kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 12:53:14 GMT -5
Did anyone compare the hole alignments in all the letters? It seems to me that at least the last note and perhaps 9 and 10 ( I can't tell) do not align with the previous ones. Was this note written elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2006 14:04:12 GMT -5
While the spacing of the holes is the exact same distance from one another in every note, there is evidence that several notes were punched at the same time. Rab was the first to point this out to me by showing where the shapes of the holes seem to be in the same place for a series of notes and then in a different place in the next "series."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 14:24:29 GMT -5
You are sure the spacing on #11 is the same? I come up with a different alignment ( could be my copy).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2006 15:29:56 GMT -5
I never personally checked although I watch Mark place many notes with the holes in them over the holes in the table and they all matched up. Now I am reasonably certain Note #11 was among those but to be absoluely sure we'd have to verify this and check with Mark.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 15:52:07 GMT -5
That could be, as I said I am working from a copy though it seems in scale. I have never been completely satisfied ( what about this case ever provides this?) with the explanation about how these signs were made. I am not saying it couldn't be done with the ink bottle and cork. It just seems that there might be more ( or less) to it, at least to me. I have wondered whether these signatures had to be done in one place or if there was a portability so to say. I have learned not to underestimate his draftsmanship.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 18, 2006 20:42:32 GMT -5
Hint #1: look at the symbol on the nursery note, does it look like all the rest?
Hint#2: look at the right hole in notes 2,3,4; does it look like it was punched w/ 3 leaf clover?
Hint #3: look at page following 161 in Scapegoat by Scaduto
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 23:59:05 GMT -5
Yes
No
?
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Feb 19, 2006 4:10:05 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Osborne snr testified that each page had the holes made separately)ie independent of other pages). He said that the holes varied in shape and size, although he suggested they were made with a nail. He also said that the last two notes with holes positions were slightly different, with the holes fractionally closer to the bottom edge. The spacing of the holes remained the same in all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2006 9:57:52 GMT -5
pzb63 is correct. It's confusing I know.... I verified with Mark what I said above so now I am not assuming when I say its true. Let me try to better explain this so it can be understood. Maybe I'm not the right guy to do this but here it goes..... There was an original determination made by Dr. Souder that these holes weren't made by a "3-hole" punch. He eliminated the thought the notes were placed in a tool which would punch these notes with (3) simultaneous holes being made. He determined the paper was laid on top of an item with pre-existing holes and something was used to pierce the holes in the paper through them one at a time. The idea of a "nail" has surfaced in many theories. Osborn's observation as to the holes varying in "shapes and sizes" is correct. From personal observation, as pointed out to me by Rab, it seems they used (3) separate items to pierce the paper. I say this because at least one item looks like a "clover" and that it changes its position in the symbol in a certain number of notes in succession of one another. So I see this as evidence that Dr. Souder was correct, some notes were punched at different times, and the items used to punch the holes were kept, in my opinion, for that purpose. Osborn is also correct that the symbol and the holes in it, are closer to the edge of those last notes, however, the holes still maintain their spacing relationship to one another. To me this means these notes were higher up on the template for one reason or another before being punched. And yes, I am convinced the template is the table piece which Mark "re-discovered" at the NJSP Archives. members.aol.com/mmel71/images/brace1.jpg
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 10:16:24 GMT -5
"And yes, I am convinced the template is the table piece which Mark "re-discovered" at the NJSP Archives"
Why? ( if that is not too badgerish or doggish to ask)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2006 11:10:39 GMT -5
It's a good question to ask, and I respond what's the alternative?
From the research I have found, it is apparent the Police were looking for anything that could have created this symbol. Even with Dr. Souder's observations in hand they couldn't find anything.
Once Hauptmann is arrested, believe it or not - the "wood" search is secondary to finding ransom money and something which was used to create the ransom notes.
Then long after Hauptmann's execution you have this table piece discovered. No one bothered to do a proper investigation, and it was quickly dismissed as a "hoax," filed away, and forgotten. Once re-discovered, Mark got the idea to check the holes against the notes. Once checked, Mark discovered the holes match up perfectly with the holes in the notes. Mark took out the original notes (in protective sleeves of course) and placed everyone of them on top of each other and over the holes in that table with source lighting underneath. It revealed a perfect match, and I witnessed him do this on at least two occasions.
It's not like a Rail 16 match either. That is, we know both the holes in the symbol and the holes in the table both existed independent of one another. In the case of Rail 16 we have controversy concerning the holes in Rail 16 and no one knows for certain if the joist had those holes there before the Police took over.
You see my point?
Try it at home. Just try to find a pre-existing item anywhere that would match up these holes in the notes perfectly. I would put money on it that in 10 years time you won't.
Next you look at the confession and find that it does not mention the holes in the table. So if this is a "hoax" the "Hoaxer" didn't know these holes matched, or, they didn't think it had to be pointed out - to those in the know - which would mean they were too. If someone went to all the trouble to find something that matched those holes then wouldn't it be something you would want to point out in order to legitimize your hoax?
We also must consider these holes and their distances weren't public in the first place aside from scaled down versions in Haring's book. We know this book wasn't popular and didn't sell many copies. In fact, we are the beneficiaries of this because some of his left-overs are being sold on ebay to this day. So if this is a hoax then this person happen to be among the very few who bought the book, scaled up the photos, and actually found something with pre-existing holes in it that matched these holes in the notes - exactly.
No way Jose.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2006 12:05:45 GMT -5
Michael, I do support to a degree the possibility the holes were spaced to the distances in the Mersman table brace, but do not believe this was the actual template for the physical punching of the holes. I also find Dr. Souder's explanation that the holes were made by placing the ransom notes over a pre-drilled template implausible for one main reason.
They could not have been made in this way because the object used to perforate the paper no matter what it's shape, would deform the paper first or would push the paper aside as it went through. In any case, this process would not have left the relatively clean "cut outs" that we see in the ransom note holes. I believe the ransom note holes were made one at a time through a stack of notes and by using a simple object as a punch with high momentary impact behind it, such as a hammer. The process would also require a suitable material like a piece of softwood beneath the paper, to provide the necessary support and means of receiving the paper chads cut out from the process. As far as I'm concerned the actual template to reproduce the hole placement would require nothing more complicated than a piece of stiff cardboard with pre-arranged holes that lined up at the bottom right hand corner of the ransom notes.
I have reproduced this effect a dozen or so times over the past three years and achieved holes which are consistent with the effect seen in the ransom notes.
Kevin, as you work with wood, can I ask a favor and have you try to confirm this concept I'm referring to? I'd really appreciate another opinion on this:
Find a small finishing nail (about 2-3" length) with a nice concaved head. Place a small stack of writing or even plain paper (you can fold one sheet 3 times over) over a piece of soft pine. Now invert the nail, holding it's head firmly against the paper with one hand and carefully punch the pointed end of the nail with the hammer. You may need to repeat this a few times to get the hang of it. Careful, I've hit my own nail a few times!
I find the effect is startlingly reminiscent of the ransom note holes and to me reinforces the belief that the holes had to have been punched in at least a similar manner. The key here I believe that dispels the Mersman brace as the template is that it's not humanly possible to punch out a hole into thin air without some support beneath and means of "collecting" the paper cut outs as the punch passes through the stack.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2006 12:49:51 GMT -5
Mark did a similar experiment but his results seem to be different then yours. I assume there are differing variables to consider such as how the paper is on the template. I would think if its tight then there's less chance of it doing as what's happened to you. However, I have only seen the paper Mark punched out, and I haven't performed any tests of my own. I would suggest you and Mark possibly get together via phone, internet, etc. to compare notes on this subject since you are the only two that I know of who have performed an experiment of this nature. Now if you agree they were spaced based upon the brace - then my question to you is whether or not you believe the confession was written by someone involved or not....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 13:47:46 GMT -5
This is how you get somewhere for anyone interested in that pursuit. Here we have two highly intelligent people with opposing views trying to find the truth.
I have to admit I fall in between on this one. On one hand it seems remarkable that the holes line up on the Mersman and yet it seems so out of context. On the other hand Joe's point is well taken and the aspect of the "clean" holes left is important. Perhaps a microscope would help to determine the paper tears. Another factor would be the relative commonality of the hole spacing. By this I mean how often might you expect that hole spacing to be found If the Mersman table utilized industrial production methods and machinery for it's production that spacing may have been more common than thought.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 14:47:33 GMT -5
I tried Joe's method and it works well. Only having copies to work from I come up with a 3/4" hole spacing. That would be a fairly standard figure. Also would not the countersunk screw holes on the table leave a more ragged tear or hole? Joe is your theory on this that a "die" was made with all three prongs or nails mounted in a block or that the holes were made one at a time?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2006 21:41:35 GMT -5
Kevin, when you say it worked well, do you mean the physical punching of the holes? If so, then I think you probably see my point about how the paper chads or "cut outs" are collected within the concave head of the finishing nail as it is driven suddenly through the paper, and then left behind in the piece of softwood underneath the stack of paper. The result being a relatively clean hole, with no deformation of the paper at all, and no ragged edges that can be pushed back into the hole.
I'm not certain that the holes were punched one at a time, but I believe this would have been the preferred method to achieve the hole spacing reproducibility we see in the ransom note series. A three-pronged "die" in my opinion, would be overkill and the angle of the nails or pins might "wander" out of line after a few whacks. Anything more durable or professionally made might attract attention as to it's purpose.
If I was doing it, I'd use a simple carboard template with 3 pre-arranged holes in it. Then line up the template at the bottom right corner of the ransom note and mark each location with a pencil. Remove the template and punch each hole with the head of a finishing nail as I described earlier. I'm convinced the ransom note holes had to have been "punched" in this or a very similar manner.
By the way, I tried about two dozen different striking objects including nail points, cut nail points, file tips, solid steel rods, fork tines, etc. In all cases, the paper was "pushed aside" as the object was driven through it and the ragged edges could then be pushed back into their original position.
Michael, I think the table brace may have been drilled to the original ransom note hole spacing hole spacing by someone at the Mersman factory who somehow learned what they actually were after the fact. I've no idea how they would have known this. Actually, I have as little faith that this table brace was even around in 1932 and believe it was made much later to order, for what I still consider a hoax. As for the whimsical sea shanty, I'm with Steve on that one and have a tough time taking it at all seriously.
Kel revealed a few years ago that the drilling of the 4 outer holes at the Mersman factory was done by hand drill and the locations were more or less eyeballed in a very production oriented environment.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2006 8:23:52 GMT -5
I am looking at it this way.... We have the notes with the holes in it. It was done somehow. Whatever the results of your experiments, it appears to me, that's not exactly how it was done - so this tells me that whatever you are doing AND in the manner in which you are doing it suggests it wasn't done that way. I think the paper had to be extremely tight against the table, and that we still don't know what was used, or how it was used to make those holes. I have always been interested in Jafsie's testimony during the Bronx Grand Jury inquiry. His "idea" that an "awl" was used to punch the holes and a "carpet stretcher" was used to hold the note in place is interesting to me. I have always felt the man knew more and sometimes let it slip out in order to get people to think more highly of him. Michael, I think the table brace may have been drilled to the original ransom note hole spacing hole spacing by someone at the Mersman factory who somehow learned what they actually were after the fact. I've no idea how they would have known this. (Joe)***I've tried to understand this position but it just doesn't work. People working at the Mersman Factory were lucky to have a job. These weren't cheap run of the mill tables by any stretch of the imagination and would require this "hoaxer" at the factory to buy this specific table. This would also require the worker drilling these holes to follow the table down the production line. Let me say this again. This factory had an assembly line. You drill these holes, outside of the usual standards - then what? - 1. It goes down the line to another section where its assembled.
- 2. It goes down the line where the wiping glaze is applied.
- 3. Once dry, it rolls down to another section where the sealer coat is applied.
- 4. It then rolls down into the conveyorized drying oven.
- 5. Once dry, it then is sent to quality control to the final inspection line.
- 6. Once inspection is complete, it is boxed up.
- 7. After being packed, it is sent to the warehouse and waits until receiving shipping orders.
I've probably missed a couple of steps but you get the picture. Can you imagine a guy on the line walking off of it to follow this specific piece? Do you suppose his Foreman allowed it? How did he walk off the job and buy the piece? Then what? He quits and moves to South Plainfield? Very improbable if not impossible. Actually, I have as little faith that this table brace was even around in 1932 and believe it was made much later to order, for what I still consider a hoax. As for the whimsical sea shanty, I'm with Steve on that one and have a tough time taking it at all seriously. (Joe)***I have no idea why. The tables in the picture were manufactured from 1920's on up. In fact, there was a new initiative with Mersman specifically in 1932 - More powerful selling forces to bring more table sales. The Sailor lyrics, which was discovered by Siglinde, fits in very nicely when considering the "Boad Nelly" note. Would the writer expect anyone other then a German Sailor to understand this analogy? It's using the song to highlight that he is not going to say who he is. The "confession" doesn't say Hauptmann is innocent, just the Writer is one of the Kidnappers. It doesn't hoax anyone about anything, unless you believe it was meant to send people to Summit looking for money.... A rather lack-luster hoax which would have required more effort and coordination then the Kidnapping itself. Kel revealed a few years ago that the drilling of the 4 outer holes at the Mersman factory was done by hand drill and the locations were more or less eyeballed in a very production oriented environment.(Joe)***I've seen him cut corners in the past so I would need his source before I could accept it as fact. However, if he is correct then it compliments the position these holes are quite unique - so it would be cool if he got this one correct. I have received much of my information concerning Mersman from historical and source documentation which comes directly from that company and Celina, Ohio - thanks to Sue's investigation there. She was kind enough to send me copies of all the things she dug up along with leads and additional information so it's directly because of her that my knowledge in this area is at the level it is.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 20, 2006 8:39:12 GMT -5
Michael, did you say that someone actually tried to duplicate the "punched" holes on that table. I just don't see how they would come out as the ransom notes because of the screw holes. Also, I am not understanding the theory regarding the notes and the table. Are you suggesting that Hauptmann or another note writer with thw same handwriting got a hold of this table and then dissassembled it in order to find something with 3 holes in it?? I think I can more readily acccept the cyrptic message if it is not tied to the notes (holes). I agree with you about Kel's statement, I am dubious of this report. Joe did you try an older Stanley nail set ? I have some and they have the same indentation as a finish nail head. Would be standard issue for a carpenter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2006 9:11:57 GMT -5
I believe this table was in the possession of the Confederates. They disassembled it and used the connecting piece we now refer to as the "confession board" as the template for the holes in the notes. The holes in the notes line up perfectly with the holes in that table and for me this is beyond coincidence under the circumstances. That is of course unless all Mersman pieces had the exact same spacings. This would still imply intimate knowledge concerning the symbol but this variable has yet to be explored (that I know of).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 20, 2006 9:21:02 GMT -5
I would add one other thing if I might, I know this is not in anyway scientific, but I have come to understand a part of Hauptmann through the re-creation of his products. I have built his ladder several times and re-sketched his drawings over and over all in an effort to understand his mechanical thinking process. The idea of using that table piece as a note template does not fit the pattern I have found. You might say it is very un-Hauptmannlike. Michael, has the "punching" actually been tried on this table piece?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2006 9:54:23 GMT -5
I may have mis-spoken above...
What I saw might not have been Mark's experiment....I was assuming it so that's why I have to be careful what I say in order to be accurate in my observations. Furthermore, what the exact methods were I also can't say because I didn't see the study take place. I have an idea in my head but that doesn't mean its correct so I would rather refer you to Mark for the specifics.
Here is a repost of Mark's email communication which was sent out to the Moderators of the various "Lindbergh Kidnapping" boards concerning the exciting new evidence - The Table Board Confession (I have taken the liberty of emphasizing different portions of this email):
Dear Allen, Ronelle and Michael.
Below is an attempt at setting forth the few known facts about the table and ransom note symbol. I was wondering if you guys would be kind enough to post this for me. I've been giving lectures here at work to several school groups and their questions are focusing a lot on the mysterious table. I was caught off guard by this sudden interest and it was explained that there's a lot of activity on the internet right now about it. I guess as they prepared for the trip they were reading your sites.
There is apparently a lot of misinformation about the table flying around the 'Net and I wanted to try to set the basic facts as they are known straight as best I can. The information below is based on what some of the students and teachers have asked me.
The 1948 Newspaper Articles:
To begin with, when questions are asked of me, there are references made to the 1948 newspaper articles that covered the story in 1948. What I tell people about them (and what I have said on camera to WKMG/TV6 and Court TV) is that the articles published in 1948 are so full of inaccuracies that they cannot be relied on for any information pertaining to the table. For example, one article states that the table was bought new in 1940; another has it in 1938. One states that the message was unsigned; it was "signed" by the N.S.D.A.P. An article states that the alleged confession was a "paper found in leg of table purchased 10 years ago". And yet another article states that the Superintendent of State Police in 1948 was Colonel Arthur Schoeffel. It was actually Charles Schoeffel; "Arthur" was the first name of then Captain Keaton. A simple mistake, yes, but a mistake and wrong information nonetheless.
Someone called and made reference to the writing on the board being purple or blue. I have no clue what the source of this incredibly inaccurate information is because anyone who has actually seen the board knows that the writing is gray. I double checked this myself today and even had a State Trooper verify this for me.
It is, to date, impossible to discern when the message was written on the board, whether it was in 1948 or earlier.
A couple of callers asked me about the "Hand of Hauptmann" influence on the confession because the book was published in the discoverer's neighborhood. Unfortunately this, too, is wrong. The Hamer Publishing Company was located in Plainfield, New Jersey, 4.5 miles away from South Plainfield where the table was actually discovered. Also, the book was published in 1937, and not 1948 as the caller had been led to believe. That is over a decade prior to the alleged discovery and there is no evidence known to the Museum staff that Haring was distributing his book there eleven years after its publication.
The Handwriting and Message:
The handwriting is not German handwriting. There are mistakes in the message that a native German speaker would not make. However, there is an aspect to the message that most likely only someone native to German culture would know to use - the song lyrics.
The message is divided into four parts:
The introduction, the confession, the ransom location and the signature.
The Introduction:
In Hamburg da bin ich gewesen in Samet und in Seide gekleidet
Meinen Namen den darf ich nicht nennen
Denn
[shadow=white,left,400]In Hamburg I wore velvet and silk, I am not allowed to tell you my name because[/shadow]
The introduction is taken from an old German "sailor's song", a rather risque song. It was not known that this was actually a song until a German friend of mine recognized it.
The Confession
Ich war einer der Kidnapper des Lindberg babys und nicht Bruno Richard Hauptmann
[shadow=white,left,400]I was one of the kidnappers of the Lindbergh baby and not Bruno Richard Hauptmann[/shadow]
The Ransom Location:
Der Rest des Lösesgeldes liegt in Summit New Jersey begraben
[shadow=white,left,400]The rest of the ransom money lies buried in Summit New Jersey[/shadow]
The Signature:
[shadow=white,left,400]N.S.D.A.P.[/shadow]
This is, obviously, the German initials of the Nazi Party.
The Table and Ransom Note Holes:
Regarding the holes in the table and in the ransom notes: The holes in the table are considered to be original to the table. All of the ransom notes with the symbol, when laid on top of the center three holes, line up perfectly. When laid on top of one another they line up perfectly as well.
A recent study (unpublished) was done of the ransom note holes and it has been determined that they were not all punched at the same time. Rather, groups of two or three (roughly) were most likely punched at once. This was actually determined back in 1932 by Russell Snook and has been known to scholars of the case for several years now.
Snook's report states the following:
"SYMBOL
Definite Points Established: None
Problematical.
1. Large Circles made Top of Cork Black Ink Bottle (Probably Waterman's) 2. Small Circle Made with bottom of Cork of Red Ink Bottle
3. Holes not all made at same time.
4. Symbol indicates sense of balance, symetry [sic] and beauty.
Recommendation:
That further examination be made to determine how symbol was made."
Furthermore, in his more extensive report dated May 17, 1932, Lieutenant Snook writes:
"Examination was also made of the secret symbol on the ransom notes. After considerable experimentation both Dr. Souder and Mr. Davis stated it was their opinion that the large circles in the symbol were made by the top of a cork of a black ink bottle (probably a Waterman's) and the smaller red circle by the bottom of a cork of a red ink bottle. Mr. Davis duplicated the large circles with a cork from a Waterman's ink bottle. It was thought that the holes in the paper were made by some blunt instrument punched through the paper using something under the paper as a guage [sic], such as a hole in a belt a shoe or some other ordinary article which would least attract attention. It was found there is a variation in the holes in the notes which indicates that the papers were not all punched at the same time."
Police Reports about the table:
Lastly, there are no police reports that I am aware of in existence today concerning the table. The South Plainfield police had destroyed their records and a retired officer who was on duty in 1948 did not remember the table nor the alleged hoax. Additionally, there have been no State Police records found concerning the table.
Personally, I do not know if the message on the board is a hoax or not. I do believe it to be a very compelling mystery. While the table message was declared a hoax in 1948, it was declared so based (as far as we can tell) on the handwriting. It does not match anyone's from the case as far as we can determine. However, the holes were not examined (at least, we do not believe so - there are no police reports, remember). This is based on conversations with Troopers who told me that had the discovery that I made a couple years ago been made in 1948, it would not have been dismissed as quickly as it apparently was.
Therefore, my official stance is that I have no idea if it is a hoax; I have no idea what the whole thing means. But it is also my belief that it should not be dismissed outright, especially by people who are not in possession of accurate information. I should also point out that only a couple people have actually come to the Museum to do a thorough "examination" and research into this item, and from the printouts I have been given by the students, I see that they are not the ones posting information about the table. So, please be aware of this.
I hope this helps to clarify the confusion and speculation about the table. And I hope it spurs more research from all sides! I know from the number of people who ask me questions based upon what they've found on the internet that the websites are attracting a lot of people and are helping to keep this case alive. I regret that I no longer have the time to read the websites like I used to. As you know, it is very rare that I ask for anything to be posted but with the number of questions I've gotten over the past couple of days from students visiting the Museum, I thought I should set the record as straight as it can be set.
My regards to everyone on the websites. I hope to see more of you down here at the Museum!
Mark W. Falzini Archivist NJ State Police Museum 609-882-2000
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 20, 2006 10:40:16 GMT -5
That is very interesting Michael and once again you show a professional regard for the truth. It is too bad that there seems to be no way of accurately judging the lineage or provanance of this piece as that would undoubtably provide some clue as to the writer. I find the "signature" of the ransom notes to be very consistant with Hauptmann's ability at draftsmanship and his sense of proportion. I don't, however, see him taking apart a relatively new table to utilize such a simple task as locating three holes. One also has to consider the fact that no one could know how many ransom notes would be required and the possible and in this case need for more notes would require constant access to whatever template was used.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2006 10:46:36 GMT -5
Have you considered the symbol may not have been Hauptmann's idea? Perhaps it was the work of one of the Confederates....
I say this because of the "Boad Nelly" note and its contents being things that I do not believe Hauptmann would have written about from personal knowledge. Additionally I consider the J.J. Faulkner note, which implies knowledge of the Faulkner's address when they lived there and moved years before Hauptmann even arrived in the country.
I think we must be careful not to look at everything through Hauptmann's eyes if you think he may have had help.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 20, 2006 10:57:24 GMT -5
Yes, I think that possibility must be taken into account. The boad nelly issue has always troubled me. I think most lies or fabrications usually contain some element of truth and this issue of the location of the baby and the other references to boats in this case may have, in fact, some foundation. I came across a newspaper article, quite by accident, which referred to a police search for a "Friend" of BRH somewhere in NY, White Plains I think. This friend was supposedly a sailor. I will have to see if I can find this report and if it has any validity. I really think one of the problems with this case is the prosecutorial need for a conviction which overrode and in fact discouraged looking to muddy the waters with other possible defendants.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2006 11:18:19 GMT -5
Absolutely.
That's why I do look at the trial and what happened there often. I also think this is what frustrates people the most when they're told the trial verdict was "accurate."
The table board, if legit, was obviously in the hands of someone other then Hauptmann which I think must be considered. We also might want to look at Jafsie's statement that CJ told him the symbol maker had been taken away and therefore no more notes would have it because of this fact.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 20, 2006 11:31:50 GMT -5
that is also why I am of the firm belief that a criminal profiler could be so helpful. My instincts make me feel that Hauptmann would not be likely to commit this crime alone. I just don't "read" him that way. A profiler may come to a different conclusion, but I would love to see the results none the less. Of course it also frustrates the hell out of me that the few remaining pieces of "hard evidence" still have tales to tell but nothing ever seems to be resolved. You are always trying to grab onto something solid only to see it evaporate before your eyes. That was the major factor which compelled me to revisit the ladder breaking theory. All these tests and re-creations and not one answered the basic questions.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 20, 2006 18:29:28 GMT -5
i am interested in kelvon's instincts. my instincts tell me Hauptmann did not commit this crime. is kelvon a criminal profiler? the best definition of profiling I know is the use of making logical deductions about possible suspects based on the shared patterns of behavior among offenders. I don't see him commiting this crime in light of is life before his arrest.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 21, 2006 0:05:05 GMT -5
To Michael The skeptics go through a lot of trouble to disprove the Mersman table brace, but all that is needed to produce the clean hole is the heated table bolts against the brace. I've never saw the notes up close, but if they say heated bolts would leave brown edges, that too can be explained by the tables flat sharpened bolt edges pressed against wood?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2006 6:52:00 GMT -5
I just don't know Rita...
I do invite skepticism, heck - I am skeptical on just about everything, but this I just can't get past with any good arguments against it.
Exactly how the holes were made seems a secondary point to me but it would be nice to figure it out. As long as we have Joe and Kevin making the effort then they may find the answer.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 8:34:34 GMT -5
There is another aspect to the issue of the signature which I feel is important to look at. It is somewhat akin to the point regarding the use of a ladder for a kidnap which I questioned in the "Historical Perspective" thread. That is why does a kidnapper see the need for such an intricate "signature" in the first place. Yes I understand the fear of impostors claiming to be the actual kidnapper. But remember a couple of things here. First and most importantly, the true kidnapper always has good collateral. That is, only one person or group actually has possession of the victim and therefore will always have the ultimate proof of identity. If challenged they may always respond with proof of their possession. Second, the actual kidnapper(s) would not need an elaborate and "foolproof" signature as they would also possess details of the crime no other claimant could know. Now one may make the point that there is a need to get their correspondence through to the proper recipients. That makes sense, so if that is the primary concern, why is this signature not on the envelope itself? Once again how many kidnappers have had to be concerned with this step? And it is a step, as Hauptmann found out, that carries a massive penalty. Since the signature is so unique, it is the ultimate link which ties the person to the crime. Connect a suspect to one note and you have effectively tied him to them all. So in planning a kidnapping why would one feel such a need to prove that they are the actual kidnapper(s)? Perhaps because they knew they would not have that which they are claiming to have. Does this not show in the ransom notes? Is there not evidence of exasperation on the part of the note writer with being identified as the one and only kidnapper because of the signature? This might even tie in with the theory of the babie's body being disturbed or moved. Perhaps it was assumed that the unique signature would be all that was required and that the further request for proof resulted in a retrieval of clothing ( and perhaps the thumbguard).
|
|