kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 26, 2006 16:38:53 GMT -5
The more I look at the ladder and the more I look at Hauptmann, the more I wonder if he in fact constructed the entire ladder. I look at his tools. They are pitiful, not at all the tools of a craftsman. His ability to sharpen blades seems pathetic, almost childish. What does that have to do with the ladder. A lot. Despite the unfortunate and misguided assessment that the ladder is poorly built, it really isn't. Or I should more correctly state that elements of it are not. Now when I see a "carpenter" with tools as bad as Hauptmann's I really don't expect much. I certainly don't expect to see him perform a task requiring care and sharp tools such as mortising requires. Yes the Buck 3//4" cast steel chisel found at Highfields was sharp. It also had a properly shaped edge, something apparently unknown to Hauptmann. Even if I allow that he "borrowed" it, the fact that he had it in his possession does not make him a better carpenter nor does it make him change his methods. He is still the same person, just armed with a better tool. Now when I look at section 1 of the ladder I can easily believe he built it. But when I look at sections 2 &3 such a thought seems unlikely. Could the sections have been built by different men? I think it is at least a possibility. Take the rung spacing , for example. Normally a carpenter will utilize a story pole or layout stick to make repetitive marks such as found on a ladder. Now sections 2 & 3 are pretty closely layed out. But section 1 has a completely different spacing and perhaps a different means of determining it. What is going on here?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 26, 2006 17:11:32 GMT -5
Certainly many others have had the same dawning thought. Your opinion is especially valuable , however. Let us suppose that the planning of the crime did require careful preparation (see my post on the other topic), then what are the chances that the ladder was simply thrown together -- and rail 16 attached in an emergency. Some narratives even have BRH making a last-minute decision on K-Day (the result of frustration) and rushing to finish it to get down to Hopewell before noon, so as to fit into the Hochmuth section of the narrative.
Sections 2 &3 are closely laid out. What do you deduce from that? Is it the suggestion that the perps were taking charge from BRH? Did they come onto the scene, and say, Richard, let's get this right? I find that plausible. But if that is the case, why build something that might not hold, if they were, as you seem to imply, better at it? (Groans, I know you have dealt with this earlier saying it did the job, but there remain some issues, n'est pas?) These are not trap questions, as I really am interested in your view.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 26, 2006 20:49:31 GMT -5
I am not quite sure what to make of it all. I can see a definite and fundamental change in the method of construction and perhaps the criteria of design. The mortising of the rungs provides some advantages while at the same time carrying a penalty. It is quite odd to see such an abrupt change occur. And yet we know that rungs 1 to 8 are cut from the same piece of wood. I find it almost impossible to believe that these changes are due to a time factor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2006 5:54:40 GMT -5
I want to review all of Koehler's observations again... Problem is that most of his stuff post-Hauptmann is more like "CYA" and propaganda so its hard to know whats real or trustworthy by then. The other thing is the sketch in Hauptmann's notebook. Both Kevin and Joe have been saying, for a while now, they believed it was a sketch of the kidnap ladder. I have always been skeptical but have become much less as Kevin & Rab's theory seems more and more possible... So here is the sketch once more, and if Joe and Kevin are right - it shows a mortised rung.
|
|
|
Post by leah on Oct 27, 2006 6:20:04 GMT -5
looks more like a clamp to me
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 27, 2006 7:15:19 GMT -5
I would think "musical instrument" would be more appropriate.
Michael, there are more than a few instances where Koehler has a "revision" of past observations or simply ignores them. One of importance to me is his observation on the mortises. What is lacking, for such an observant man, is comment on how these were made. There should be tell tale markings ( or lack of ) which would indicate this. It is somewhat important since it is related to the tool identification and the skill of the maker. Also Koehler knows very well that BRH's pattern of "sharpening" ( if I can call it that) is completely at odds with the 3/4" Buck Bros chisel identified by Koehler as that used to make the mortises.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 27, 2006 14:25:34 GMT -5
Have been trying to follow the condition of BRH's tools, but am not really clear on it. Didn't the police take custody of all his belongings? And didn't Scaduto later find some of his tools which had been suppressed/hidden, one of which being the 3/4 " chisel? It's my understanding that he bought some cheap tools when he first came to the country. Tools which were probably replaced and allowed to fall into less than pristine shape? He had responsible carpentry jobs along the way also after the kidnapping. One of those was said to be building counters for the Fredricksen's new bakery. This might seem to be confirmed with his return to Samuelsohn's shop for supplies for a larger type job. Does this equate with old dull tools? He also built his baby's furniture-a crib, highchair and I'm not sure what else. Also when the ladder sections are labeled 1,2&3, which end are we starting with as #1 The bottom section?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 27, 2006 16:54:44 GMT -5
Mairi, the tools confiscated and now at the NJSP museum are the only tools I know of. They were examined and photographed in detail. Unless you know of others, they are what the discussion is about. BTW, a craftsman lives by habits or routines. Paramount among those, especially in the day before power tools became prevalent, was the care and sharpening of one's tools. Where are Hauptmann's Arkansas stones for sharpening? Where are his saw sheaths to protect the blades? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the tools found, it is just the blades which are in poor condition ( also some missing handles). So it is not a matter of a newer or better plane, chisel , or saw.
That would entirely depend on what was entailed in these "projects" and how high ( or low) the quality of the finished product was. You can get by with poorly maintained tools, I have seen enough people doing just that. The issue at hand, however, is why the Buck Bros 3/4" chisel found at Highfields has a properly sharpened edge typically achieved with a flat stone while Hauptmann's tools show a concave and rounded edge more typical of a grinding wheel. That is important since the mortises in the ladder are relatively neat, more like the product of a sharp tool.
I am, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2006 12:32:01 GMT -5
As promised I have been doing some digging around, mostly in Koehler's post-arrest material, and found some things to put out there. I am going to re-post a few known things just so I can see it because it is confusing at times trying to recount the information in one's head.....For now I will omit the information on the planer marks for Rails 12 & 13 and Rail 16/S-226. I am getting my info by combining it from the original 3-4-34 report, the 3-4-33 report found in the NJSP Files, and the short-hand translations (provided to me by Dr. Gardner). Koehler first points out (in a nutshell): Construction is crude, shows poor judgment in selection of lumber & construction, and poor workmanship. The ladder is not sturdy enough. It showed poor skill in the use of tools.
However, he concedes the nails are flush without hammer dents which is something a skilled person does. The Rails were sawed off square but many of the rungs were not. Saw cuts in the Rails were not marked off with a square but the depth of the mortises for the cleats were. The nails were driven at an angle toward the foot of the ladder except (2) which were driven upward - which he claims shows a tendency to drive nails at an angle by the person constructing the ladder.
The mortises were made with a very sharp chisel but it is impossible to determine the size of it.
Rail 16 and the pine rungs (1-10) all hand distinctive hand-plane scratch marks on them. He notes this clue may lead other pieces of wood planed by this tool and possibly to the tool itself. Claims this shows the planing of these items must have been done at the same time or very near the same time.
Rails 14 & 15 had been "clamped" together when the saw cuts were made because they matched up perfectly. Rails 16 & 17 did not match indicating they were sawed separately.
Rungs (cleats) #1-8 were all once (1) board, cut lengthwise, then (4) pieces cut from those two separate pieces. 1-4 were place on Section #1 and 5-8 were placed on Section #2. Rungs 9&10 did not match these rungs and was cut from a different piece of ponderosa pine.
Rung #11 was fir and did not match any of the other fir Rails in the ladder.
No signs of wear on any of the rungs.
There is a reference to a rung #12 but I don't know what this is.
Original report shows dowel holes were 7/8". Report found in the NJSP Collection shows dowel holes were 3/4". I cannot find when this revision occurred. Changes that occur after these reports.... Sometime in October '34 Koehler concludes that a 3/4" chisel was used to make the mortises on the Rails. Exactly what changed his opinion is unknown to me.
In Koehler's 2nd Supplement to the Ladder Report (written in 11-33) he changes his position concerning the Rung #11. In this report he now claims Rung #11 matches the bottom of Rail #15 claiming it matches in "grain" and "planing direction". Exactly how he missed this in his earlier report is not understood.
In June of '34 Koehler creates a 3rd Supplement to his ladder report. In this report he makes the following observations:
4. The indication that an 11-point saw was used in connection with the ponderosa pine may also be of value, although it is not certain that it was used at the time the ladder was made or by the makers of the ladder.
5. The dull hand plane that was used indicates that a practical carpenter's tools were not used since carpenter keep their tools in better shape. This fine hand saw which may have been used excludes saws used for all rough construction and most ordinary Carpenter work. It may have been a cabinet maker's saw or a general utility household saw, although it is rather fine for that latter. The sharpness of the saw indicates that it either was a new saw or had recently been filed. Now looking at his observations post-Hauptmann arrest..... The bracket found in Hauptmann's garage was said to have the same hand plane marks as those found on Rail 16 and Rungs 1-10. This implies it may have been planed around the same time as these items. Otherwise, the garage contained no lumber similar to the ladder. For me this is important because it sets a time-frame concerning when this ladder may have been built. If Hauptmann's plane was used on the ladder and it was Hauptmann who did it then either the garage is built before or after the ladder. The bracket's existence in the garage suggests the ladder was built afterwards although I admit it cannot be deemed a rock-solid conclusion. Some of the saw cuts making the recesses went deeper then necessary. The plane marks on the side of the ladder did not match any of Hauptmann's planes. Koehler makes an interesting observation concerning Hauptmann saying: Hauptmann evidently had a strong aversion to leaving rough, sawed surfaces and went to the trouble of planing them even on semi-rough work although his planes for the most part were not in good condition -- The ladder was a poor design from strength standpoint because of the pressure against the top rung of sections when assembled. The pressure exerted against the back of the top rung could pull the nails out of the Rails - especially the right hand rail of bottom section and left hand rail of middle section. And loaded/ pull across the grain of bottom ends of upper sections when assembled and loaded; sides too thin and too few rungs for lateral stability. It would be too weak, too wobbly sideways, and the rungs were too far apart. This proves to me that either this ladder was meant to be employed directly under the Nursery window or Kevin must be right. I now believe (2) sections were used to climb and open the shutters - then (3) sections were used, as by design, to fit into the shutter giving it the lateral stability it lacked on its own. Good work Kevin! Questions: - Why are the Rails squared off but not the rungs?
- Why is a different saw being used on the Rungs then used on the Rails?
- Why was section #2 clamped but section #3 was not?
- Applying Koehler's assertion concerning the hand-plane marks on Rail 16 and Rungs 1-10...doesn't this cast doubt on the theory that Rail 16 was a "replacement" Rail?
- Supposing there were/was replacement(s) in trying to explain the difference - could Section #2 be the replacements on the original ladder?
- Why weren't all the saw cut made for the mortises the same?
- Why didn't the plane marks found on the side of the ladder match any of Hauptmann's planes?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2006 12:42:32 GMT -5
You know... the more I think about this the more I wonder if the ladder wasn't built in the reverse order. Might the 3rd section have been its first? If it is designed to fit into the shutter then it seems to me to be the most important, therefore, the other sections must be designed based upon it.
Just throwing that out there....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 28, 2006 13:28:18 GMT -5
Good post Michael! I have been looking at pretty much the same reports and coming up with the same omissions and revisions.
This to me is one of the most puzzling observations by Koehler. For one he contadicts his own statement several times. It is crude, yet the edges are planed, the mortises are clean, there are no clamp marks, the accuracy of the lay out and sizing of the wood is accurate, the cuts are fine, and no chisel marks are found. Yet he concludes poor workmanship and use of tools. As far as I know , Koehler never climbed the ladder nor have I ever seen any structural calculations performed, yet he concludes that it is too weak.
The photo in the archives shows the 3/4" Buck Bros chisel fitting a cut in one of the mortises. How he missed this in 33 is a mystery to me. What Koehler doesn't say is what the lack of other chisel marks indicates. Particularly since he has observed that the mortises in rails 14 & 15 were cut in tandem with the boards clamped together.
And where is the fine tooth sharp saw that left such clean cross cuts?
That's how I built all of mine
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 31, 2006 13:01:16 GMT -5
I must have been in error regarding the design of the ladder as an "expert" has definately determined that the Dodge Automotive Corporation was actually responsible for its physical dimensions. Silly me, and all of these years I have been designing cabinets for the rooms they fit in and not my truck. What was I thinking? Sorry to all for the mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2006 22:19:29 GMT -5
If you ask me....We know Lupica saw this ladder in what he believed was a 1929 Dodge.
Now the source of the information in the quote above is dubious at best, because, it is coming from a person who has lied and/or embellished many times in the past. However, on the point that it would fit in like models of other years is something I would expect so there's no revelation there. Now to draw a rock solid conclusion by saying its design was only for the purposes of transportation based on that information exemplifies (to me) an act by someone mentally unbalanced.
The fact it fits into these models means what? That Lupica was wrong about his other observations concerning specific information concerning this car? Does it mean it wouldn't fit into any other make, model, year, etc. etc. car?
The fact it does fit can no way disprove that whoever designed this ladder did so without the nursery height, and shutter specifically in mind. In fact the exact inverse is true.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 1, 2006 8:43:46 GMT -5
Why don't we conduct a search on all 1929 vehicles to determine which make and model is closest to the ladder length. After the best fit is found we simply jump ahead a couple of model years and voila, we have the kidnapper's car. I bet even Parker couldn't have come up with that!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 14, 2006 23:29:33 GMT -5
Looks like we have further support of this position included in this memo but some other thoughts that may be contradicting to our present opinions:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 15, 2006 17:41:03 GMT -5
It's a puzzle. And I believe the answer would reveal quite a bit about this crime. On one hand it seems that section three with the famous rail 16 was built last, on the other hand section one with the non-mortised rungs and different spacing seems to be a candidate for the last off the line. One thing I find interesting. As you know many cite the reason for rail 16 as a replacement due to the non-alignment of the mortise cuts with it's mate. That is unlike section two where the cuts in rails 14 & 15 align. However.why don't the cuts in rails 14, 15 , & 17 align? If your going to sister up the rails to make the mortises it would make sense to do them all at once. There are additional mortises in these rails that are not found in both sections, but the majority are common to both. And while the builder was at it he could also have layed out the rung locations for section one. Instead those rungs have an entirely different spacing. Normally a cardinal rule of stair building ( or ladders) is to never vary the spacing. So why was that rule ignored when it seems to me it would have been easier and more efficient to follow it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 15, 2006 20:50:11 GMT -5
The above memo is confusing but I understand it to say the section with the rungs nailed on top was built last - just as you had done when you built yours. It makes sense when all things considered.
Great point. This is why it takes a Carpenter to know a Carpenter. So with this in mind its starting to look as though its being done a little at a time, or at least, section by section with some time elapsing in between. Now for the million dollar question....
Why?
I am thinking the spacing my be due to the ponderosa pine available for the use in the rungs. Perhaps the builder(s) didn't want to buy more then what he/they had available.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 16, 2006 17:02:08 GMT -5
Offhand I can only think of 3 reasons;
1) Time The ladder was assembled as unobserved time permitted.
2) Location The ladder components were made and taken to some remote location for assembly.
3) Design The ladder was being designed on the fly.
Of the three, the first doesn't seem very strong to me. The assembly is rather quick once you have the pieces roughed out. Even the mortises are not that laborious. The third, however seems more plausible. Though the ladder seems simple or "crude" as some would have it, working out the joints is probably the hardest part of the construction. It's not rocket science, but there would probably be some trial and error involved. Unlike re-creations, Hauptmann had no model to copy. He would have to work out the pivot point and rung location for it to work properly. I would expect the ladder to be "tested" and I think a remote location would have to exist for this.
The spacing I am referring to is the change from sections 2 & 3 to 1. Why are those an inch different in spacing from those on sections 2 & 3?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 16, 2006 17:25:23 GMT -5
The details of the ladder are too complicated for me, even though I've tried to sort through it. My question will probably be an aggro, but will go ahead and ask anyway. Is there any way that two sections of the ladder could have been pre-existing-forget for a moment who owned or built it-then someone came along and decided they needed a longer ladder, so then added another section? This could include having to replace certain unstable or broken parts of the original? In other words--not the same project and not the same builder throughout?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 16, 2006 17:54:24 GMT -5
I think you are asking two questions here, Mairi. One, was there only one builder. And two, was the ladder one complete construction. Those are good questions. There is evidence, I think, to indicate that the ladder was not built in the three section configuration originally. At least it could be considered. As to the question of multiple builders, it might be possible, though I don't see any real evidence of it. I think the strongest argument for the ladder to be built by one person and in 3 sections is the connection to the rungs or cleats as well as the nails. The rungs from sections 1 and 2 came from a single board which does seem to indicate that sections 1 &2 were at least conceived at the same time. As for section 3 there is a mix of woods present with rungs 9 & 10 seeming to be cut from one piece. The plane marks on the edges are another tie to a single builder or at least the fabricator.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 16, 2006 19:23:59 GMT -5
Thanx KevKon~I think you've provided me with additional glimmers, here. I had seen it odd that some rungs were nailed to the outer edges of the rails and then others recessed. I take it that the plane marks were consistent on all 3 sections. I think in my previous post I am still toying with the nursery/orchard use, but you indicated that 3 sections was likely too tall for nursery work. This, in part, was why I was wondering about a nursery ladder being original but then added to for another project. If we live long enough we may just figure out this case, huh?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 24, 2006 9:16:50 GMT -5
I am more convinced than ever that the ladder was designed and built by someone who had already made an attempt at Highfields or had undertaken some very good reconnaissance including the car placement and staging location.
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 27, 2006 13:22:07 GMT -5
Am interested in the possibilities that the kidnap (and ladder) may have been planned for the house at Englewood. Have lost track of which author wrote of this possibility. Might be interesting to see what indicators he based it upon. If anyone can remind me again which book this was, I would appreciate it. Am planning to order some more books on the case. The "planned for a year" (if this is actually the truth, of course) keeps leading me back to consider Englewood. It seems often ruled out because of the number of servants there, but I can't say I feel convinced by that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 27, 2006 15:47:56 GMT -5
I think if you look closely at the different conditions that exist between Highfields and Next Day Hill and what is required to carry out an abduction via a second floor window you will see that the ladder is quite appropriate for the former. I don't know who was first to suggest the Englewood angle, I think Fisher mentions it in The Ghosts of Hopewell. Personally I see it as a weak explanation for the third section for those who can not believe all three sections were used or intended to be used at Highfields. The evidence tells a different story. Anyone who has walked from Featherbed to Highfields will know why.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2006 19:24:12 GMT -5
I am convinced that Kevin's theory is the correct one. The ladder was built for Hopewell right down to the plan for the top section to fit within the shutter louvers to provide the much needed stability it wouldn't have had otherwise. Inspector Walsh disproved the Englewood 'theory':
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 28, 2006 0:24:08 GMT -5
Kevkon and Michael~ Thanks for your response about the Englewood vs Hopewell kidnap plans. Appreciate your input. And was glad to see the Walsh report, too. Santa brought me an Amazon.com gift cert. Can you guess the books subject I just ordered?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 28, 2006 8:43:19 GMT -5
Thanks again Michael for finding another obscure but important report. In addition to the greater height requirement needed at Englewood there is also the problem of the mature foundation plantings. It may sound trivial, but those plantings cause any ladder placement to be at a greater angle. That would be absolutely fatal to the kidnap ladder which is already on the limit of ultimate strength. The main point to remember is what makes this kidnap ladder unique. It is not the nesting, or the joints . Those are unusual ,but they are to some degree derivative of other ladders of the day. The one thing that this ladder has that none commercially available does is it's extreme lightness. Lightness to the degree that it could be carried overland for a considerable distance. That lightness carries a major penalty however, as it means the weight bearing capacity is severely restricted and co dependent on the angle of inclination used. The more vertical that angle is , the more it can safely hold. No one would create such a lightweight ladder without good reason and when you see the terrain at Hopewell , that reason becomes apparent.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2006 9:55:25 GMT -5
In addition to all of the good points above, we know that the third section rails are exactly 11 inches apart. Kevin, do you think this would tend to point towards the ladder having been designed around the requirement for the third section's spread to fit within the shutter's louver recess and possibly this one having been the first section built? I was thinking a bit more about the third section having been used and the requirement for a second person to hold the ladder in place. With the third section rails positioned within the shutter's recess and the ladder's base firmly planted in the soft ground, you have fairly good lateral stability to begin with. From this point, I would think a length of wire could have been quite easily wrapped around the right hand shutter and also the ladder, near the top of the third section in order to firmly secure it.
I realize this step would be yet another thing to worry about on a lightweight ladder in the dark and this measure might not have been a consideration in the planning stage, but I believe that tying off a ladder is a fairly common practice for working at heights. Based on the ladder entry and exit process part of the kidnapping, can we absolutely discount the possibility of the kidnapping having been achievable by one person?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 28, 2006 10:35:14 GMT -5
Absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind that there was more than a casual "drive by" reconnaissance performed. I would not even be surprised if an actual prior attempt was made. These people knew what was needed and what they were up against.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Dec 28, 2006 15:42:31 GMT -5
At what moment in time do we begin to consider seriously the deductive powers of Det. Harry Walsh? Show me the book on Famous Crimes solved by Harry Walsh. Basically, Walsh was a syncophant for Schwartzkopf. If there was any bungling to be done these guys could do it! Walsh's two great accomplishments were poking a hole in the baby's head and planting the Post Road Taxi Cards in Violets room. Basically,together, they solved nothing at all for 30 months?. Although a 5 foot differential at Englewood seems insurmountable, if an insider is handing Charlie out the window to Bruno standing on the ladder.(per Condon)..well whats a few more feet at either Highfields or Englewood? Basically the ladder fits into the size of the car, not the size of the windows? eg 3 x 6.5'. - There are only 2 ladder rail holes in the mud at Highfields, so do they line up perfectly with the shutter grooves?
- What other forensic evidence is there beyond conjecture, shows that the 3rd section was ever used? Marks on the walls or shutters for instance? Who of all genius, like Walsh, considered this in 1932?
- What is added or subtracted from our search for a holder or accomplice or gang by using all 3 sections of the ladder? How does this advance the resolution of the case?
- Is it true that the ladder broke like an "egg crate" because the top rung of the first section came "unnailed" permitting the 2nd section to pivot upwards? This was depicted in a newsprint cartoon? Wouldnt this leave ding marks on the wall as well?
|
|