|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2008 7:15:21 GMT -5
There has been much discussion about a supposed experiment at Highfields using Kelvin's replica of the kidnap ladder beneath the Nursery window. It's been said this experiment proved what all the NJSP, FBI, US Treasury Agents, Newark PD, Trenton PD, Jersey City PD, Mercer County Pros Detectives, and NYPD couldn't figure out: This ladder could easily have been used in two sections by one person. Those Authorities claimed it was virtually impossible but these new Authorities say otherwise... So were all the Police Officials back in 1932 wrong? Here is a photo of Steve climbing said ladder: The first thing I notice is the ladder Steve is on appears to be higher up the wall then the actual measurements and pictures from the crime scene in 1932. I also question the placement. Additionally, I saw Kelvin's replica in Flemington and have wondered if its an exact replica - I've also been told it has been "re-inforced." [Thanks to Steve Romeo for an awesome X-Mas card and permission to post it]
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Jan 26, 2008 9:25:06 GMT -5
Before this experiment can begin to "prove" anything, some questions must be answered:
Was the ladder placed in mud or on a concrete sidewalk?
Is the ladder placed correctly?
Is the ladder constructed correctly?
What were the weather conditions?
Did anyone in their group actually climb up the ladder and into the window?
Did they try to reach over and open the shutters?
Did they try to open the window from outside?
Was it dark?
Was it windy?
Did anyone who was Hauptmann's weight and build try climbing?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2008 12:12:17 GMT -5
I think it would be a good idea to consider what Kel's experiment was actually designed to prove before this thread starts to run away with itself.
From my understanding, this was an attempt to determine whether or not access to the nursery window could be gained, based on the correct positioning of the lower two sections of a reasonably-duplicate kidnap ladder against the wall.
I do know that Kel had previously determined the exact location of the original "scuff marks" on the wall which were attributed to the top tips of the ladder's second section against the wall. This based on original photographs of those marks, identification of the relief pattern of the adjacent fieldstone and the fact the wall's fieldstone features have remained constant to this day.
In my opinion, I'd go looking for verification of that point of contact and that the existing grade elevation of the source ground is reasonably the same as it was in March 1932, before trying to force a scattering of irrelevant factors into the equation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2008 13:30:08 GMT -5
Help me out here Joe....
Is Kel perfect or can he make mistakes?
Is he completely neutral in all of this or is he, like everyone else, subject to a degree of bias as it relates to certain pieces of evidence he has formulated an opinion on?
Is the ladder placement supposedly where we see it is in the picture of Steve climbing it?
Why is a re-inforced ladder considered an "exact replica" of the kidnap ladder and might that re-inforcement alter any value such an experiment is supposed to bring?
Should the variables Gismo brings up be shrugged off or should they be considered a factor?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Jan 26, 2008 14:29:01 GMT -5
From my understanding, this was an attempt to determine whether or not access to the nursery window could be gained, based on the correct positioning of the lower two sections of a reasonably-duplicate kidnap ladder against the wall. (Joe)
Just putting a ladder up against the side of a house doesn't determine anything. You also need to consider:
Did anyone in their group actually climb up the ladder and into the window?
Did they try to reach over and open the shutters?
Did they try to open the window from outside?
Was it dark?
Was it windy?
Did anyone who was Hauptmann's weight and build try climbing?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2008 14:50:37 GMT -5
What I'm saying Michael, is that it's important to understand the purpose of the experiment. I'm not going to speak for Kel but I'm pretty certain he never intended this to be an exact re-creation of the events of the night of March 1, 1932. The daytime photos bear that out to anyone and suggest at least to me the intent was focussed on a more specific aspect, such as the actual distance of the top of the ladder's second section from the window. And again, I think it's important to determine the objective here before supporting or refuting any of the conclusions that one assumes were drawn.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 26, 2008 15:07:53 GMT -5
The issue of getting into the window is moot. There is no doubt that , one way or another someone could use just about any ladder that gets within a couple of feet to the window and get in. The real question here is whether or not it could be done unaided. Is it possible to get off of that unlocked 2 section ladder with no one to foot it and without it scissoring? How about getting back onto it?Is it possible to do what Giszmo asks and complete the required tasks under those conditions? But the $50000 question ( and I feel the key to what really happened) is who would plan to safely carry away the golden goose in such a manner and with such a device? That's what we should be arguing about. The other stuff is just window dressing (NPI)!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2008 9:05:15 GMT -5
This is what bothers me the most because if this picture is an example of distance its very incorrect. This is not the proper ladder placement. So if the specific aspect is distance this photo cannot possibly represent that. I am also hoping other photos emerge which show this "re-enactment" with the proper placement of the ladder cause this ain't it.
You see you can't look at photo to determine this because some photos show Police altering the placement to see what position of the 2 sections would have worked despite the rail holes. You must do the source material research so you can cross reference the photos to these.
I've always had a problem with reports and/or experiments which fail to replicate the original situation or consider all variables & circumstances - then I have to hear about how they proved something.
The original investigators all claimed something I "hear" the aforementioned experiment supposedly disproved, therefore, proper ladder placement which includes the variable of grade (which was lower back then), the right place instead of what someone thinks is the right placement, and then of course everything Gismo wrote. Take this into consideration with everything you have proven about the ladder, which by the way is not represented due to ignorance and a failure to have a true replica of ladder, then there may be a little value to this occurrence.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 27, 2008 9:41:21 GMT -5
You can not duplicate the placement of the ladder as it was in 1932 without altering the ladder height from it's original specs. That is , unless you care to bring an excavator along to dig down to the 1932 grade. The most, perhaps the only, trouble with the 2 section ladder climb is not the height or placement. It's getting on and off of it while crawling through the window. I have never seen or heard of anyone in all of the official re-enactments who performed this feat without anyone to assist with the ladder. That's a fact. You can climb it, but can you get on and off it without help? Once you get past that joint between the lower and middle sections and the ladder starts bowing it gets real interesting. Anyway, the two section offset position ladder is good for leaving a note.
|
|