|
Post by Michael on Jan 5, 2008 18:05:43 GMT -5
Here's a neat letter which reflects Koehler's opinion concerning Waller's book... Dear Mr. Baron,
Thank you very much for your letter of August 11th and the two copies of the book "Kidnap" by George Waller which you so kindly sent me. The book is so interestingly written that my wife and I find it difficult to put it down when we are reading it.
As one who knows considerable of the inside story of what took place, I find that the book gives an excellent account of that case. The author must have done a great deal of research on the subject. Mr. Waller has done a great service to the public in covering the case in one book for the first time. Please pass on to Mr. Waller my congratulations for such an outstanding piece of work. Very sincerely yours,
Arthur Koehler [Letter from Koehler to Richard W. Baron - The Dial Press - 8-27-61]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2008 9:02:31 GMT -5
Koehler on Hauptmann (excerpts): Then again, Hauptmann's carelessness in his work didn't help his case any. "Hauptmann was a poor carpenter," the Yale wood expert says. "If he had been more skillful in his woodworking, he might have been acquitted." In sawing out a piece from his attic floor to make the kidnap ladder, Hauptmann did a clumsy job (to say nothing about poor judgment in taking a piece from the attic in the first place.)
++++
And finally, if Hauptmann had been a good carpenter, he would have sharpened the blade of his plane. Koehler examined Hauptmann's plane at time of his arrest in September, 1934. The kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby occurred in March, 1932. But more than two and one half years later, Hauptmann's plane still had the tiny nicks that left their all-important marks in the ladder. A good carpenter would have sharpened his plane many times in that period and thus eliminated such nicks. But Koehler offers this possible explanation: "Hauptmann had become well-off because of the ransom money, and undoubtedly did not pay much attention to his tools." [Yale University News Bureau - March 28, 1952]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 6, 2008 10:35:09 GMT -5
That could work the other way as well. If I were building a ladder to commit a crime I doubt I would build it expertly as I would not want to leave such a huge clue to my occupation and identity. Koehler also is ignoring the very real fact that carpentry encompasses a wide variety of specialties. This can be seen even today. It is common to find a carpenter who may be highly skilled in , say rough framing and at the same time has little experience with finish work. In any case, Koehler misses the most important point completely when he emphasizes Hauptmann's craftsmanship. It's not the quality of workmanship that matters one iota, it's the knowledge, or rather lack of, basic structure and material strength that is of primary importance with this ladder and the design abilities of it's creator. So in a funny way, Koehler does what he accuses Hauptmann of. If Koehler were more knowledgeable regarding the design and structural aspects of wood construction his reports would have contained more information regarding these issues, information which could have been of great value.
As for the plane blade sharpening, that's just Plane conjecture by AK. (sorry couldn't resist) You can't make such a deduction without a thorough understanding of the situation and circumstances. If Hauptmann was not actively working as a carpenter he may not have had any need for that particular plane and so it sat unused.
So are we both crawling back into the woodwork? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2008 15:31:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2009 9:32:50 GMT -5
So Kevin, how do we reconcile the Razor Sharp chisel with the dull plane? Obviously the plane wasn't razor sharp at the time if Koehler was right. We also know that Hauptmann did have some projects after March 1st.
The other things is this....
Did he run over a nail while making the ladder with this plane? If not, why did this nick remain if it had been done previously? In other words, why would Hauptmann use this plane if it was in such bad shape?
Going back Koehler's 3-4-33 report for a minute. Notice his documenting the size of the dowel holes in the ladder rail. Koehler's documentation records these holes were 7/8". However, on 11-15-34 he "rechecks" these holes and (oops), he "discovers" his previous assertions were in error. On this date he records they are 3/4".
I suppose my question is this: how did he get it wrong in '33 and how does he get it right in '34? What did he do differently?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 22, 2009 13:53:42 GMT -5
A little redirection? ;D Ok
I'm not sure that's necessary. It's quite common to find a tradesman with tools that are both good and bad, sharp and dull. It's a matter of personal habit I guess. Usually all of mine are sharp , but those that stay in the cabinet shop are always sharper and better.
It could be due to the same reason as stated in the first reply. I don't know what Hauptmann's work habits were like. I have never seen any type of proper sharpening tools listed among his possessions, so I don't even know if he ever sharpened anything himself. In fact I wonder at times just how much time he spent as a carpenter given that his tools were not reflective of a man engaged in this occupation for any length of time. Since it seems that everyone wants to focus on everyone but Hauptmann, I guess we will never know for sure. As for the nick, it could have been caused by a nail or metal object, but it's just as likely that one of those hard knots in the yellow pine made the nick. In fact, I believe a tool mark examiner could possibly determine at what point this occurred during the course of the ladder construction.
I'm not sure he did or if it was a simple typo. Bear in mind that the ladder is constructed from softwoods. The hardest wood in that ladder are the dowels and yellow pine rail 16. it doesn't take much for that wood to be damaged and given the repeated examinations and such those holes could have become enlarged. In any case the dowels always fit. I might as well add this; because the ladder is primarily made from softwood any hard contact such as an abrupt hit against a stone wall would definitely leave a pronounce mark. That's just but one reason why we can scrap the idea of the ladder breaking while against the house.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2009 15:13:01 GMT -5
Koehler kept copies of his reports and made notes on them which he always noted the dates of his changes. This is for your reference to see when he made the changes to his reports. This way you don't have to take my word for it but can actually see where he did this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2009 15:16:45 GMT -5
Ok, for clarity's sake - when/where do you believe it broke and for what reason?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 22, 2009 18:49:54 GMT -5
I would say it probably suffered the break in a hasty disposal. The important point is that it didn't happen during a climb. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. No damage to the soft ladder, no damage to the house or shutters, no great deformation of the earth and ladder imprints, and no evidence of wood splinters at the house location all add up to one inescapable conclusion, the ladder did not break while being used. Therefore the damage must have occurred after it had been used to complete it's task.
BTW, I always trust what you say. As for Koehler's correction, just look at the photos of that ladder taken the next morning and then look at it a year later, quite a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2009 7:02:01 GMT -5
The only note I saw about the house were "scratches" on the white wash corresponding with the ladder (there may have been a mark on the shutter but I'll have to check). I think from what you are saying this is only an indication the ladder was there and not that it broke there?
Thanks Kevin. I guess my intent was to simply back it up. There's so much BS and/or faulty logic out there that I think its nice to be able to show what I am saying is actually based upon the truth and cold steel. It's nice to say "Koehler changed his mind" and then show his very own handwriting to prove it. Go to the other site and you have Allen basing his position on a conversation he made up in his head, or a newspaper article he says is a Police Report, or Fisher's book (novel).
I have no doubt this ladder changed, however slight or not, over the period of investigation. They mailed the sections of the ladder to Koehler during this time to Wisconsin. Back and forth on the train sometimes breaking thru the paper and crashing around the car. But in April of '33 he makes this very detailed examination and I just can't understand how in November of '34 the dowel holes got smaller AND how he messed up these measurements each and every time in '33. I can't find an explanation for this (and he was good for that).
Could it be because of "shrinkage?" Could it be because of Hauptmann's tools?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 23, 2009 15:58:04 GMT -5
Sure, there should be transfer marks and there were. However, any indication of an impact was not present. That soft wood of the ladder rail would certainly show signs of such an impact.
I don't think it's possible to explain the discrepancy in the hole measurement by Koehler, too many possibilities. It could have been a simple error on his part or a possible change in the hole from being compressed by the dowel many times. Like I said, it's softwood and does not take to repeated use and abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2009 16:37:45 GMT -5
I post this document to exemplify my point about how complete, thorough, intense, and attention to detail Koehler was during this time. It's why I have such a hard time that outside of his lab, and immediately after certain things about Hauptmann comes to light - that Koehler sees many things he got wrong or over-looked. Know what I mean? By the way Kevin (or anyone else), do you have any idea what may have made these marks? *I will be posting something shortly in our "Members Only" Section that I believe is in high demand among LK Researchers. Stay tuned.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 26, 2009 17:26:52 GMT -5
Do you mean that he missed or was mistaken about some things prior to Hauptmann's discovery or are you suggesting something more insidious?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2009 17:44:03 GMT -5
Let's put it this way.... Anything Koehler documents before Hauptmann is in the picture holds a hell of a lot more weight with me then after. Even before Hauptmann he made mistakes but for the purposes of this post I won't go into that.... But after Hauptmann's arrest in Sept. '34, I don't see him opposed to changing things in order for them to better fit him. For examples, he does this with the planer and board tracing. Before Hauptmann he concludes the board did not come from the shipment he later testifies to that it did. He also engages in this nonsense when he knew it wasn't the true situation: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=318Then he later has the nerve to actually accuse people of being irresponsible to questioning the ladder evidence. Still curious if you have a guess at what might have made the cuts in the document I posted above...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 26, 2009 19:41:35 GMT -5
Handsaw blade
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2009 18:00:31 GMT -5
Ok, so what's the purpose of that?
BTW - the document I promised is now in the Member's Only Section...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 28, 2009 7:44:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't assume there was any purpose. It could have been accidental or it might have been done to clear wood from the gullets between the teeth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2009 6:06:32 GMT -5
Peeling Back the Bark CSI Madison, Wisconsin: Wooden Witness March 31, 2009 by Amanda T. Ross fhsarchives.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/csi-madison-wisconsin-wooden-witness/I love a good debate. Don't you? Unfortunately, some people are still stuck in the negative adjectives mode in attempts to fend off research and "calling it as you see it." If you don't agree with them, both fully and completely, then you are a "revisionist." Never mind the legitimate points. Never mind the research. Just nod your head and accept something that isn't correct as a matter of fact. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=320Like I wrote on that blog.... Koehler did testify to things he knew wasn't the true situation. He did make mistakes. If you buy into everything Keraga has ever written then this supports that too. But you'd have to choose a side - how's that possible I wonder? You simply pretend Koehler "missed" something in his lab that Keraga "found" while working on the Researcher's table in the Archives - 70+ years later. It took Kevin about 5 minutes to find something very important that Keraga either missed himself or simply "forgot" to mention. Pick your poison I guess. The bottom line is this: Gather, and research. Call it as you see it for each and every point. For example, if I "like" a certain character I simply won't pretend they didn't do something negative - if they did. I like Lewis. But selling those pictures was wrong. If I were like those on the other bored I would point at that and say nothing he did matters all the while embracing Kelly and everything to do with him - even though he gave the pictures to Lewis with the specific intent to sell them in the first place. While the term hypocrisy is often over-used, I do think there are proper places to use it. Here is one of them. It's like a control to your terms of research, that is, if you can do it in one place then you MUST do it elsewhere. When Koehler testified to something he knew wasn't true, we shouldn't shrug it off or make it sound as though its only "Revisionist Talk" if its the truth. Deal with it. For me, its a Revisionist who says Hauptmann went into his attic and removed that board. From both Kevin and Rab we can probably say with more certainty then any other theory that board came out of the basement. Does it make a difference? Try telling that to those calling people names about not towing the party line and watch the sparks fly. The purpose of the research and the discussion is the TRUTH. What we find needs to be discussed AND let the chips fall where they may. My hats off to both Kevin and Rab for coming to the table with certain ideas but having the ability to change their positions as the evidence spoke to them. Most people have a really hard time doing that, myself included, but we must if the solution is to ever be realized. Kevin and Rab's theory is major proof that its possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2009 18:30:14 GMT -5
Now that I have a little more time let's take a closer look at what was posted on Ms. Ross's fhaarchives site shall we? I posted only two of the many examples where Koehler wasn't sincere. In fact, he was quite dishonest concerning what he did at the trial. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=319For me, they are conclusive based upon the evidence. Another thing I want to mention is that I have "worked" with many Experts when researching this case. One is Kevin - a Master Carpenter. We have examined the ladder together, S-226, Rail 16, and we have examined reports together. Yet, we have both agreed and disagreed about various things. Now if I write a report which asserts my views but not all of Kevin's, should I then say I worked with him without sharing the parts he disagreed with? How about I fail to mention that we disagreed about anything? Think about that for a minute. Enter Keraga's brief post fhaarchives site. Let's see what he has to say: Well yes, he did look at the "wood evidence" but only some of it. I would think before formulating a report you would examine it ALL. Isn't that funny? It just so happens there is much within his report which exposes the fact Keraga's was written without examining much of the reports associated with the wood evidence. In fact, much to my amazement, I had to give Keraga Supplemental Reports on that ladder written by Koehler which Keraga admitted he had never seen before (at one of his presentations in Flemington). Working with a number of wood experts... So that means they were all with him at the Archives right? No. They all at least examined the ladder? No. The wood? No. Any Tool Mark Examiners among these Experts? No. Did all of these Experts agree with all of the information in the this report? No. Did all say they would testify to all of its contents in Court? No - quite the contrary. Gee, aren't these little tid-bits of information important when saying he was " working with a number of wood experts?" We just don't see any of these above points mentioned in his post. This perfectly exemplifies my position concerning the research. Why? You see, we are handcuffed and held hostage by what Keraga chooses to share and/or chooses to omit. One of those Experts disagree with an important assertion? Ok...simply leave that part out but still say you "worked" with Experts. Sorry, this (to me) implies something it shouldn't. What should be done by anyone in this case, and this is me talking, is that ALL information is layed out, both for and against, and let the READER decide after having been properly informed. Don't choose what they should consider and not consider - for them. People are smart enough to make up their own minds. Here is the report. Anyone who wants to know what I don't agree with, or what anyone else does or does not for that matter may simply ask. I won't resort to name calling. I will simply refer to the source material or certain facts I developed from doing my research at the NJSP Archives or elsewhere. www.forensicfiles.com/pdf/KeragaRpt.pdf Of course the facts I pointed out now qualify me for this label. I mean I just maligned him. It's a problem (obviously) that's best dealt with by name-calling. Let's get to the heart of the matter... Does he contradict these two items? Does he present evidence to show where I am incorrect? Does he dispute these issues? No. He evades them then resorts to name calling with negative "buzz-word" tactics often employed by his Granfalloon. Why on earth would he do that? I mean, if what I assert is correct its damn awful isn't it? To say the boards didn't come from the same lot in '33 then turn around and say, under oath, he actually determined they did - in '33 - is pretty underhanded is it not? I point out facts which don't make someone look good, and will always do so in order for people to make an informed decision about events. I don't shrug things off. I won't ignore things. If you disagree with something come to the table with facts, and let the chips fall where they may. Name calling doesn't erase the truth.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 5, 2009 8:55:22 GMT -5
I sill have to give AK a lot of credit, he stepped up to he plate when others were going in circles. Problem is that once he got past the wood species identification aspects of the ladder he moved into what is essentially forensic tool mark identification. That was not his area of expertise. Still it's pretty much a common sense process. But it does have it's limitations. When employed in the process of detection I don't see a problem. However, when applied to the process of legal prosecution, that's another story. There are all sorts of variables that must be accounted for and presented in a manner that accurately describes the probabilities. To what degree Koehler was pressured to by the prosecution to present certain evidence with a 100% certainty, I know not. Nor do I know if he simply "corrected" some previous findings once Hauptmann was apprehended due to hindsight or external pressure. I think the legal system is one of check and bounds and theoretically it should be commensurate for the defense as well as the prosecution to challenge all testimony. Clearly this was not done in this case to the degree which a capitol punishment case would require.
I agree 100% with the name tagging employed in this case on both sides. It's stupid, non-productive, and only causes more polarization. But then I suspect for some the case has little to do with the actual crime and more to do with personal beliefs. What else could explain the constant negating of facts and pounding that square peg into the little round hole.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2009 7:40:51 GMT -5
While I do believe Koehler deserves credit as probably the first of his kind, I think the pit-fall of this title is to accept all of his findings and ignore his evils after Hauptmann was arrested.
For example, if his reports in '33 say he concluded one thing but he testifies that he concluded something different in '33 that's something I can't chalk up as a "correction." He could have testified to that correction but that isn't what happened.
Or to pretend, on the stand under oath, that tools found in an exhibit actually were in the exhibit when found, when they weren't, and tools that weren't actually were - can't be any type of "correction" when the reports prove what the real situations were AND that they were delievered to Koehler himself.
There's no way around these things and believe me when I tell you that I always try to look for alternatives.
Next, I've done some tedious research and discovered places where Koehler "blew off" certain Experts who evaluated the planer marks and disagreed with him even before Hauptmann.
And finally, during a wood identification contest at a Fair, while Koehler wasn't an "official" participant, he didn't score as high as the Fellow who won the contest.
See my points?
There are dents in the Armor and they need to not only be acknowledged - they need to be considered and addressed.
The name calling is a bad thing. For me, when I see someone skip details or facts and go straight for the names it means they are desperate and/or don't have an answer.
Now, I have in and probably will get insulting. I also fire out a few names here or there in addition to the facts and citations I offer. But I feel like those names are true. For example, if Allen invents a conversation that never took place, posts that conversation, then later uses it to back up something else then I think he's crazy. I don't know what else to say. If he posts newspaper reports and claims they are Police Reports then I call him underhanded.
Honestly, I don't know what else to label this type of conduct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 15:31:48 GMT -5
Michael,
When Koehler and Bornmann finally landed at National Lumber in the Bronx and Koehler at first thought he found where some of the ladder wood had come from, I have read that all the customers of National Lumber were investigated and cleared by the police. I thought that National was a cash and carry business and didn't have records of their customers because of that. Can you comment on whether such an investigation actually took place?
National would send someone around to Hauptmann's home when a job would come up they thought he would be interested in. Why didn"t Koehler and Bornmann ask the management of National Lumber for the names and addresses of all the carpenters they used when jobs would come in needing a skilled worker? Weren't Koehler and Bornmann looking for a carpenter who bought lumber from that mill? Why not check out the names of the carpenters who did work for National, especially in early 1932?
I believe that Hauptmann made a wood purchase from National Lumber in December of 1931. Was this for the lumber he used to build the wood cabinet for Fredericksen's Bakery? I remember Anna saying he built such an item.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2015 17:51:00 GMT -5
When Koehler and Bornmann finally landed at National Lumber in the Bronx and Koehler at first thought he found where some of the ladder wood had come from, I have read that all the customers of National Lumber were investigated and cleared by the police. I thought that National was a cash and carry business and didn't have records of their customers because of that. Can you comment on whether such an investigation actually took place? That doesn't sound right. Can you give me your source for this so I have a "jumping off point" ? National would send someone around to Hauptmann's home when a job would come up they thought he would be interested in. Why didn"t Koehler and Bornmann ask the management of National Lumber for the names and addresses of all the carpenters they used when jobs would come in needing a skilled worker? Weren't Koehler and Bornmann looking for a carpenter who bought lumber from that mill? Why not check out the names of the carpenters who did work for National, especially in early 1932? They definitely investigated those who worked at the yard, but Hauptmann was more of a guy they threw side jobs to and not an Employee. That was how his name didn't come up. I believe that Hauptmann made a wood purchase from National Lumber in December of 1931. Was this for the lumber he used to build the wood cabinet for Fredericksen's Bakery? I remember Anna saying he built such an item. Hauptmann bought lumber from National for the garage. I also believe he bought material from National for the display stands both he and Kloppenberg built then sold for a profit. I'd have to research to be absolutely positive but I know it came from a Webster Ave. location. I also believe when he worked on a Sash job he purchased the material - this might have come from National too. I don't think the Federickson jobs could be traced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:58:43 GMT -5
When Koehler and Bornmann finally landed at National Lumber in the Bronx and Koehler at first thought he found where some of the ladder wood had come from, I have read that all the customers of National Lumber were investigated and cleared by the police. I thought that National was a cash and carry business and didn't have records of their customers because of that. Can you comment on whether such an investigation actually took place? That doesn't sound right. Can you give me your source for this so I have a "jumping off point" ? My source for this is Scaduto's book on page 171. He quotes a portion of Whipple's book which says the police thoroughly investigated the customers and one by one eliminated them from the case. I don't have Whipple's book to check what source he used when he wrote this. If you have his book, could you check it and then post about it? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2015 17:32:01 GMT -5
He quotes a portion of Whipple's book which says the police thoroughly investigated the customers and one by one eliminated them from the case. I don't have Whipple's book to check what source he used when he wrote this. If you have his book, could you check it and then post about it? Thanks. This is on pages 163-4 in Whipple. Everything he writes here is what the Authorities would like everyone to believe but it's not true. When Koehler attempted to trace the origins of Rails 12 & 13 he believed he found the source of them as coming from the Mill at the J. J. Dorn Company in McCormick, S.C.. From there he looked to see what shipments could have been made in his search area containing lumber with those same defects. He investigated every yard that qualified within the realm of his investigation - this included National. Once at National he believed he found the same defects on a board in the lumber bin - which lasted for about 10 seconds time before seeing there was another defect present that wasn't on the both 12 & 13 meaning, according to Koehler's own Report, that the Ladder Rails had been dressed earlier and therefore, the piece he found at National came from a later shipment. This meant to him the shipment containing the wood for these Rails must have gone to a different yard on an earlier shipment. So this idea that they were searching for someone who bought lumber for Rails that did not come from that yard doesn't make any sense. Koehler only announced they matched in Flemington after they could tie Hauptmann to that yard. So no investigation looking for someone who potentially bought these Rails ever occurred. It's a story line meant to support a finding that never happened. What did happened was that the Owners and Employees at National were given a clean bill of health by Lt. Keaten who said they were investigated but nothing suspicious could be attached to any of them. So what Whipple is writing is probably coming from what he heard in Court or from some Police source, and unless he had the source documentation (like I do) I can see why he'd go with that information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 8:56:41 GMT -5
He investigated every yard that qualified within the realm of his investigation - this included National. Once at National he believed he found the same defects on a board in the lumber bin - which lasted for about 10 seconds time before seeing there was another defect present that wasn't on the both 12 & 13 meaning, according to Koehler's own Report, that the Ladder Rails had been dressed earlier and therefore, the piece he found at National came from a later shipment. This meant to him the shipment containing the wood for these Rails must have gone to a different yard on an earlier shipment. I see what you are saying here. When I first read about this "match up" in Adam Schrager's book, The Sixteenth Rail on pages 118 and 120, I was mentally questioning what was going on with this discovery. He talks about a planning mark that Koehler notices on the National piece that he never noticed that existed on the ladder rail because of the staining by the silver nitrate used for fingerprinting. When examining the ladder sample piece he carried with him back at the hotel room, he now "sees" this defect on the ladder piece. Huh??!! Seriously, after how long at looking at this ladder wood and inspecting it with all his latest equipment and lighting conditions, he now sees this defect in a hotel room? Schrager also mentions that the ladder lumber must have come from the earlier part of the shipment that came into National and the National Lumber sample came in a later part of the shipment to National. Sounds like two different shipments to me, yet we are getting a match between these two pieces of lumber??? I am still shaking my head over the fact that Koehler was carrying around a piece of the kidnap ladder. The ladder is evidence and should have been kept intact in a secure manor, not in pieces. The National Lumber sample that was cut from the bin should have been brought back to a lab and examined against the kidnap ladder.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 14, 2015 13:55:05 GMT -5
He investigated every yard that qualified within the realm of his investigation - this included National. Once at National he believed he found the same defects on a board in the lumber bin - which lasted for about 10 seconds time before seeing there was another defect present that wasn't on the both 12 & 13 meaning, according to Koehler's own Report, that the Ladder Rails had been dressed earlier and therefore, the piece he found at National came from a later shipment. This meant to him the shipment containing the wood for these Rails must have gone to a different yard on an earlier shipment. I see what you are saying here. When I first read about this "match up" in Adam Schrager's book, The Sixteenth Rail on pages 118 and 120, I was mentally questioning what was going on with this discovery. He talks about a planning mark that Koehler notices on the National piece that he never noticed that existed on the ladder rail because of the staining by the silver nitrate used for fingerprinting. When examining the ladder sample piece he carried with him back at the hotel room, he now "sees" this defect on the ladder piece. Huh??!! Seriously, after how long at looking at this ladder wood and inspecting it with all his latest equipment and lighting conditions, he now sees this defect in a hotel room? Schrager also mentions that the ladder lumber must have come from the earlier part of the shipment that came into National and the National Lumber sample came in a later part of the shipment to National. Sounds like two different shipments to me, yet we are getting a match between these two pieces of lumber??? I am still shaking my head over the fact that Koehler was carrying around a piece of the kidnap ladder. The ladder is evidence and should have been kept intact in a secure manor, not in pieces. The National Lumber sample that was cut from the bin should have been brought back to a lab and examined against the kidnap ladder. The kidnap ladder should have never been admitted into evidence for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the fact there is no clear chain of custody.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2015 16:41:22 GMT -5
I see what you are saying here. When I first read about this "match up" in Adam Schrager's book, The Sixteenth Rail on pages 118 and 120, I was mentally questioning what was going on with this discovery. He talks about a planning mark that Koehler notices on the National piece that he never noticed that existed on the ladder rail because of the staining by the silver nitrate used for fingerprinting. I disagree with what Adam wrote concerning Koehler's tracing of Rails 12 & 13. He had access to family letters I've never read so I am operating from a position of ignorance concerning what they contain. However, since he doesn't seem to date them in this section then I am thinking they are coming from a much later time then at the time of his National visit with Bornmann. That's because of what's in those reports from that visit which was in November 29, 1933, and he is clear they are no match. Adam makes it sound as though Koehler believed at the time he found the samples that's where the lumber for those rails landed. In fact, later letters show without a shadow of a doubt he's still searching for the source. On May 26, 1934 he's trying to determine whether or not the lumber could have actually gone to Ozone Park. Why would he do this if he's already traced them to the Bronx? I've got the letter to J. J. Dorn which proves this. Ozone Park is in Queens, and this is 6 months after his visit to National. He writes a letter to Captain Lamb in Mid-June 1934 where he is still kicking this idea around and it shows he still doesn't know. So this testimony in Flemington that he traced those Rails to National in 1933 is a complete lie. The kidnap ladder should have never been admitted into evidence for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the fact there is no clear chain of custody. I agree. They were disassembling it and sending it piece by piece in a train to Koehler. During one shipment the parts broke out of the box and were rolling around the car by the time they arrived in Madison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2015 16:42:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2015 18:55:20 GMT -5
Is it possible that Koehler had private doubts about Hauptmann's guilt even though his testimony helped to convict him? From the research I've done it's clear to me that Koehler always believed Hauptmann was involved. However - not unlike everyone else - he also believed there was more then one person in on the crime as well.
|
|