside that shutter - obviously by design.
Kevin, still very interested to see where you are going with the walkway plank positioning difference....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 18, 2008 6:49:59 GMT -5
I'm not going anywhere with it, it's just an interesting observation at this point. All I can say is that it appears that the plank at the ladder location is out of line with the other planks and closer to the wall of the house. That does make me wonder if that plank was moved for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2008 9:13:43 GMT -5
It is an interesting observation and I would ask this:
Do person(s) make a move of this board in the dark? Wouldn't the boards alignment change catch the attention of someone, anyone, if it was moved earlier? I mean, once the Police start asking question wouldn't it come to mind?
My point is this....
Once we start looking closely doesn't it suggest there was a lot of preparation and detail to this thing that seems to indicate somethings going on outside of a Bronx Carpenter driving around Hopewell looking for Highfields on March 1st?
There's no trial and error. We've got a broken ladder but no indication of any fall occurring.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 21, 2008 8:51:18 GMT -5
I think you have to be careful about any conclusions made on that specific point, although I do believe it's likely that point was pre-considered to assist the stability factor of the upright ladder. With that in mind, it certainly points to this ladder having been a 3-section venture from the very beginning and seems to minimize the likelihood the bottom section was added as an afterthought.
Kevin, I'm having a bit of difficulty imaging the top section of the ladder resting against the wall directly behind the right shutter's normal open location at any stage of the abduction. Can you explain?
I believe you might be putting forth two distinct processes as one here - broad surveillance and execution detail / contingency. But I have to agree there was considerable time and effort expended towards each one and the final result obtained that night was the product of a supremely adaptable mind working most determinedly under the most difficult of conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2009 9:23:22 GMT -5
Quick note on "inferences".... They can rely on false or misleading information. They can be inferred from a biased position. They can omit, change, alter, and/or fail to include variables or circumstances which may threaten a particular inference they hold dear. There is also context. If you don't know something you are ignorant, therefore, any inference drawn from ignorance is a flawed deduction. When someone challenges another to do research, I would ask what research they've done first. If it doesn't rival yours, then I don't care if they were Jesus Christ in their previous life, it doesn't matter. Their employment counts but you can't properly conclude something you haven't seen within its totality THEN condemn others for doing the same thing. So, unless you are a magician, you cannot evaluate Police Reports you have never read. All you can do is do your best to create a working theory open for alterations for when pieces of evidence you haven't seen or been exposed to start to become known. I was reading through an FBI Report about Curtis recently. It was written by SAC E. J. Connelley dated 5-24-32, and squeezed in between facts concerning Curtis is this. For the sake of time I will not "quote" it but give you the jist of what I found.... On May 19, 1932 the various Law Enforcement engaged in investigation decided to test ladders make to the specs of the "kidnap" ladder. State Police were climbing in and out of the ladder to see what weight would cause the ladder to fail. Apparently, these are the test to which is found in the various reports since. I've seen 125 lbs. Then I have seen 155lbs. Then after Hauptmann was arrested 180 lbs. Even if the 180 lbs. were correct, how then wouldn't the ladder break if Hauptmann weighed 180 lbs. on March 1, 1932? Why the inconsistent weights recorded within the various reports concerning this 1 day of experimentation? Could they indeed make a true replica capable of performing a test of any evidenciary value? Here's something else that I find overlooked... The mud they found on the top of the bottom shutter. This can be seen in the photos taken the next day. Plainly, one can see Troopers performing experiments and conducting investigations then. So is this evidence or mud left behind by Investigators? The reports say "evidence." So what does it prove? How was it left behind? From Connelley's report above: It is noted that a certain amount of yellow clay mud was found at the top of the lower window shutter to the right hand side, which was directly under the ladder, indicating that this apparently had been used possibly in leaving the window for a man to step upon. Question: With the ladder set up with either two or three sections.... can either be near enough to that shutter for someone on the ladder, or step from the shutter to the ladder?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 10, 2009 13:04:58 GMT -5
Who knows? Too many variables at work to say anything for certain. The ladder flexes and bows, but at what point does it break? One would have to make a replica with the exact wood and grain structure. After that the variables would include the angle, footing, speed of climb and probably a few more items.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2009 14:01:47 GMT -5
Kevin,
What is your take on the mud found on top of the shutter?
I would agree with your position regarding the ladder experiments. But I still wonder why they put stock in them at the time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 10, 2009 14:52:19 GMT -5
I don't know about the mud, too bad Kelly didn't get a close-up ( or did he?), as that might show some detail. I can't really think of a reason for the shutter to be in direct contact with the climber.
I think it was reasonable for the police to try to gain as much info from the ladder as possible and given the circumstances to make some judgments and deductions. Think of the pressure these guys were under. I'll bet if I could have talked to them we probably would be exactly on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2009 15:05:35 GMT -5
I haven't seen a picture of the shutter up close - only far away. But there are up close shots of the piece of mud after it was removed from the shutter, in fact, the mud still exists. It's in one of the boxes in the closet at the NJSP. The fact they seemed to believe someone's foot was on top of that lower shutter I think is something we should consider and work out to a logical conclusion. How did it get there? It's a pretty big piece.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 10, 2009 17:02:14 GMT -5
I haven't seen that, but your report makes me think the mud was not the residue from someone stepping on the shutter but perhaps a clump falling from above.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2009 9:59:56 GMT -5
(Next time we're down at the Archives together remind Mark to get this for us to take a better look at it.)
Ok, that's what I am getting at. I looks unlikely that someone would have stepped onto that shutter. Let's test that theory....
Would it hold a man's weight? Is there any situation where it would benefit someone there with Criminal intent? What if the ladder broke going into the Nursery? Could it have been left on a different night? Is there evidence that someone with this amount of mud on their shoes went up that ladder? .... into that Nursery?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 11, 2009 10:47:59 GMT -5
Again, I'd say too many variables to say anything with reasonable certainty. In what way would or could a person benefit from stepping on that shutter?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2009 18:07:16 GMT -5
Here's a picture on Ebay now. It's Fred Pope, Hugh Orr, and Charles DeBischop. The last two are mentioned as "Wood Experts." It was Defense Attorney Pope who argued the ladder shouldn't have been admitted as Evidence since the Chain of Custody had been lost, it was tampered with, nails had been withdrawn then given out to civilians and lost track of, it had been altered, and it had been disassembled, and dismantled then once reassembled had been changed from its original state. (I have heard-tell a Lawyer on one of the other sites said the Chain of Custody wasn't broken. This tells me he hasn't done his homework - so its easier just to say it isn't true rather then do the appropriate research required to make such a statement.) Pope also argued there was "no such animal" as a Wood Expert. To prove it, he brought DeBischop in who had certain items with him which were admitted as Defense Exhibits. These Exhibits would eventually be shown to Koehler who claimed they had come from the same tree. DeBischop had testified they were from two different trees which grew years apart from one another. Koehler's only defense to this was to suggest DeBischop, the man who actually grew the trees in question -- was mistaken. Hugh Orr's position was more from the angle of Physics. His testimony which was really short, as well as his reports to Gov. Hoffman were really confusing, however, if you read closely what he is claiming is exactly what Kevin has said many times.... That is, the ladder extended with only 2 sections leaning against that house would fold if someone put weight on that top rung.
|
|
|
Post by wduggan on Feb 16, 2009 13:41:00 GMT -5
Two sections, three sections, who knows. The recreation photos with three sections show a ladder that is almost vertical. The most tension force on the side rails wold take place in the middle when the climber was in the middle. Isn't this just where the ladder broke? It is hard to envision how the entry and exit could be made with the left hand shutter in the way and three sections used. On the other hand, so much else about this case makes no sense.
The builder stated that no shutters were warped and all fastened correctly. I have never read any explanation how they got warped, where they installed that way? I also have not read any description of the latching mechanism for the shutters. Doe anyone know about that. In his testimony, the Colonel was asked by Reilly, "How long had they been warped?" The Colonel answered, "I think quite a few days, but there again, I am not certain." This strikes me as an odd answer given the fact that they had been in the house for about six months and were so fastidious about the child's night time routines.
On balance I woud vote for the version that the kdnapper knocked the baby out with some either or camphor, but him in a burlap sack, crawled out on to the top of the second section and dropped the baby on his head when the rail split and threw him off balance. Of course, if there was a confederate there on the ground, the kidnapper could have softly dropped the burlap bag with the baby in it about 10 feet down and the confederate could have caught the baby. Maybe they did that and the confederate dropped the baby.
As for the night of the crime of the century, the failure to secure the crime scene has left so many questions open to speculation.
|
|
|
Post by wduggan on Feb 16, 2009 13:56:54 GMT -5
Yes Joe, I agree and you are right about the definition of "packet", but I am only talking about the overall dimensions. I built a replica ransom box so I know how the bills layout. But consider this, it really depends on how the bills are bundled, which was not specified. Also the packet dimensions could have been any multiple of the size of a single bill. I just wonder if Hauptmann is picking two of those dimensions based on a need for concealment in some particular place and that space was also available for the ladder. I know one thing for certain about BRH, he is inclined to place or hide things within containers and spaces. I'm sure a psychologist could comment on this, all I know is some people are very adept at doing it. Hauptmann almost makes an art out of it. I strongly suspect that the ladder was concealed when not in use and prior to the crime. I think whatever space and where ever that space was might also have figured in the "packet" dimensions.
|
|
|
Post by wduggan on Feb 16, 2009 14:04:46 GMT -5
I am puzzled by the kidnapper(s) requirement for a box. I guess who fabricated the box is still in dispute. For example Treasury Agent Irey says they made it out of a dozen pieces of different woods so it could be traced.
But why would the kidnappers want to let the Lindberghs plant something like a Trojan Horse on the them that later could incriminate them? Why not bring your own duffel bag to the exchange? As I recall the box cracked and could not be latched even with the $50,000. What was the kidnapper(s) plan for the other $20,000 which they seemed to give up on awfully easily.
The other $20,000 consisted of four hundred $50 gold notes that probably could be stuffed in a coat pocket.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 16, 2009 16:10:49 GMT -5
Welcome Wduggan, good posts.
Actually the greatest load applied to the ladder components is relative to the angle of inclination. In a nearly vertical position one can stand on the joint. It's the enormous factor of leverage that causes the wood to shear or split at the joints.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 16, 2009 16:23:16 GMT -5
My best hunch is that the "packet" dimensions which are specific ( as opposed to the packet construction which are not) were related in some way to a space or niche were they could be stashed. It would make perfect sense to have a drop to hide the money while the police conduct a search. The other possibility, that it corresponds to the overall size of that amount of money seems to me to be negated by the additional 20K request and the fact that outside, not inside dimensions are given.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 16, 2009 19:29:34 GMT -5
This, along with all of your other posts, are excellent! Welcome aboard and thanks for posting. It seems Lindbergh's personality alone would have dictated someone to have addressed this problem of the "warped" shutter.... I wonder what the opinion of this matter would be if it were known that something else the builders put together didn't work properly AND Lindbergh did what we would expect him to have done. For example, what if we learned the there was a leak in the Whateley's room and Lindy called to let them know about that but not the shutter? Here is a link to a thread devoted to shutter: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=3
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2009 9:34:41 GMT -5
Interesting information here....
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 4, 2009 13:40:25 GMT -5
Thanx Kevkon- Appreciate your response. No, I don't know Bornman, either. There just seemed to be questionable aspects of his activities, regarding the attic. Someone (MM, maybe) posed the possibility that the wood (for rail 16) may have been in the basement. It sounds like a very interesting experiment you did regarding a ladder wood substitution. I would like reading more, if you would care to post it. I try very hard to keep an open mind. If I pigeon-hole my thoughts, who's the first one I defeat? Myself That's a good gathering-in of the Red Johnson stats, Rick! Falzini's "15 mins" on Red's later life was interesting, too, I thought. Any chance you could point me to the source for Junge being mad at Violet that night? The only thing I'd seen sounded like Junge teasing V for getting in that time of night. Don't go to any trouble about hunting it up--just if you know off the top of your head. Thanx.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 28, 2009 13:46:56 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 28, 2009 16:40:45 GMT -5
It's a sectional ladder like those used in Europe by chimney sweeps and adapted for picking fruit . Later a leg was added and it was called an Orchard Ladder Here is a type that physically resembles the kidnap ladder; Cat Ladders www.builderbill-diy-help.com/image-files/la-cat.gifThese are ladders for working on steeply sloped roofs. All the ones I have seen have been home made and out of fairly flimsy timber. Say 3" x1" sides and 2" x 1" rungs. About the same width as an ordinary ladder. Sometimes the joints are housed in, sometimes just screwed. They don't have to be very strong, as they are only designed to stop you sliding off the roof when working on it. The roof itself provides the support.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 1, 2009 7:03:17 GMT -5
For any of those who have read the latest round of nonsense on the Hoax site, I thought I would clarify certain issues regarding the ladder. First, what is being called a Gable Ladder is actually not a ladder at all, it's actually the framing we employ to extend the roof and rake on the gables of a house. Second, while I agree ( that's why I provided the source) that a Cat Ladder closely resembles the kidnap ladder in some ways it is fundamentally different. Also, I think the reference to skylights at Highfields is being confused with roof dormers. In any case you can not use the kidnap ladder as a Cat (roof) ladder.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 26, 2012 12:38:52 GMT -5
Thanx Kevkon. Am going to try to get back on the thread, here. I sketched an approximation of it. You know how some of us have to have pictures drawn.
|
|