|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2006 15:10:01 GMT -5
The major causal link, in my opinion, for the controversy and assertion the Rail 16/S-226 connection was "framed" was due to the inconsistency concerning the people, dates, events, and facts surrounding its discovery. Dr. Gardner does a really good job outlining this in Chapter 10 of his book The Case That Never Dies. 165.230.98.36/acatalog/__The_Case_That_Never_Dies_1350.html#1977I use the term "inconsistent" very liberally when actually its my opinion that Principals were being downright dishonest. The bottom line is though....do these lies translate into a frame-up? I admit it is an irresistible conclusion, however, could there be another reason and if so - what could it be? In my opinion, the best way to determine what really happened in the daily grind of the investigation is to try and collect everything then cross-reference the material to see what agrees and what disagrees. Then - to try to sort out and explain why and/or determine which source may be more reliable. In the case of S-226 everyone seems to give a different version from the next guy and sometimes a different version then coming from even themselves at one time or another. It's not like we can rely on this guy or that guy as opposed to others and it is a difficult situation for a Researcher to be in without jumping to some kind of conclusion. Most people point to Koehler and ask why he would lie. They say he was a Government man with no axe to grind. Well, I believe in my Archived post, Chiselers, you can see a very good example of something Kohler did which was undeniably dishonest. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1156624853Koehler seems to be the most upset with those who would accuse the wood evidence as being "faked." He does his best to neutralize the accusation every chance he gets and in doing so provides me with more information to show he wasn't always forthright. Some time between October 1 and 4, 1934, Koehler examined the small pieces of wood and package of cut nails that Bornmann had collected from the garage and the attic. "The cut nails taken from the attic and garage fit the holes in rail #16 exactly, which indicates that the board probably was removed from some of Hauptmann's previous work that he had seen or heard of any board taken out of the attic, whether still in Hauptmann's closet or now in Trenton. (Gardner p 227) In fact, he is still guessing on this day in his report where it may have come from. Dr. Gardner's source for this is Koehler's actual report dated 10-4-34 which outlines his activities beginning on 10-1 through 10-4. This is very important both as to what he is reporting within the document and most especially the date of his observation. Here is the relevant page of that report: Needless to say, once the Governor forced the infamous meeting up in Hauptmann's attic on March 26, Koehler became quite defensive. And in being defensive, he wrote much in an attempt to prove the evidence was not a plant. Here is one such item: When Detective Bornmann reported to Colonel Schwarzkopf in my presence that a piece of lumber seemed to have been removed from Hauptmann's attic floor I immediately asked if cut nails had been used for nailing down the floorboards. he replied in the affirmative and produced some nails that he had removed from the floor. They were 8-penny nails. With trembling hands I proceeded to see how the size of these nails corresponded with the holes in the ladder rail which was in storage custody at police headquarters in Trenton. They were of the same size fit those hole like pegs in a cribbage board! Colonel Schwarzkopf requested us to go back to Hauptmann's attic the next day to see if a part of the ladder not rail 16 could have come out of that attic. Now I asked myself if this attempt at damage control was reliable. Of course the answer is no (but I did crack a smile at the "trembling" hands part). If we refer to Bornmann's (3rd version of his) 9/26 report it claims that on 9-29 he turned over "several small pieces of wood found in the garage, cellar and attic" ..... and that he requested Koehler to "compare cut nails removed from a piece of flooring in the attic with the cut nail holes in rail #16." Koehler's 10-4 immediately ruins this notion. Next, if Koehler is asked to go to the Bronx, the next day, that contradicts both his and Bornmann's reports which claimed Koehler informed Bornmann in Flemington the nails fit into Rail 16 and that once Captain Lamb was advised had been instructed, by Lamb, to go to Hauptmann's apartment the next day on October 9th. Page #2 of Koehler 10-4 report (above) proves, as Dr. Gardner pointed out, that Koehler has no idea Bornmann found any such board in the attic or it would be reflected within the 10-4 report. Furthermore, there is no mention of Schwarzkopf or this dramatic epiphany he later claims to have occurred. It's unfortunate these people were so willing to lie about the course of events and what the nature of the true situation really was. Because of this we have (2) major obsticles to overcome in trying to determine what happened. From everything I have investigated here are my personal conclusions: - Bornmann goes into the attic on 9-26 and finds several small pieces of wood, shavings, and several cut nails. He retains them thinking there might be a small chance they relate to the case. I do not believe he notices a missing piece of board on this day, or if he does - doesn't figure it to have any bearing on the case and ignores it.
- On 9-29 Bornmann delivers and small package with said items to the Training School for future examination by Koehler. On the same day Sgt. Det. Kelly and Det Ruggiero turn over all of Hauptmann's confiscated tools at the Training School as well.
- Between 10-1 and 10-4 Koehler makes an examination of these items and records his findings in his report. They are self-explanatory.
- On 10-8, while both attending the Grand Jury testimony in Flemington, Koehler and Bornmann spoke then decided Koehler should probably investigate Hauptmann's home. This could be based upon the cut nails fitting into the holes found on Rail 16 or trying to find samples of wood showing his hand planer marks or lumber similar to Rails 12 & 13 (planer marks).
- On 10-9 Koehler arrives in the Bronx.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 30, 2006 16:27:00 GMT -5
It is obvious from Koehler's report 10-1-34 that the 1/4" chisel was from the cigar box. I am not sure that I see that as important as the relevance of that particular chisel. It happens to be a match to the 3/4" Buck Bros found at Highfields. Both chisels are also missing or partially missing the strike cap at the butt end and both chisels are missing a fair amount of the original blade length due to much repeated sharpening. That would be a strong indicator that both chisels were probably similar in age and were used with an ordinary hammer and not a mallet. What I find odd about Koehler's report is that while he notes the presence of the 1/4" chisel and the absence of a 3/4" chisel, he apparently makes no comment on the fact of the relationship between the two. I am amazed that he did not jump all over that discovery. And why does Hauptmann keep his chisels in a cigar box in a closet?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2006 6:41:43 GMT -5
That's where it came from and Koehler knew it...so why is he so willing to mislead the jury as to what is found and/or not found in the tool box? Why not testify truthfully as to where tools were actually found? If they are willing to engage in this charade, under oath, what else were they willing to lie about? This is my point here.
Does it really match? Do you feel both chisels represent tools that Hauptmann at one time possessed? I have a ton of information on the chisels so if you feel this is worthwhile I will dig out what I have so we can further this discussion.
This is a good question. One would think to transport. I kicked this idea around when I noticed reference to this box being found in his trunk but this appears to be an error because it seems fairly clear it was found in the closet. And if it were meant for transport why would it be in the house when his car is in the garage?
Would he need these tools to work on Schusslers door maybe? Look at everything in that box and see if there's a common denominator.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 1, 2006 7:48:58 GMT -5
Perhaps the tools had been placed in the cigar box for a specific job. It seems a reasonable practice to isolate the few tools you may need for a job and keep them handy in a smaller container to avoid having to lug around a larger box containing tools not required.
At this moment, I have four or five tools in a small box in the trunk of my car following some paint work on one of my fenders. The fact is, I completed that work over a month ago and at the time had no pressing need to transfer them back to the toolbox in my apartment. (Just made a note to myself to do that today)
I think more than a little of this concept of non-essential need must have applied to Hauptmann, whose career shift from carpenter to well heeled investor occurred in tandem with the Lindbergh ransom payment of April 2, 1932.
At the same time, I don't discount the possibility the items within that cigar box had a direct connection to the kidnapping and extortion. Kevin previously provided the contents of the cigar box and I believe they included a number of nails as well as a nail punch. If the contents of that cigar box, notably the nails and punch can be located someday, it would be interesting to examine these items for any indications of their use in the formation of the ransom notes' squarish holes.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 1, 2006 8:34:03 GMT -5
And it is a point well taken. My point is why Koehler seems to ignore such an important discovery.
Absolutely, as you will see shortly from the lost chisel
Well they are the same type and make. And they both show some disregard for proper use and care. They both show that they have been well used. The only major difference I can see is , as I posted earlier, the blade on the 3/4" chisel is sharpened correctly unlike the usual Hauptmann method.
Are you both sure about this? Naturally I have been thinking along the same lines. However, when I read the report by Koehler ( 10/ 1-4/32) page 2 , there seems to be some confusion as to what was actually found in the cigar box and what was placed in there by the police in separate envelopes. Do either of you know for certain what the cigar box contained when found?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 1, 2006 19:39:30 GMT -5
Kevin, somewhere I've seen a list of the contents of that box but can't locate it. I do recall among other things, it contained some loose nails and a nail set. I did check with Mark a while ago and my recollection is that the box and contents no longer exist as they were originally inventoried. I have seen a picture of some of Hauptmann's seized belongings which included a shotgun and El Producto cigar box.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 1, 2006 21:42:39 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, I have a list. I am just wondering if some of these items were placed in the box for examination/transport by the police or were actually found in the box.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 2, 2006 6:22:08 GMT -5
Sgt. Det. Kelly and Det Ruggiero create the list for the specific purpose to indicate what was found where on 9-29. I am confident their list indicates the true situation as they found it and not for the purposes of transporting the tools to West Trenton. However, it could be pointed out these items might have mixed before this event but from what I read I tend to doubt it. Lists were being made of what was found where concerning other items as well so they seemed to be conscientious about this (e.g. Mason's bag found in the attic, brown suitcase, paste board box, etc.).
As I alluded to above, there is conflicting reports as to where the cigar box originated. Either it was found in the hallway closet or in Hauptmann's trunk (car).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 2, 2006 9:25:27 GMT -5
This is what is confusing me regarding the original contents of the cigar box. Also note that Koehler notes the absence of a 1" wide chisel along with the 3/4" which seems a bit odd to me. Also, and I think most importantly, he goes on to carefully examine the saws and planes but ignores the 1/4" chisel found. Since he was very familiar with the Bucks Bros. chisel found at Highfields, this seems very odd. At some point he makes the matching ID.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 3, 2006 8:10:17 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin, for posting the contents of the cigar box. I was intrigued to see among it, a casing nail. Isn't a casing nail similar to a finishing nail, ie. a nail that is countersunk and then finished off with putty and painted? Finishing nails, with their concave style head in the range of 2" are those enigmatic objects that for me represent the best method of reproducing the ransom note holes, when they are used as a "punch" (held in inverted position) over a piece of softwood. All of the nails I've used for this purpose have blunted points from the impact of the hammer. Wouldn't I love to see the point of that casing nail from Hauptmann's cigar box?
Another thought that came to mind as an offshoot of the recent discussion on what was and wasn't in Hauptmann's toolbox. If Hauptmann did take his toolbox down to the Majestic Apartments a few days in advance of March 1, 1932, is it possible this action played a role towards what was needed vs. available to him prior to that evening, in relation to any last minute preparations to the kidnap ladder?
I'm thinking specifically of the plane that was used to final trim the attic board into Rail 16. Would this have been his plane of choice or perhaps the only one he had available at the house, given that his main working plane might well have been at the Majestic?
And the 3/4" chisel left at Highfields. That chisel seems to have been sharpened in a way that Hauptmann's other tools were not, but as you note, it does seem to bear some resemblance in general wear to Hauptmann's 1/4" Buck Bros. chisel. Could it have been in the possession of someone else (Schuessler, Kloppenburg?) who sharpened it before Hauptmann retrieved it?
Did Hauptmann perhaps know that he would not be working at the Majestic on Tuesday morning, but went down there to retrieve the tools which would be needed that evening, including the 3/4" chisel for the last minute mortises of a replacement Rail 16? Because he was using public transit, anything small could have been carried away without general notice.
I realize these are questions that can not be answered definitively and we don't know for certain if the 3/4" Buck Bros. chisel was Hauptmann's, but I thought I'd throw them into the ring for consideration.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 3, 2006 11:43:36 GMT -5
Sometimes the term "casing nail" is used to describe a variety of finishing nails. But traditionally it is the slender nail with a small concave head meant for countersinking. So, yes it is what you have been looking for. I am still confused about the envelopes and their content in relation to what was found and where, though.
Regarding the "missing tools". I just don't have a clue here. He could be borrowing from others but it seems to me that there are references by Koehler and Hauptmann, himself to tools never found or inventoried. My best guess, and it is only a guess, is that Hauptmann had access to place other than the apartment or garage where other tools might be.
I think that is a very difficult question for anyone to answer. Partly it is a matter of personal preference. It wouldn't have been the plane of my choice. But then again, all of my planes are extremely sharp and in proper working order. That allows me more freedom in choice than I suspect Hauptmann had with his poorly maintained planes.
Yes, I believe so. Both show disregard for the handle and cap by using a metal hammer. Both show signs of shortening due to excessive grinding. That usually happens when someone is careless in the use and storage of their tools. Sharpening a chisel or plane blade is not a big deal if it has only dulled out. On the other hand, a nicked or damaged edge requires much more work and material removal. Back to the "missing tools" again. Where is Hauptmann's grinding wheel and flat stone? He admitted having them.
I suppose that would be possible. Or perhaps he had a "helper" that knew his trade.
I don't know about the Majestic timing, etc. I don't buy and never will this concept of a last minute ladder building mission. It seems outright absurd to me. As far as transporting the needed tools, I would say the cigar box would be fine for the chisels. But then what about the square, hammer, saws, and plane? Also, the 3/4" chisel would not be my choice for making these mortises. At least it wouldn't be my primary choice.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 4, 2006 8:29:12 GMT -5
I like how you are thinking here Joe but this would mean that at least Rail 16 AND Rungs #1-10 had been built over the weekend before the crime. I can't accept this. It appears to me from everything I have learned - especially recently - this ladder was built much earlier then that. As Kevin has noted, he had tools in his garage which weren't used on the ladder but would have assisted him in its construction. (On the other hand let me make a suggestion border-line " wild speculation for a minute before the thought slips away as quickly as it entered my head.... What if these people were so worried about identification that this ladder had been designed and cut but not assembled until they were ready to go ( a la Samuelsohn). I truly believe we must stop thinking in the singular - there were more then one person involved here. Taking it a step further....what if Samuelsohn was employed because that person in possession of this ladder got cold feet originally then came back into the fold after the fact? There are too many references of this gang eventually splitting up, getting arrested, and/or killed for me to dismiss this possibility.) This seems to be at odds with what the Police determined - at least with the chisel found at Highfields. The NJSP interviewed the owner of Bucks Brothers who said: - The chisel was about 30 years old (in 1932).
- It was worn down about 1-1/2" from original size.
- Exceptionally well taken care of by a person who is more skilled than an ordinary carpenter and that the wooden handle is the original.
- It had not been kept sharp by ordinary methods such as a grind stone or emery wheel.
Your observation concerning the handle & cap isn't noted by the Owner and I wonder if this wasn't because it was a common occurrence back then.... I may be wrong, but someone (Keraga?) brought up the fact that it could have been done to keep the tool from rolling off of the work-bench OR that Hauptmann had given this explanation...Its hard for me to remember specifics....maybe Joe recalls. It doesn't appear the 3/4" and the 1/4" were handled by the same person. Hauptmann obviously didn't do such a good job sharpening his tools as evidenced by what was found in his possession. The Lone-Wolfers like to say Hauptmann stopped using them, well, tools don't get to the point in which they were found from not using them. This means they were used OR they hadn't been sharpened post kidnap. The latter implies the state Hauptmann left them in as they existed - then. It's one or the other and you simply cannot have it both ways - unless you believe someone other then Hauptmann was the one sharpening his tools or, in the alternative, someone else sharpened that chisel whether it be Hautpmann's or not. Here is the original inventory of this cigar box made by Kelly and Ruggerio on 9-29-34. It is the earliest on record:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 4, 2006 10:37:23 GMT -5
Michael . thanks for the inventory. Perhaps some sense can be made of it.
I don't know that I am at odds here. I have noted and hopefully emphasized the skill of the sharpener as opposed to Hauptmann's tools. I think you are taking my response to Joe's question a little out of context. His question regarded similarities between the two chisels and I answered accordingly. As for the handle, well those Bucks chisels have a hardwood striking cap on the butt end. Todays plastic handle models have a metal cap. The purpose is the same , to keep the chisel handles end grain from receiving an impact directly. Once you start striking a wooden handle chisel without that cap, and especially with a metal hammer, two things occur. The end grain compresses and mushrooms and the wood fibers separate, aka split. Using a bevel chisel with a hammer is not good practice. It is not as robust as a socket chisel used for mortising. The bevel chisel really intended primarily for hand use. Once those handles become split and mushroomed they are pretty uncomfortable to work with and the control of the blade thus becomes compromised. Since my workbenches are stationary I haven't had a problem with "rolling chisels". As for the shortening of the blade, I would stick to my guns and say it is excessive even for 30yrs. I happen to have a complete set of plastic handled Bucks chisel which I have used for about 25 yrs. I doubt that in that time any of them have had more than 1/8" removed from the original blade length. Since I don't abuse them they only require a light sharpening and hone.
I can't really agree with this conclusion. I am not sure there is enough evidence to say with certainty one way or another. The close up photos I have of both chisels taken at the time show a proper edge on the 1/4" chisel and about the same amount of blade removal. But that is hardly conclusive. I would still ask why Hauptmann or his defense did not produce the Stanley set he claimed to own or his sharpening tools.
|
|
|
Post by leah on Nov 4, 2006 13:45:11 GMT -5
i'm curious about ssomething that i hope someone cqn answer. why would anyone bring a chisel? if it was used to silence the baby(either to knock him out orcrush his skull)why not take something more substantial, like a ball-peen hammer? this was a new house so the window wouldn't stick and the shutter we know wasn't fastened and probably so did the kidnapper. anyway why the chisel?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 4, 2006 14:47:53 GMT -5
It's a good question , Leah. The chisel could be used for a multitude of tasks but is not the tool of choice for any of the tasks I can see relating to the entry and abduction. I mean, sure you could kill a child with it, but then you could use how many other implements to do the same. I know Koehler and others speculated that it was carried in the jacket or pants of the kidnapper and simply fell out, I highly doubt this. That chisel is extremely sharp and carrying it around without some type of sheath would likely cause the kidnapper to suffer an injury one way or another. Personally I think it was carried along in a bag or box and left out as a result of looking for some other implement. It would be easy enough to lose sight of in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2006 12:26:20 GMT -5
This seems to be an important detail and I wonder why the owner gave the answer he did - maybe the skill in which it was sharpened was an over-riding factor in making his observation? There was only 5/8" ground down off of Hauptmann's 1/4" chisel - is this because one would expect the 1/4" to be used less then a 3/4" during the span of 30 years? I recall reading somewhere a possible date difference between the manufacture of these chisels of 10 years. I have been searching but can't find it yet. Do you believe Hauptmann had the ability to have sharpened the 3/4" chisel found at Highfields? This is a tough one. We know Hauptmann claimed this on more then one occasion and Ellis Parker was convinced it was true. So the question becomes were they removed from the garage by the Police or by Hauptmann sometime before the Police swooped in on him? Scaduto's find (mentioned in his book Scapegoat) seems to be an interesting piece of the puzzle. www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=9622012&wauth=scaduto&matches=33&qsort=r&cm_re=worksSo, once again, the irresistible conclusion is the Police found them but hid them away. I do find this to be a possibility because, for example, Schussler went West Trenton to look over the tools confiscated from Hauptmann and picked out a "small awl" and a "six point webbing stretcher" from those tools taken from Hauptmann and claimed they were his. Where are they on the inventory? When & where were they found? However, I also know the Police bought chisels to make comparisons with (like the one found at Highfields). Perhaps what Scaduto found was a Stanley 3/4" the Police purchased for this purpose because of what Hauptmann told them and it wasn't something they found there. Its something that concerns me about the "loose" tools that can now be found at the Archives.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 5, 2006 13:01:14 GMT -5
It is certainly posible, a lot depends on the user and the work. Also a 1/4" chisel blade has that much less blade width to get nicked or damaged enough for grinding. BTW, the chisel I just gave to Mark was the same age, yet I had to use a cut-off saw to remove about 3/4" from the blade tip for a match.
Well here we are right back to the dilemma of the "two Hauptmann's". I have been told Hauptmann was a decent carpenter. If so, sharpening his tools properly is not a problem. Yet I see the blades of his known tools and they tell another story. You know the latest discussion regarding a certain box. Same situation. I am told Hauptmann created something fine. Yet I look at his other creations and see indifference. So how can one answer this question?
The bottom line for me is that Hauptmann is not forthright about anything. If he had those Stanley chisels why not produce them? If we consider that the police may have taken them, do we also assume they took the other missing tools as well? Where are the sharpening tools he testified as to having? Why is he hiding these things? Are they fabrications? Or do they lead to somewhere that he would rather no one go?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2006 19:45:56 GMT -5
By the way I want to thank you again for that donation. Anyone making the trip to the Archives will now have the opportunity to see what the Highfield's chisel looked like!
I agree with your original position you had previously outlined in person. I do not think he 'made' it himself. Maybe he designed it but that's as far as I will go. I am searching for more information on this now. I recalled finding a report that wasn't with the rest of them at the Archives.....
I agree that he didn't tell the truth about a number of things and was damned good at it. I try to measure the things he said against what is said elsewhere. Additionally, the timing of it is important as well. Usually a good liar uses something true in his story as an "anchor" and gets so good at it they almost have themselves convinced.
Well if he did have them and didn't want to produce them then I say why is he telling the Police about them? If his Lawyers decided not to produce them based upon some sort of strategy, then why bring them up again to Ellis Parker when he is fighting for a new trial and/or any other legal method at survival? I personally do not think he is lying about these or his sharpening tools.....so my question is still the same - where were they?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 6, 2006 9:36:36 GMT -5
I would really have to see it to verify.
I would go further, he seems more adept at lying than carpentry
That's my question too. But why can't he provide something useful here if he's not lying again? Where did he buy them and from whom? What about the grinding wheel ( which needs AC power) and the stones? What about the square and the brace? As you have said many times , you can't pick and choose on these things. If there is an insinuation that the police had "removed" the chisels to reinforce his association with the one found at Highfields, why would they also "remove" the brace, square, and perhaps other tools which would reinforce his link to the ladder? Either Hauptmann is fabricating tales again or these items are at another location which is advantageous for him to conceal. It's one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2006 9:51:37 GMT -5
I am not so sure its that easy.... We have Scaduto's discovery to factor in along with Shussler's tool finding at West Trenton as yet another consideration. Again, why isn't the chisel Scaduto found on any inventory or mentioned in any report that exists at the NJSP Archives? Why aren't Shussler's items on any inventory?
Shussler also mentioned that when he needed to borrow tools that he often picked the lock on the garage and did so... The Police didn't ask for specifics only if Hauptmann minded him entering that garage without him being there....to which Shussler answered "no."
So really I think its a tough call to make with so many variables to consider.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Nov 6, 2006 12:17:35 GMT -5
Interestingly, that type of nail is the one object, that in my experimenting, best duplicates the general shape and "cut out" features of the ransom note holes. If I had to bet on anything in this case, it would be that the object used by Hauptmann for this purpose, had similar features to such a finishing nail and that it also involved nothing more than a simple template to locate the position of the holes on the note paper.
The most important consideration within the actual punch process, is that the paper chads, as they are "punched out" from a stack of note paper or even a single sheet, accumulate within the concave head of the nail or punch, thereby keeping them clear of the cutting edge of the punch as it proceeds on through the stack.
I guess I wasn't clear on my point here. Firstly, I believe the ladder was conceived, planned and built well before March 1 and that it may well have been preceded by prototypes or other features.
My thought here was that, in light of Hauptmann's claim that his toolbox was at the Majestic a few days in advance of the day of the crime, any last minute adjustments or replacements, (perhaps Rail 16?) might well have required a different tool or set of tools than he would normally have used.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 6, 2006 14:31:45 GMT -5
Michael~Regarding the tools being discussed: Anything worth considering that Shippel said the police had gotten his tools mixed in with Hauptmann's?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 6, 2006 18:06:55 GMT -5
But how many variables are we talking about? Hauptmann would know of the "borrowed" tools and who was "borrowing" them. Not much mystery there. If Shussler had them, it would be easy enough to find out. If Shussler was familiar with Hauptmann's tools then he would also probably know the type and make. No matter which way you look at it, Hauptmann would either know or have a pretty good idea as to the location of the "missing" tools. He brings up the Stanley set for an obvious reason. Why is he mute on the other tools? Bear in mind also that Hauptmann has a rag tag collection of tools (at least the ones found). There is no doubt in my mind that if he showed up for work or if someone visited his garage, a complete set of Stanley chisels would stand out like a sore thumb. Like I said , this guy is either lying about the tools or lying about the location of them. The real question is why?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2006 6:39:32 GMT -5
Very short on time this morning so I'll make it quick....
We are still in disagreement over this. I totally agree that your two possibilities are sound but I cannot omit what I have posted previously.
Would he? Do you think he is inventorying his tools or more concerned with the stock market and/or ransom money? I believe nearer to the time of his arrest he isn't so concerned about his tools.
Agreed. The implication is they did, however, the Police didn't ask him so how would we ever know? Schussler was giving them answers to their questions they definitely did not want to hear, and I believe they came to the conclusion less was better as far as it concerned him.
This would add tools to the situation and we're trying to find them. It's something to keep in mind but Schippel's tools were taken in '32/'33 so I don't know if the idea of mixing his tools and Hauptmann's seems probable.....
We also have to remember the guy was a nut, and very mad at the NJSP for breaking into his place and stealing his things.
I am glad you brought him up because its important to look at everything. I do believe they found a Buck's Bros. chisel at his place but I will have to check.
|
|
|
Post by Leah on Nov 7, 2006 7:50:51 GMT -5
this isn't a place where i'm comfortable posting because i obviously dont have the knowledge of the rest of you do, but i think once the police found the bill with the car tag numbers on it, everything was over for hauptmann. I dont think anyone in new york or new jersey was advocating for him. it was like lets move this case along and ended it asap, and what ever it takes do it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 7, 2006 8:00:58 GMT -5
Well what exactly are you proposing? Is it that the police selectively inventoried Hauptmann's tools? Or something else? I would probably drop this argument if it weren't so critically important. Those "missing" tools are a vital link to the ladder construction, the location of its construction, and the participant(s) in its construction. I would even go as far as saying they might be the key to solving part of this mystery. I am not sure if the alleged Stanley set is in this group, it seems more like another Hauptmann fish story. Certainly he could have provided elaboration on the set if had actually purchased it.
Well I was told of his continuing woodworking projects, if that's true , yes he would certainly know of his tool situation. He was making trips to his garage piggy bank, so I think he would have taken stock during cash withdrawals. We are talking about some large and obvious tools here as well as ones needed for the use of other tools, the brace and the stones , for example.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 7, 2006 13:53:32 GMT -5
Leah~ Please do feel comfortable posting. I think you have very good view points. Your latest post sums up exactly what I think many believe. I know I do. The lawmen were looking mighty bad during all that time without clue one to the crime against the "great hero". I'd say they were frantic to hang that ladder around someone's neck and by that time anyone's neck.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 7, 2006 16:25:13 GMT -5
Well of course they could have found "anyone" two years prior. I think the facts that this particular "anyone" had ransom money, handwriting similar to the notes, a criminal background, was German, had a plane with a certain pattern of nicks, Pittsburgh nails, and a missing floorboard probably did the trick.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2006 22:14:08 GMT -5
I agree with you (2) options as possibilities but see more to consider besides them. This is based upon the following:
Having Schussler's (2) tools confiscated somehow with Hauptmann's tools (with ownership attributed to Hauptmann) but not being on any inventory leads me to believe this could have happened with other things as well. There's no reason they aren't on an inventory.
Scaduto found a Stanley 3/4" chisel in an envelope marked "found in Hauptmann's garage." Again, I've offered a possible alternative explanation, however admittedly, it doesn't seem the most likely explanation....
Hauptmann's assertion both before and after the trial that he owned the Stanley set. Why didn't the Police follow up on this assertion? Wouldn't you think they would if they weren't in the tools they seized? I agree Hauptmann could have provided more but they don't appear to be asking....
Schussler told Police he sometimes picked the lock and borrowed tools.
For me these items enlist support for an option tools may have been seized but not inventoried - either by negligence or in bad faith OR someone picked the lock and 'borrowed' tools prior to the Police searching after the arrest.
He made the furniture for Manfred. He planed the door in Schussler's apartment. He built the alligator pond. He bought those seats which I assume were meant to be put together. etc. We're talking about a specific period of time prior to his arrest for which these tools may have been borrowed. I do not believe Hauptmann was worried about anything other then the market and the ransom money from the summer of '34 on. I offer it as a possibility only and I do not believe it too far fetched to consider in that light.
These possibilities in no way exclude the others - being that he never had them or that he did but they were in the place the ladder was constructed and remained there until the day he was arrested.
Yes and its why the Police were obviously unhappy with the fact Schussler was telling them Hauptmann told him he to store some personal effects in the garage, that he was entering the garage at will, AND that Hauptmann didn't care he was going in there. Schussler also dispelled the myth about the garage "alarm" which I am quite sure they didn't very much like either.
Surely they might which leads me to question why he brought them up in the first place.
I echo this thought and invite everyone to post their thoughts and ideas. I notice many people read but choose not to post. There's nothing wrong with that but I hope everyone knows that I am certainly not above being wrong and sometimes a simple perspective by looking at something from a different angle is very enlightening.
It's happened more often then you can imagine.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 8, 2006 7:53:54 GMT -5
Something for all of us to keep in mind. You never know, we might actually get somewhere.
Known for his meticulous, detailed approach to investigation, Smit developed a near-legendary reputation over the years in El Paso County as an "evidence man," someone who let the facts lead him where they may instead of letting a theory of the crime determine the course of investigation. His methods helped him crack some of the region's toughest murders. Rockey Mountain News 12/19/2001
I think Michael comes about as close to this as possible.
|
|