|
Post by sue75 on Mar 26, 2008 20:00:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 13, 2008 11:35:06 GMT -5
Has this information ever been confirmed ? (Hauptmann'd prints on ladder).
I still think there is more than meets the eye on the ladder. I am not disregarding at this moment any of the evidence or the assumed match to the attic floor board (rail 16-S226). A puzzle remains to me in leaving the chisel at the scene. Such a thing kept the hoax possibility going for years and perhaps still does. Its just leaving a prop that in no means is difficult to take with is left.
I'm reminded of the event Bornmann and Koehler are in this lumber store and witness TWO men abandoning their purchase in the sight of investigators and take flight. Koehler believes it was Hauptmann and as I understand had no doubt about it. (Gardner's book). I have two questions regarding this and one is perhaps they (the two) were planning a second kidnapping? Second question- doesn't it keep the greatest POSSIBILITY proof of at least two involved and that Hauptmann was not alone in the LK crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 13, 2008 18:41:45 GMT -5
It's been confirmed they weren't on the ladder. I think as people got older they may have misremembered certain facts.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 14, 2008 6:31:04 GMT -5
Interesting thought. I don't think, however, that they would purchase the materials directly. Another, perhaps small thing I would mention. Lumberyards to those of us in the trades are not only a place to purchase materials, they are also the place for information and gossip. That's where you find out what's going on and who is doing what. I guarantee you that all the carpenters in the area were aware of these strange inquiries regarding the wood and the LKC.
The greatest possibility, imho Gary, is stepping on and off that ladder!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 19, 2008 7:14:55 GMT -5
Michael, I don't believe it's ever been positively confirmed that Hauptmann's prints weren't on the ladder. My understanding is that of the several hundreds of prints raised, only about 1% were of sufficient quality to positively identify against the known standards of individuals.
How many of the remaining 99% of partial and obscured prints might have been within the realm of strong inference in the eyes of a specialist who was constrained by procedure not to view them as positives?
I'd certainly like to hear more from Mr. DeMarco.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 19, 2008 18:21:41 GMT -5
Hauptmann's prints did not compare to any of the latent prints found on the ladder once he was found and arrested. It's what caused Dr. Hudson to "defect" to the Defense because Wilentz refused to disclose this information to his Attorneys. Now since this was the 1930's it could be argued that they just didn't have the ability to do so.
And so in 1977, after the claims of HRO and others, the NJSP employed the use of CALSPAN Corporation who used the most advanced system (at the time) in fingerprint identification.
856 prints from the ladder, and the ransom notes were compared to 86 fingerprint cards.
The CALSPAN Fingerprint Detection Reading System (FINDER) read the cards and automatically detected, located, and encodes ridge endings and branches for automatic classifications. Prints of poorer quality which could not be used with the computer were visually examined by their experts.
They "ranked" the prints from #1 marking and diminishes through the next #99 best possibilities out of all the fingerprints submitted for comparison.
(3) fingerprint cards of Bruno Richard Hauptmann were compared for the possibility of a match with the latent impressions. These comparisons met with negative results.
Trooper Bornmann's right middle, ring and little fingers were matched to some of those prints.
I don't think you would. He didn't do any work on the ladder. He did do some silver nitrate work on some of the threatening letters being sent before, and after Hauptmann's execution but I haven't found anything to support his claims. Art Haussler, who claimed Hauptmann's prints weren't on the ladder, definitely did handle the ladder. In fact, anyone employed by the NJSP who handled the ladder prior to CALSPAN's testing had their prints submitted to them for comparison. Haussler's were, but DeMarco's weren't.
A Hunterdon County newspaper article on DeMarco quotes his son Jeff as saying his father "was prone to exaggeration and embellishment about his involvement in the case" and its also interesting to note DeMarco had a severe case of Alzheimer's toward the end of his life.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 19, 2008 21:03:45 GMT -5
I would never expect to find Hauptmann's prints on that ladder. It's components were acquired with that in mind. It was constructed with that in mind. It was left behind with that in mind.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 21, 2008 6:26:01 GMT -5
Michael, how extensively was the chisel checked for prints before it disappeared? Why was it "lost", any ideas?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 21, 2008 15:10:34 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for the information on the 1977 print testing of the ladder. I hadn't realized they'd also rechecked it. Jeff DeMarco also got back to me and echoed your comments on his father's work and nature of some of his claims. Nice when we can put some of these items of question to bed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 21, 2008 17:19:43 GMT -5
According to Kelly's statement he picked up the chisel wearing gloves, brought it into the house, then powdered it for prints without success.
According to the reports, the chisel was handled quite frequently thereafter. There are reports where the Troopers took it from Highfileds and shown to locals as early as March 6th.
Now as to what happened to it this is an interesting question. It's one of the key missing pieces of evidence and I have searched as much as I could to try to locate its last known place and time. It appears it was examined by Lane in 1978 but turns up missing in 1980. My guess is that it exists as someone's souvenir who had the opportunity to grab it sometime before the Official NJSP review was completed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2008 5:50:45 GMT -5
Happy birthday Joe! I think the board is good at doing what you indicate above... That's not to say there still might be something out there which shows something different. Even if we agree, I think, we still have to be aware of this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 22, 2008 6:01:12 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, I didn't realize that the chisel was around that late. I wonder who has it now. Did the police get anywhere with the initials scratched on the handle? Trooper Kelly doesn't seem to have much success with prints.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2008 11:10:03 GMT -5
I am still researching the fingerprint evidence which I think is very important... I think its valuable to know whether or not they found usable prints vs. no prints at all so I have been looking everywhere to see if the terminology was consistent with the facts. I do believe it was, that is, if they say there were "no indication" of "any" prints then there were no prints. However, as it pertains to the chisel, there were indications of prints. There has also been some confusion about exactly where it was found. Here is a statement the NJSP made to the press: Chisel found about 4 feet from the ladder - fingerprints on chisel were smeard beyond identification when chisel found (Major Shoeffel 3-9-32)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 1, 2008 17:52:23 GMT -5
The location given ( about 4' from ladder) is correct. The official survey map shows this as well.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2008 10:32:48 GMT -5
To these eyes, Kelly's crime scene photograph of the south-west corner nursery window appears to show smudges or smears of fingerprints on the glass where you would expect to see them from the action of routinely raising and lowering the window. Kevin, I think you posted this a while ago, can you repost the photo?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2008 18:20:24 GMT -5
Here's the thing, the reports and everything else say "no indication of any prints." This includes what's in the reports and what they told Dr. Hudson. Now if what you see are prints in the photos then I'd wager, if you are correct, the pictures were made after Kelly dusted for prints. That would mean those prints were made by the Troopers opening and closing the windows....just as we would expect when someone opens or closes a window.
I have the picture logs so I'll have to check them and compare those to the reports.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 3, 2008 18:37:39 GMT -5
Here you go;
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2008 19:11:22 GMT -5
Thanks, Kevin. There's definitely something on those lower sash window panes that suggests fingerprints to me. If they are, the question remains, when were they made?
It's a tough scenario any way you look at it. I have some difficulty visualizing troopers coming in and personally handling the crime scene evidence before Kelly's photograph, although I don't rule it out. I think I've previously suggested the possibility of a crime scene botching and ensuing cover up.
Countering this point is the fact that Lindbergh himself had already raised the awareness of fingerprints to the household members, expressly requesting that no one touch the envelope until it had been dusted.
Compounding all of this, I'm still not convinced there were no prints period, as opposed to a lack of usable or identifiable prints. At the same time, I'm open to the possibility the crime scene was somehow generally compromised by investigators' inexperience and lack of attention to detail or that the reports just failed to capture the true picture of evidence.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 3, 2008 19:45:19 GMT -5
Joe, I have no doubt that the entire issue surrounding the fingerprints has been misconstrued. I don't know if Hauptmann actually left any as I am sure it was an issue he was keenly aware of and thus probably wore gloves. However, I am sure that there were prints in that room and it wasn't "wiped clean". Perhaps it was the result of the difficulty of the situation, inexperience, and the surfaces being examined which kept ant discernible latent prints from being found.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2008 7:07:06 GMT -5
According to Kelly's March 16th report, he "immediately conducted a latent print investigation which covered the interior of the baby's nursery including the crib, the windowsill, the window inside and out" after being brought into the Nursery. The report goes on to say that the photographic investigation starts the next day and the photo "sheets" that I have identifying the picture Kevin posted above is indeed dated "3-2-32."
It still leaves room for debate, that is, one's interpretation concerning what "no indication" of prints actually means. What are smears? Well they aren't fingerprints because there are no ridge counts - but they could have been at one time. A smear could be evidence that a print did exist - but don't we already know that?
Maybe we could all agree that if Kelly is able to bring up prints of Charles Jr. later on, he should have been able to raise prints that very night on like surfaces, somewhere, within the crime scene itself. Even if one were to say he found "prints" just not useful one's how is that possible when he's raising them in different places days, weeks, months later? Surfaces are important as is weather and time. For example, I wouldn't expect them to get prints off of the ladder because it was exposed to the weather and it was unfinished wood.... but the different method is what to credit for their discovery.... it wasn't Kelly's fault.
Factor these in considering what Dr. Hudson, Trooper Hausler, and other Troopers were cited as saying and for me the conclusion is an easy one.
BTW Kevin....
I found some more information on that jewel thief Berry. He seems to have been a very popular suspect in the 1940's as having involvement in this crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 9:02:35 GMT -5
Over the years, there has been much misrepresentation about these fingerprints in various material written on the subject --- but frankly I did not bother to refute any of it because the case was long since over, my father had died, and I had no desire to rake up old embers. [Margaret Koehler, Letter, 4-14-86]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 9:20:34 GMT -5
Lastly, Dr. Hudson stated that, although the child's finger-prints had been found on various toys and other articles in the nursery, no prints of any member of the household or of any person whatsoever had been found on the crib or on the glass, the frame or the sill of the window below which the ladder had been placed-and this despite the fact that it was shown by testimony that two members of the household had opened and closed and tried unsuccessfully to lock this same window during the early part of the night of the kidnapping. [Esquire Magazine, "Master Finger-Printer", 1-36, p69]
|
|