|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2020 11:29:32 GMT -5
I think a good case could also be made for one of those apparent "t's" to actually have been an intended "d" with an unclosed circle formation. I think a good case could also be made for the apparent "d" to actually have been an intended "t." See Gardner picture between pages 210-11.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 31, 2020 16:08:03 GMT -5
1) I will tell you this, Osborn Sr. told an outright lie in one of his charts that he knew the defense would not catch. In fact, it's taken 85 years to discover. I will post it soon. Great approach to this Wayne. Most either believe he wrote them or he didn't. So they take everything at face value. By digging deeper you'll find more and more of this stuff. I remember seeing almost immediately that Osborn either lied or was an idiot when he got called out on the stand about the hyphen he claimed was an identifier. No one wants to take the time to meticulously go through this piece by piece so its really nice to see you doing this. Experts must have integrity to be believable. Nothing should motivate them outside of the truth. But we have that issue right from jump-street don't we? Next, once honesty is established, we then have only the "science" to question and consider. Here, I have a major issue with the science itself too. Blindly ignoring these concerns leads to what exactly? Nothing good as far as I can tell. Okay, here we go. I have read Osborn Sr.'s trial testimony a number of times and if I was on the jury, I would have agreed with everything he said because his charts don't lie, right? Well, here's what the jury didn't know. About half-way through Osborn's testimony, he says this about 2 occurrences of the word "my" in the ransom notes as he compared them to one of BRH's handwritten "my"s. Q. On the same page, Mr. Osborn, the word “my” has the letter “m” appearing in the word “my” under the ransom notes. A. Yes. Q. And the word “my” appearing likewise in the Hauptmann writing. A. Yes. Q. A distinguishing characteristic? A. Yes. And the downward stroke and also the word “with” at the right of it, the downward strokes of those letters are made vertical or just slightly slanting to the left. That is one of the, another one of the characteristics that I have already called attention to. There are many of these forms which appear only once, which would be significant only as an indication that they are rare characteristics, which appear in both sets of writing. Here's the bottom part of the chart that Osborn had made that he was referring to (S-113E): It looks persuasive, doesn't it? Slam dunk that the 2 ransom note "my"s (on the left side of the line) resemble BRH's "my" (on the right side). Thanks to a search in Write-On 3 and guess what you find? There are no occurrences of the word "my" in the ransom notes. Not one. I did an isolated search and guess what popped up in the ransom notes to match those 2 "my"s? Osborn used the " ng" endings of 2 words in Ransom Note #12 -- "everythi ng" and "eveni ng" -- to put in his chart and claim them as " my"s. Here's the 2 words that you can easily compare with Osborn's chart: This is just my opinion, but there is no way this is a simple mistake. It would take work for Osborn to find and manipulate this kind of deception and, of course, the defense did not have the time or resources (or 85 years) to figure this out.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 31, 2020 16:35:15 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, You know I have to ask this. The overall premise of Suspect No. 1 is that Hauptmann was completely innocent; that he was not involved with either the kidnapping or extortion. Assuming that Lindbergh and Carrel were responsible for the kidnapping, how does this exclusively exclude Hauptmann from being part of their kidnapping or extortion plot? The book assumes that Lindbergh and Carrel must have had a "team" to carry out the kidnapping and vivisection. Since Hauptmann built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, had $14,600 of the ransom money in his garage & wallet, and was spending $10 bills of the ransom money in late December 1933, why couldn't Hauptmann have been part of Lindbergh's "team"? Hi Wayne! I don't mind at all. I'm glad you asked. Just to clarify, the evidence presented in the book doesn't conform to your assessment that Hauptmann definitely built the ladder or wrote the ransom notes. These two factors in the case were disputed by experts at the trial as well as other official records maintained by the NJSP that never made their way into the court record. Re Hauptmann's potential involvement – The book makes the case that there was no credible evidence he ever went to Hopewell. If people now accept Lindbergh’s culpability, then the extortion was a hoax. If the child died on an operating table, there is nothing to suggest that Hauptmann had anything to do with the child’s death or cover-up. All that would be left to implicate him was Hauptmann's possession of “ransom” gold certificates that could well have been without knowledge of the original source. That is by crediting, as the book does, evidence that the ladder was made from new crating board by someone who was not as skilled a carpenter as Hauptmann. The book also discredits evidence that Hauptmann wrote the fake “ransom” notes. Evidence by experts to the contrary at Hauptmann's trial followed heavy-handed police misconduct described in the book which my mother argues should have invalidated their testimony. Hauptmann professed innocence throughout. The book contends his behavior supports that protestation. Keeping the money in his garage for 2+ years during the greatest manhunt in American history and spending some locally after the gold certificates had already been declared illegal is the opposite of what a guilty participant would be expected to do. Why didn't Hauptmann move his family right away (before the papers released the serial numbers and before the gold certificates were outlawed) if he had access to so much cash since early April 1932 and knew that it was the Lindbergh ransom money? Hauptmann could have told his wife it was from playing the stock market. There was also evidence supporting Hauptmann's Fisch story (multiple witnesses-- including Lindbergh's closest confidant Breckinridge--identified Fisch as a suspect from a newspaper photo in September 1934. These official identifications were never part of the trial record. Det. Ellis Parker also found that Fisch spent some of the ransom money on his ticket home to Germany in 1933.) The book points out that Hauptmann's own alibi placing him in the Bronx at the time of the kidnapping was also supported by credible witnesses (including two strangers who saw him at the bakery that night). The book makes the case that the prosecution’s trial theory about how, where, and when the child died, and when his body was placed in the woods was totally inconsistent with Medical Examiner Charles Mitchell's official report --the second one dated May 14th that placed death at least two days after the kidnapping; and that it was also inconsistent with the crime scene evidence, death scene evidence, Squibb report, and modern analysis from forensic experts reviewing the available evidence. The book also makes the case that there was no credible evidence that Hauptmann had anything to do with carrying out the hoax perpetrated by Lindbergh or that there was ever any evidence Hauptmann worked with anyone else to further the scheme. Originally, Condon refused to identify Hauptmann as Cemetery John and only did so under pressure after Lindbergh switched his own testimony and swore that he could recognize Hauptmann’s voice 200+feet away saying a short phrase two -and-a -half years later – a feat that should not have been credible. My mother believes that getting a DNA wood test on Rail 16 and Board 226 (which the current NJ administration likely has authority to do) should be able to resolve the ladder question for all who still believe an accomplished carpenter like Hauptmann would have built a crude ladder that early investigators believed was meant to be a ruse; that Hauptmann would have planed down a floorboard from a rented attic for a single ladder rail that could be traced back to him when he had enough wood in his garage to make the whole ladder; and that if Hauptmann had used a floorboard, he wouldn't have replaced the floorboard or relocated his family in the two and a half years between the time of the kidnapping and his arrest in September 1934.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2020 16:53:14 GMT -5
Great approach to this Wayne. Most either believe he wrote them or he didn't. So they take everything at face value. By digging deeper you'll find more and more of this stuff. I remember seeing almost immediately that Osborn either lied or was an idiot when he got called out on the stand about the hyphen he claimed was an identifier. No one wants to take the time to meticulously go through this piece by piece so its really nice to see you doing this. Experts must have integrity to be believable. Nothing should motivate them outside of the truth. But we have that issue right from jump-street don't we? Next, once honesty is established, we then have only the "science" to question and consider. Here, I have a major issue with the science itself too. Blindly ignoring these concerns leads to what exactly? Nothing good as far as I can tell. Okay, here we go. I have read Osborn Sr.'s trial testimony a number of times and if I was on the jury, I would have agreed with everything he said because his charts don't lie, right? Well, here's what the jury didn't know. About half-way through Osborn's testimony, he says this about 2 occurrences of the word "my" in the ransom notes as he compared them to one of BRH's handwritten "my"s. Q. On the same page, Mr. Osborn, the word “my” has the letter “m” appearing in the word “my” under the ransom notes. A. Yes. Q. And the word “my” appearing likewise in the Hauptmann writing. A. Yes. Q. A distinguishing characteristic? A. Yes. And the downward stroke and also the word “with” at the right of it, the downward strokes of those letters are made vertical or just slightly slanting to the left. That is one of the, another one of the characteristics that I have already called attention to. There are many of these forms which appear only once, which would be significant only as an indication that they are rare characteristics, which appear in both sets of writing. Here's the bottom part of the chart that Osborn had made that he was referring to (S-113E): View AttachmentIt looks persuasive, doesn't it? Slam dunk that the 2 ransom note "my"s (on the left side of the line) resemble BRH's "my" (on the right side). Thanks to a search in Write-On 3 and guess what you find? There are no occurrences of the word "my" in the ransom notes. Not one. I did an isolated search and guess what popped up in the ransom notes to match those 2 "my"s? Osborn used the " ng" endings of 2 words in Ransom Note #12 -- "everythi ng" and "eveni ng" -- to put in his chart and claim them as " my"s. Here's the 2 words that you can easily compare with Osborn's chart: View AttachmentView AttachmentThis is just my opinion, but there is no way this is a simple mistake. It would take work for Osborn to find and manipulate this kind of deception and, of course, the defense did not have the time or resources (or 85 years) to figure this out. Wayne, that is a great piece of detective work, if indeed there were no "my's" in the ransom notes. Actually, I can't really think of why the ransom note writer would have had any in there in the first place, as he always referred to the kidnappers as "we" or "ouer man". This is definitely worth bringing to ground.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2021 9:28:58 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, You know I have to ask this. The overall premise of Suspect No. 1 is that Hauptmann was completely innocent; that he was not involved with either the kidnapping or extortion. Assuming that Lindbergh and Carrel were responsible for the kidnapping, how does this exclusively exclude Hauptmann from being part of their kidnapping or extortion plot? The book assumes that Lindbergh and Carrel must have had a "team" to carry out the kidnapping and vivisection. Since Hauptmann built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, had $14,600 of the ransom money in his garage & wallet, and was spending $10 bills of the ransom money in late December 1933, why couldn't Hauptmann have been part of Lindbergh's "team"? Hi Wayne! I don't mind at all. I'm glad you asked. Just to clarify, the evidence presented in the book doesn't conform to your assessment that Hauptmann definitely built the ladder or wrote the ransom notes. These two factors in the case were disputed by experts at the trial as well as other official records maintained by the NJSP that never made their way into the court record. Re Hauptmann's potential involvement – The book makes the case that there was no credible evidence he ever went to Hopewell. If people now accept Lindbergh’s culpability, then the extortion was a hoax. If the child died on an operating table, there is nothing to suggest that Hauptmann had anything to do with the child’s death or cover-up. All that would be left to implicate him was Hauptmann's possession of “ransom” gold certificates that could well have been without knowledge of the original source. That is by crediting, as the book does, evidence that the ladder was made from new crating board by someone who was not as skilled a carpenter as Hauptmann. The book also discredits evidence that Hauptmann wrote the fake “ransom” notes. Evidence by experts to the contrary at Hauptmann's trial followed heavy-handed police misconduct described in the book which my mother argues should have invalidated their testimony. Hauptmann professed innocence throughout. The book contends his behavior supports that protestation. Keeping the money in his garage for 2+ years during the greatest manhunt in American history and spending some locally after the gold certificates had already been declared illegal is the opposite of what a guilty participant would be expected to do. Why didn't Hauptmann move his family right away (before the papers released the serial numbers and before the gold certificates were outlawed) if he had access to so much cash since early April 1932 and knew that it was the Lindbergh ransom money? Hauptmann could have told his wife it was from playing the stock market. There was also evidence supporting Hauptmann's Fisch story (multiple witnesses-- including Lindbergh's closest confidant Breckinridge--identified Fisch as a suspect from a newspaper photo in September 1934. These official identifications were never part of the trial record. Det. Ellis Parker also found that Fisch spent some of the ransom money on his ticket home to Germany in 1933.) The book points out that Hauptmann's own alibi placing him in the Bronx at the time of the kidnapping was also supported by credible witnesses (including two strangers who saw him at the bakery that night). The book makes the case that the prosecution’s trial theory about how, where, and when the child died, and when his body was placed in the woods was totally inconsistent with Medical Examiner Charles Mitchell's official report --the second one dated May 14th that placed death at least two days after the kidnapping; and that it was also inconsistent with the crime scene evidence, death scene evidence, Squibb report, and modern analysis from forensic experts reviewing the available evidence. The book also makes the case that there was no credible evidence that Hauptmann had anything to do with carrying out the hoax perpetrated by Lindbergh or that there was ever any evidence Hauptmann worked with anyone else to further the scheme. Originally, Condon refused to identify Hauptmann as Cemetery John and only did so under pressure after Lindbergh switched his own testimony and swore that he could recognize Hauptmann’s voice 200+feet away saying a short phrase two -and-a -half years later – a feat that should not have been credible. My mother believes that getting a DNA wood test on Rail 16 and Board 226 (which the current NJ administration likely has authority to do) should be able to resolve the ladder question for all who still believe an accomplished carpenter like Hauptmann would have built a crude ladder that early investigators believed was meant to be a ruse; that Hauptmann would have planed down a floorboard from a rented attic for a single ladder rail that could be traced back to him when he had enough wood in his garage to make the whole ladder; and that if Hauptmann had used a floorboard, he wouldn't have replaced the floorboard or relocated his family in the two and a half years between the time of the kidnapping and his arrest in September 1934. Hi Jamie, rather than attempt to debate each of the points you’ve raised above, perhaps a detailed consideration of the relationship between the ladder and wood that was used in its construction, might provide a further understanding into this part of the circumstantial physical evidence that was instrumental in convicting Hauptmann. Kelvin Keraga’s research report “A Testimony in Wood” is an excellent and highly informative read, and I would encourage you to consider its value. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/keraga.pdf
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 1, 2021 18:18:53 GMT -5
Joe,
Thanks for posting the link to Kelvin Keraga's excellent Rail 16 evidence report. I read this report at some point in the past and I have always considered it to be the definitive analysis on this subject. This report is not just some "fly by night" or "off the cuff" comment concerning rail 16. I believe that Keraga spent three years in this project, and I think that if one gives this report a complete and honest read, they will see that it provides the evidence to show beyond any reasonable doubt that:
1. Rail 16 was part of the "Lindbergh kidnapping ladder".
2. It came from Hauptmann's attic.
3. There was no planting or fabrication of evidence by law enforcement as to rail 16.
Keraga nails this subject; he just nails it. He clearly shows that the only way to say that Hauptmann had nothing to do with this ladder is to use the defense attorney's old standby of police corruption (and then Keraga shows the impossibility of this). When defense attorneys are confronted with a piece of overwhelming evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt level) against their client, they cry police corruption regardless of any substantiating evidence. Ala Shapiro and Cochran in the OJ trial. They hope to convince at least one juror of this alleged corruption and thereby get a hung verdict. It's just defense attorney 101 strategy; throw the spaghetti against the wall and pray that some of it sticks. Has there been police corruption in the past, and will there be some in the future--of course. However, I tend to take a personal affront to bringing this alleged level of police corruption into a case (and on a specific piece of evidence) without strong evidence to support the allegations. From my personal 30 years experience, I know that 99% plus of Law Enforcement Officers do not fabricate or plant evidence in order to obtain a conviction--doesn't happen.
I believe that In his report Keraga conclusively shows that it would not have been possible for Bornmann, Koehler or others to have created and planted rail 16 as evidence against Hauptmann. This kind of evidence planting by law enforcement is just the stuff of dream fantasies on the part of defense attorneys. Were there things done by law enforcement in the LKC that should not have been done--of course. But fabricating and then planting rail 16 was not one of them (as Keraga's report clearly shows). Any experienced Criminal Investigator knows that fabricating evidence in the manner that is suggested with rail 16 is just not plausible. The intricacies involved for a Police Officer to pull this off might make a great TV/Hollywood episode, but has no credibility in reality. I have yet to see the evidence (and I mean hard facts) to negate Keraga's report and thereby separate Hauptmann from this ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2021 22:25:06 GMT -5
Joe, Thanks for posting the link to Kelvin Keraga's excellent Rail 16 evidence report. I read this report at some point in the past and I have always considered it to be the definitive analysis on this subject. This report is not just some "fly by night" or "off the cuff" comment concerning rail 16. I believe that Keraga spent three years in this project, and I think that if one gives this report a complete and honest read, they will see that it provides the evidence to show beyond any reasonable doubt that: 1. Rail 16 was part of the "Lindbergh kidnapping ladder". 2. It came from Hauptmann's attic. 3. There was no planting or fabrication of evidence by law enforcement as to rail 16. There's a lot I agree with here but for me there are some differences too. First and foremost there were very good reasons for people to doubt this evidence. Governor Hoffman sincerely believed beyond all doubt that it was a fabricated. Fred Pope, a Judge himself, believed it was fabricated. Even some Troopers and Ex-Troopers believed it was fabricated. Heck, Kelly bragged about it being framed in Dr. Hudson's apartment. Rauch told Trooper McTighe that if Hauptmann had sawed that board the noise would have been heard in their apartment. Perjury all over the places as well. It's all in V3. So if Bornmann and Koehler had not backdated, misrepresented, and LIED about this evidence I do not think this issue would have snowballed like it did. Why did they lie? To make it easier for themselves and even more believable. It's why Koehler misrepresented the floorplan and committed perjury himself testifying that it was accurate. None of these people expected all of this material would ever be scrutinized like it had been at the time they did this. And it didn't just happen with this evidence as I demonstrated with the Rails 12 & 13 investigation, or the chisel charade in court, etc. It's going on everywhere. Wilentz also pulled a LOT of really shady BS - all documented. But as far as bad cops go, I agree its very rare ... maybe not 99% but close because the bad ones tend to weed themselves out. Regardless, there are certain things that people got away with back then that would never occur today. Think a Defense Lawyer could ever defect to the Prosecution now? But it did happen then. Think a Sheriff would supply a bribe offer to a juror today? Nope, but it did happen in Flemington during that trial. Anyway, concerning your three points here is where I stand: 1. Agreed. 2. Originally. It wound up in the basement before it was taken from there to be used in the ladder. 3. Disagree. Reports were backdated. People lied about what actually happened and when - and did so in person, in certain reports, and while under oath in court. It was so bad that S-226 was supposed to have been in three different places at the same time ... laying on the floor in the attic, locked up in a room on the 2nd floor, at the NJSP Training School. This is what happens when there's lying going on and its to be expected that once this becomes known the evidence itself will be doubted.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 2, 2021 8:22:54 GMT -5
Joe, Thanks for posting the link to Kelvin Keraga's excellent Rail 16 evidence report. I read this report at some point in the past and I have always considered it to be the definitive analysis on this subject. This report is not just some "fly by night" or "off the cuff" comment concerning rail 16. I believe that Keraga spent three years in this project, and I think that if one gives this report a complete and honest read, they will see that it provides the evidence to show beyond any reasonable doubt that: 1. Rail 16 was part of the "Lindbergh kidnapping ladder". 2. It came from Hauptmann's attic. 3. There was no planting or fabrication of evidence by law enforcement as to rail 16. There's a lot I agree with here but for me there are some differences too. First and foremost there were very good reasons for people to doubt this evidence. Governor Hoffman sincerely believed beyond all doubt that it was a fabricated. Fred Pope, a Judge himself, believed it was fabricated. Even some Troopers and Ex-Troopers believed it was fabricated. Heck, Kelly bragged about it being framed in Dr. Hudson's apartment. Rauch told Trooper McTighe that if Hauptmann had sawed that board the noise would have been heard in their apartment. Perjury all over the places as well. It's all in V3. So if Bornmann and Koehler had not backdated, misrepresented, and LIED about this evidence I do not think this issue would have snowballed like it did. Why did they lie? To make it easier for themselves and even more believable. It's why Koehler misrepresented the floorplan and committed perjury himself testifying that it was accurate. None of these people expected all of this material would ever be scrutinized like it had been at the time they did this. And it didn't just happen with this evidence as I demonstrated with the Rails 12 & 13 investigation, or the chisel charade in court, etc. It's going on everywhere. Wilentz also pulled a LOT of really shady BS - all documented. But as far as bad cops go, I agree its very rare ... maybe not 99% but close because the bad ones tend to weed themselves out. Regardless, there are certain things that people got away with back then that would never occur today. Think a Defense Lawyer could ever defect to the Prosecution now? But it did happen then. Think a Sheriff would supply a bribe offer to a juror today? Nope, but it did happen in Flemington during that trial. Anyway, concerning your three points here is where I stand: 1. Agreed. 2. Originally. It wound up in the basement before it was taken from there to be used in the ladder. 3. Disagree. Reports were backdated. People lied about what actually happened and when - and did so in person, in certain reports, and while under oath in court. It was so bad that S-226 was supposed to have been in three different places at the same time ... laying on the floor in the attic, locked up in a room on the 2nd floor, at the NJSP Training School. This is what happens when there's lying going on and its to be expected that once this becomes known the evidence itself will be doubted. Fortunately, none of us here are in the position of having to feel saddled by liberties knowingly or unknowingly taken by the prosecution, through whatever subjective mis-representations of the evidence took place by law enforcement, beatings administered by them, or how many different places Rail 16 appeared to have been at one time. I think everyone here understands the above noise and distortion is all part and parcel of the story line. A thorough and scientific understanding of the circumstantial physical evidence alone, gives us the level playing field we need to determine whether or not Hauptmann had had at the minimum, a primary role within the construction of the kidnap ladder. Bottom line here is, that circumstantial physical evidence demonstrates conclusively that he did, regardless of whether he took Rail 16 from his attic, or landlord’s basement. It simply tells the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2021 10:26:53 GMT -5
I think everyone here understands the above noise and distortion is all part and parcel of the story line. A thorough and scientific understanding of the circumstantial physical evidence alone, gives us the level playing field we need to determine whether or not Hauptmann had had at the minimum, a primary role within the construction of the kidnap ladder. Bottom line here is, that circumstantial physical evidence demonstrates conclusively that he did, regardless of whether he took Rail 16 from his attic, or landlord’s basement. It simply tells the truth. Sorry but pointing out where someone who is supposed to be trusted was instead being dishonest isn't "noise," and most certainly isn't "distortion." Here we have a wood expert fudging a floor plan to compliment the evidence then lying about it on the stand. And what we see, by a thorough examination of all documentation, is a willingness to do this sort of thing WHERE EVER deemed necessary. Chisel, Rails 12, 13, and 16. S-226. Lies and misrepresentation throughout. How is that acceptable to you under any circumstance Joe? The Jurors believed every word of his testimony and one even commented that if they couldn't trust him who could they trust.... Look at what Wilentz did to Loney. He threatened him to remove himself from the case and when he did not got him fired. How did he do that? Because he supplied proof that Loney lied on his government application by failing to list his bad check charge. Think about that for a second. And so, with this in mind, should Koehler have remained employed by the Government? The reason for the termination is that if Loney lied there he could not be trusted not to lie elsewhere. And this philosophy played out exactly as it concerned Koehler. Problem is that everyone on the State side of things was on board with it. I often wonder to myself what happened that I do NOT know about? The bottom line is this: People challenged the Rail 16 evidence for cause - and because it had been we NOW know the absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 2, 2021 13:59:30 GMT -5
Here's my take on it, coming as I do from a medical background:
Mitchell was a small-town coroner, with no particular training in forensic pathology.
Swayze was NOT a physician at all, merely assistant to Mitchell on the mechanical aspects of the autopsy, since Mitchell was handicapped by arthritis in his hands.
Van Ingen briefly observed the body AFTER autopsy. He was merely asked if he could positively identify it as CAL Jr., which he couldn't due to extensive decomposition.
The bottom line is that Mitchell in particular was not focused on crime solving, only on venturing a cause of death, which he attributed to head trauma. Even if he were the most brilliant forensic pathologist, he might not have even thought of post-mortem human "surgery." By this time, the anterior walls of the thorax and abdomen were gone, so no surgically induced anterior wounds could be detected. And interiorly, the anatomy was so distorted that it would be extremely difficult to see any other signs to suggest such surgery. Then too, the body was that of a small child, making everything that much more difficult for the pathologist.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 2, 2021 15:14:44 GMT -5
Here's my take on it, coming as I do from a medical background: Mitchell was a small-town coroner, with no particular training in forensic pathology. Swayze was NOT a physician at all, merely assistant to Mitchell on the mechanical aspects of the autopsy, since Mitchell was handicapped by arthritis in his hands. Van Ingen briefly observed the body AFTER autopsy. He was merely asked if he could positively identify it as CAL Jr., which he couldn't due to extensive decomposition. The bottom line is that Mitchell in particular was not focused on crime solving, only on venturing a cause of death, which he attributed to head trauma. Even if he were the most brilliant forensic pathologist, he might not have even thought of post-mortem human "surgery." By this time, the anterior walls of the thorax and abdomen were gone, so no surgically induced anterior wounds could be detected. And interiorly, the anatomy was so distorted that it would be extremely difficult to see any other signs to suggest such surgery. Then too, the body was that of a small child, making everything that much more difficult for the pathologist. From Dr. Mitchell's trial testimony: Q. How many autopsies would you say you have performed in your experience? A. Oh, probably a thousand. Even the British doctors of 1888 were able to distinguish the surgical type cuts in all of Jack the Ripper's victim's organs. You can read all of the autopsies online. Jack removed quite a few organs including kidneys and utereses. The cuts on the internal organs were there. The doctors saw them.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Jan 2, 2021 15:16:02 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, rather than attempt to debate each of the points you’ve raised above, perhaps a detailed consideration of the relationship between the ladder and wood that was used in its construction, might provide a further understanding into this part of the circumstantial physical evidence that was instrumental in convicting Hauptmann. Kelvin Keraga’s research report “A Testimony in Wood” is an excellent and highly informative read, and I would encourage you to consider its value. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/keraga.pdfHi Joe! Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Keraga's detailed report and studied it extensively as lead research assistant for my mother. I appreciate the work Keraga put into his detailed analysis based on access to the original rail 16 and S 226 in storage in the 2000s, but dimensions of wood can change over time, especially if not kept in pristine condition. According to Falzini, the evidence in the NJSPM was subjected to flooding and other adverse conditions in the 65+ years until Keraga had access. One of the big stipulations that the defense made at the time of the trial, and Gov Hoffmann's own wood expert made during his follow up investigation, was that rail 16 couldn't have been a floorboard from Hauptmann's rented attic because it was 1/16th of an inch thicker than the other floorboards, including S-226. I compared the detailed measurements that Keraga made of the boards he used in his ladder research, to the measurements that were testified to at trial during Koehler's testimony, specifically the thickness measurements of rail 16 and S 226 and found that Keraga's measurements didn't match. Most likely because the dimensions of the boards had changed due to environmental conditions before Keraga had access to them. The book includes my analysis of the ladder rail dimensions, including rail 16, matching a crate built to metric standards--as opposed to American standards. This theory is consistent with the original consensus in March of 1932 – including that of police expert Erastus Hudson and Lindbergh himself--that the ladder was made from wood used for building crates. My mother’s book suggests that for those still rejecting Gov. Hoffman’s conclusion that the ladder evidence implicating Hauptmann was manufactured by the police, one way to prove definitively if rail 16 and S 226 were ever a part of the same floorboard is by the state now doing a wood DNA test.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Jan 2, 2021 16:08:49 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, rather than attempt to debate each of the points you’ve raised above, perhaps a detailed consideration of the relationship between the ladder and wood that was used in its construction, might provide a further understanding into this part of the circumstantial physical evidence that was instrumental in convicting Hauptmann. Kelvin Keraga’s research report “A Testimony in Wood” is an excellent and highly informative read, and I would encourage you to consider its value. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/keraga.pdfHi Joe! Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Keraga's detailed report and studied it extensively as lead research assistant for my mother. I appreciate the work Keraga put into his detailed analysis based on access to the original rail 16 and S 226 in storage in the 2000s, but dimensions of wood can change over time, especially if not kept in pristine condition. According to Falzini, the evidence in the NJSPM was subjected to flooding and other adverse conditions in the 65+ years until Keraga had access. One of the big stipulations that the defense made at the time of the trial, and Gov Hoffmann's own wood expert made during his follow up investigation, was that rail 16 couldn't have been a floorboard from Hauptmann's rented attic because it was 1/16th of an inch thicker than the other floorboards, including S-226. I compared the detailed measurements that Keraga made of the boards he used in his ladder research, to the measurements that were testified to at trial during Koehler's testimony, specifically the thickness measurements of rail 16 and S 226 and found that Keraga's measurements didn't match. Most likely because the dimensions of the boards had changed due to environmental conditions before Keraga had access to them. The book includes my analysis of the ladder rail dimensions, including rail 16, matching a crate built to metric standards--as opposed to American standards. This theory is consistent with the original consensus in March of 1932 – including that of police expert Erastus Hudson and Lindbergh himself--that the ladder was made from wood used for building crates. My mother’s book suggests that for those still rejecting Gov. Hoffman’s conclusion that the ladder evidence implicating Hauptmann was manufactured by the police, one way to prove definitively if rail 16 and S 226 were ever a part of the same floorboard is by the state now doing a wood DNA test. Hi Joe Just a quick follow up. Retired Judge Pearlman's book also includes analysis, including photographic evidence submitted at trial, and Bornmann's suspicious conduct (keeping his discovery of the evidence in the attic a secret from his partner wood expert Koehler until the day after Koehler testified at the Bronx grand jury) that lends additional support to the theory that the police tampered with rail 16 and the attic to create a link to Hauptmann only after he was arrested and Bornmann took over Hauptmann's lease. For more on retired Judge Lise Pearlman's theory of the Lindbergh kidnapping, which is supported by multiple forensic experts, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1-- The Man Who Got Away is available via www.lisepearlman.com and most places books are sold.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 3, 2021 9:13:03 GMT -5
I think everyone here understands the above noise and distortion is all part and parcel of the story line. A thorough and scientific understanding of the circumstantial physical evidence alone, gives us the level playing field we need to determine whether or not Hauptmann had had at the minimum, a primary role within the construction of the kidnap ladder. Bottom line here is, that circumstantial physical evidence demonstrates conclusively that he did, regardless of whether he took Rail 16 from his attic, or landlord’s basement. It simply tells the truth. Sorry but pointing out where someone who is supposed to be trusted was instead being dishonest isn't "noise," and most certainly isn't "distortion." Here we have a wood expert fudging a floor plan to compliment the evidence then lying about it on the stand. And what we see, by a thorough examination of all documentation, is a willingness to do this sort of thing WHERE EVER deemed necessary. Chisel, Rails 12, 13, and 16. S-226. Lies and misrepresentation throughout. How is that acceptable to you under any circumstance Joe? The Jurors believed every word of his testimony and one even commented that if they couldn't trust him who could they trust.... Look at what Wilentz did to Loney. He threatened him to remove himself from the case and when he did not got him fired. How did he do that? Because he supplied proof that Loney lied on his government application by failing to list his bad check charge. Think about that for a second. And so, with this in mind, should Koehler have remained employed by the Government? The reason for the termination is that if Loney lied there he could not be trusted not to lie elsewhere. And this philosophy played out exactly as it concerned Koehler. Problem is that everyone on the State side of things was on board with it. I often wonder to myself what happened that I do NOT know about? The bottom line is this: People challenged the Rail 16 evidence for cause - and because it had been we NOW know the absolute truth. Michael, I did not say that any of the above actions taken by LE or prosecution were acceptable, nor would I ever even imply it. I understand entirely that blatant lies and misrepresentations took place on both sides of the courtroom. What I did say was that the scope of the circumstantial physical wood evidence that directly connects Rail 16 and other wood within the ladder with Hauptmann, proves that a minimum, he had a primary role within the construction of that ladder. That unassailable fact is totally unaffected by floor plan mistakes, personal threats and firings, beatings or lies accepted by the jury. Whether you like it or not, Koehler, in spite of how you’ve demonstrated he fell into bed with those orchestrating the case against Hauptmann, was a xylotomist, an expert in the field of the determination of the origins of wood. As I’ve previously stated, I’m not a fan of what goes on in the courtroom to begin with, but it’s entirely clear to me that the scientific (and unfudged) proof he demonstrated and that helped to convict Hauptmann, goes well beyond the legal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 3, 2021 12:57:47 GMT -5
With regard to Dr. Mitchell's credentials, please don't conflate quality with quantity. County coroners (medical examiners) in smaller, predominantly rural counties were traditionally appointed more on the basis of politics than on the basis of medical acumen. Regardless of how many autopsies Mitchell had faced in the past, he had most likely never dealt with a corpse so badly decomposed and certainly had never done an autopsy under anywhere near this degree of public scrutiny.
I wouldn't compare Mitchell's professional competence to that of the forensic pathologists in Britain who worked the Jack the Ripper victim cases, despite the fact that those were over four decades earlier. As I said earlier, the body in the Lindbergh case was that of a small child and was seriously decomposed by the time lapse between the death and the time of the examination as well as possibly other factors related to exposure in the woods.
BTW, you may know that the autopsy was not Mitchell's final connection to the Lindbergh case. He officially pronounced Hauptmann dead at the execution.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 3, 2021 14:14:04 GMT -5
With regard to Dr. Mitchell's credentials, please don't conflate quality with quantity. County coroners (medical examiners) in smaller, predominantly rural counties were traditionally appointed more on the basis of politics than on the basis of medical acumen. Regardless of how many autopsies Mitchell had faced in the past, he had most likely never dealt with a corpse so badly decomposed and certainly had never done an autopsy under anywhere near this degree of public scrutiny. I wouldn't compare Mitchell's professional competence to that of the forensic pathologists in Britain who worked the Jack the Ripper victim cases, despite the fact that those were over four decades earlier. As I said earlier, the body in the Lindbergh case was that of a small child and was seriously decomposed by the time lapse between the death and the time of the examination as well as possibly other factors related to exposure in the woods. BTW, you may know that the autopsy was not Mitchell's final connection to the Lindbergh case. He officially pronounced Hauptmann dead at the execution. Okay, just so I can visualize this... someone surgically removed the small intestines, the large intestines, the stomach, the kidneys, the spleen, the gall bladder, the pancreas, numerous blood vessels including the aorta, the inferior vena cava plus dozens of smaller branches, and the lungs... ...and Mitchell missed all surgical signs of this? Also, if Lindbergh was behind this slaughter, he was drawn to the medical profession in the first place because he was interested in helping to find a solution to his sister-in-law's genetic heart condition (a condition that would cause her death). Why would Lindbergh (and crew) not surgical remove Charlie's heart? That was the organ Lindbergh would have been most interested in exploring. And Charlie's brain would have been the second most important organ to remove. Was it like the Waldorf dinner and it just slipped his mind?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 3, 2021 16:24:33 GMT -5
Hi Joe! Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Keraga's detailed report and studied it extensively as lead research assistant for my mother. I appreciate the work Keraga put into his detailed analysis based on access to the original rail 16 and S 226 in storage in the 2000s, but dimensions of wood can change over time, especially if not kept in pristine condition. According to Falzini, the evidence in the NJSPM was subjected to flooding and other adverse conditions in the 65+ years until Keraga had access. One of the big stipulations that the defense made at the time of the trial, and Gov Hoffmann's own wood expert made during his follow up investigation, was that rail 16 couldn't have been a floorboard from Hauptmann's rented attic because it was 1/16th of an inch thicker than the other floorboards, including S-226. I compared the detailed measurements that Keraga made of the boards he used in his ladder research, to the measurements that were testified to at trial during Koehler's testimony, specifically the thickness measurements of rail 16 and S 226 and found that Keraga's measurements didn't match. Most likely because the dimensions of the boards had changed due to environmental conditions before Keraga had access to them. The book includes my analysis of the ladder rail dimensions, including rail 16, matching a crate built to metric standards--as opposed to American standards. This theory is consistent with the original consensus in March of 1932 – including that of police expert Erastus Hudson and Lindbergh himself--that the ladder was made from wood used for building crates. My mother’s book suggests that for those still rejecting Gov. Hoffman’s conclusion that the ladder evidence implicating Hauptmann was manufactured by the police, one way to prove definitively if rail 16 and S 226 were ever a part of the same floorboard is by the state now doing a wood DNA test. Hi Joe Just a quick follow up. Retired Judge Pearlman's book also includes analysis, including photographic evidence submitted at trial, and Bornmann's suspicious conduct (keeping his discovery of the evidence in the attic a secret from his partner wood expert Koehler until the day after Koehler testified at the Bronx grand jury) that lends additional support to the theory that the police tampered with rail 16 and the attic to create a link to Hauptmann only after he was arrested and Bornmann took over Hauptmann's lease. For more on retired Judge Lise Pearlman's theory of the Lindbergh kidnapping, which is supported by multiple forensic experts, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1-- The Man Who Got Away is available via www.lisepearlman.com and most places books are sold. Jamie, Rail 16 has never been and never will be a full 1/16” thicker than S-226. The variation determined by Keraga between the two boards, ranges between 0.738" and 0.747". From my discussion with Kel when he was determining the measurements, I recall the average variability was in the order of 0.006” or 6/1000 of an inch from board to board. This is equal to approximately 1/166 of an inch, not 1/16 of an inch. Much of the confusion relating to this common belief began when Scaduto erroneously assumed that because the end grain patterns did not match up with both boards laying flat that, that Rail 16 must have been thicker. What he failed to understand was that grain patterns do not follow linearly, the processing of individual boards through the wood mill machine planers, and that the missing piece of wood between the two boards is the basis for this visual effect. The notion that Rail 16 was ever part of some crate, is preposterous. Simply stated, you cannot have have as many visual consistencies within the end, side, top and bottom grain patterns all together and as they relate to both Rail 16 and S-226, for there to be even a microscopic possibility that someone could walk into the Skillman Home before the kidnapping, arbitrarily select a board with which to fashion the ladder’s Rail 16, and then have it match up as closely as it did to the very board that was found to have been a part of Hauptmann’s attic floor from the 1920’s, two-and-a-half years after the kidnapping. And I'm almost afraid to ask just how the police enter the equation here, as you see it. Opinion and consensus mean absolutely nothing against the veracity of the wood science that matched Rail 16 and S-226, and that is as unassailable today as it was eighty-five years ago. The demand for DNA testing here is a common cry of the non-believer, as it is with the envelopes relating to the ransom notes and letters addressed by Hauptmann. Would you really be willing to take that chance, at the risk of having the theory you and your mother espouse, essentially dissolve before you, carrying away with it a large portion of the kind of speculative ground ‘Suspect No. 1’ precariously stands upon to begin with? I’d love to see that testing take place, but it will probably never happen, due to the floodgates with thousands of other cases such an action would potentially open for the state of New Jersey. I have the book Jamie, and as I’ve previously messaged, it’s by far the toughest read for me to date within my own study of the case. The narrative consistently attempts to lead the reader to water from it’s beginning to end, while virtually ignoring the vast wealth of circumstantial physical evidence that inexorably connects Hauptmann to the kidnapping and extortion. I understand your mother theorizes that Lindbergh actually had reason to offer up, aka murder in the first degree, his first-born son to the “God of Science”, Alexis Carrel, but she’ll first need to “unexonerate” the most obvious culprit this case knows in Richard Hauptmann, and somehow connect him and all of the other characters she identified as part of this grand scheme through real evidence, and not just speculation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 3, 2021 18:17:57 GMT -5
Wayne, do you have the page number on Day 8 or 9 for the above testimony of Osborn Sr., where he compares Hauptmann's "my"? Your page reader should show it as page x/y, x being the page number and y being the total pages of Osborn Sr. testimony for that day. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 3, 2021 20:32:02 GMT -5
Wayne, do you have the page number on Day 8 or 9 for the above testimony of Osborn Sr., where he compares Hauptmann's "my"? Your page reader should show it as page x/y, x being the page number and y being the total pages of Osborn Sr. testimony for that day. Thanks! Hi Joe, It's Day 8/page 1004/sections 20-30. Attachment DeletedHe's referring to his chart S-113E. By the way, I am halfway through Clark Sellers' trial testimony. So far he has fudged one of this charts the same way Osborn Jr. did.
|
|
|
Post by kelvin on Jan 3, 2021 21:02:59 GMT -5
Hello everyone, Wayne has requested that I comment on some of the discussions here on Mike’s board related to Rail 16. Nice to see that Mike has created such a venue for discussions and has put so much work put into some of the issues. My own exploration of the case led to an education in history, photography, wood science, report writing, and other topics that went beyond the case itself. It was a wonderful experience. I think my focus of attempting to create a very carefully worded report on my LKC study of Rail 16 was excellent training for my subsequent work managing an energy efficiency program for the State of New York.
Currently I’ve a number of other projects going on, and so don’t have the time for extensive discussions on this subject—I like to carefully research before I respond, as below, and this takes time. But I’m glad to see the continued interest in this fascinating case, and offer the following.
Before I get into particulars, I want to make some general comments about how proof is considered in these discussions, and in books related to the case. I will focus on the Rail 16 issue, but I think this applies in other areas as well.
First of all, let me point out that this is not a subjective discussion. One can argue whether Picasso is a better painter than Van Gogh, and there is no right answer, because art is subjective, and either view point deserves respect. In the case of the LKC, such questions, as the origin of Rail 16, are objective questions. There is one truth, one reality, and we are all either closer or farther way from the truth of what happened. Not all viewpoints are valid, only the ones that bring us closer to the truth of the case.
Most often, those who challenge the evidence, as presented, take the stance that the question of whether Rail 16 and S-226 share a common origin as a yes-or-no question. If one decides that they don’t believe that the evidence is sufficient, they consider it to be not proven, and therefore other theories continue to be valid. “You haven’t proven it to me yet, therefore I can posit a theory that the wood came from elsewhere.”
This is lazy. The question of the relationship between Rail 16 and S-226, and the attic, is not a-yes or no question. It is multiple choice. What is the true relationship? What is the reality? Is it: a. The boards are not alike at all b. The boards are coincidentally alike c. The boards were manipulated in such a way (presumably by the police) to create the appearance of a common origin d. The boards share a common origin
As Conan Doyle said (and Spock repeated), 'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
My strategy in developing my report was to find as many points of comparison as possible and attempt to learn which multiple choice answer was correct. I did not set out to prove Rail 16 and S-226 were the same board; I rather tested the potential relationship in every way that I could think of: general characteristics, end grain, knot pattern, planing, and so on, to see what I would learn from them. For starters, it was quickly clear to me that we could eliminate answers a. and b. as there were too many correlations to be deemed as dissimilar or a coincidence. But could the relationship have been faked?
Identification of a relationship comes when a number of variables are combined to the point that other options are not valid. In the case of Rail 16, the fact that the combined pattern of knots is consistent with the growth pattern of a tree, for example, does not prove common origin. The combination of all the variables does because it eliminates the other choices.
My own revelation about Rail 16 came to me one day driving to work, towards the end of my project. I suddenly realized that the theory that the police faked the evidence is quite nonsensical. The concept that the police, having arrested a man for passing ransom money, were able to create all the points of correspondence—down to the micro-anatomical correspondence in the end grain, and its correspondence to the surface grain on both sides!—with boards from his attic is quite frankly ridiculous. I think I expanded on this at the end of my report.
This leaves the only rational explanation: Rail 16 and S-226 were once the same board. My further analysis discovered planing and other consistencies with the other attic boards as well, including the planing defects that I discovered on all of the attic boards I inspected, which to my knowledge had not been previously reported.
There has been continuous debate as to whether the police were correct in accusing Hauptmann of the crime, and (a separate question) whether the trial was fair—both by the standards of the day, and by the standard of today. All well and good, and I think we’ve all learned a great deal from these discussions. However, if we all feel strongly that the case against Hauptmann deserves scrutiny, so does the accusation that the police faked the evidence. This crime would be a terrible crime since it led to Hauptmann’s execution.
So I challenge anyone who wishes to accuse the police of this crime to come up with an explanation for how the police could have faked the relationship between Rail 16, S-226, and the rest of the attic, taking into account all of the data that has been accumulated in my report or elsewhere. It is easy to type “I don’t believe it”; it is a lot harder to do the research and complete a thorough evaluation. To accuse the police of faking this evidence, and to not comprehensively demonstrate how they could have done it, taking into account all of the evidence, is irresponsible. It is unfortunate that some have chosen to write books accusing the police of faking this evidence without going through such an exercise.
Here are a few comments on a couple of specific issues raised recently:
Relative thickness: The relative thickness of the boards was a point of contention during Governor Hoffman’s post-trial review of the case. At that time, a detective working with Governor Hoffman claimed that Rail 16 was of a different thickness than S-226. There are varying accounts of this claim of thickness variance, sometimes describe as Rail 16 thicker, sometimes thinner. This issue was hotly debated during a visit to the attic by Governor Hoffman, C. Lloyd Fisher, David Wilentz, Arthur Koehler, and others, on March 26, 1936. This visit was documented in a subsequent report by Koehler, and in a chapter of Fulton Oursler’s autobiography, “Behold This Dreamer!” Oursler stated in his book (p.335) that he was invited along by the Governor as a representative of the press.
Here is how Oursler describes the thickness evaluation conducted in the attic that day:
“With the rail sixteen in position over the nail holes, he then had Howage try to prove that by the very size and nature of rai sixteen it should be evident that the board from which it was made was a quarter inch less than S-226, of which it was supposed once to have been a part.
Over this point there was an argument that lasted nearly an hour.
Loney and Koehler both measured the dimensions while the court reporter, Donnegan, took down everything that was said and done.
The end of this was that Koehler—a mild-mannered little man, appalled at the aura of antagonism surrounding him—and Loney, a bulldozing man who called Koehler an ignorant four-flushing son-of-a-bitch to me, disagreed. Koehler maintained that it was still part of the original floorboard and that the dimensions did not differ.”
After the attic visit Howage sent a telegram to Governor Hoffman, dated March 27, 1936, (actually the sender was spelled “Leon Hodge” not Leon Howage) which stated, “My figures show board from which Rail 16 was made three sixteenths wider than S 226.” This claim was also stated in a report by Lloyd Fisher (undated but apparently prior to the attic visit). I find this confusing. Is he talking about width or thickness? If he is talking about width, I see no way that he could have determined how wide Rail 16 would have been (absent it’s inclusion as a previous attic board) since it has been narrowed on both edges. If he is talking about thickness, he is making the claim that Rail 16 was actually 3/16 thicker than S-226, which would give it a thickness just under an inch.
Koehler’s report (dated March 28, 1936, Page 2) describes this part of the attic visit this way:
“Mr. Loney then measured the thickness of the ladder rail and the floor board from which it was cut, first with a ruler, then with a pair of calipers. He pointed out that the floorboard was thinner in places, which was correct, but the difference was not great and not anywhere near 1/16 inch as reported in a release from the Governor’s office that night. I suggested that the thickness of the two boards be measured not at the edges, because both edges of the board from which the ladder rail was cut were trimmed off, but more nearly between the two edges and preferably near the adjoining ends of the boards. When measured there the rail was just a shade thinner. All of these differences are insignificant when it is considered that the lumber was low grade and therefore poorly dressed and not dry when dressed because it obviously had shrunk considerably after it was nailed down in the attic. Consequently slight variations in thickness would be expected due to uneven shrinkage.”
Koehler’s description is consistent with my own evaluation. It would have been helpful if my report had included my table of measurements and perhaps a bit more precision in my description. I am attaching them here now. At any rate, if you study the table carefully and compare it to the boards, you can see that I found S-226 to be slightly thicker at the gap end, in the area of the knot that intrudes into that area. The knot represents wood that is growing at an angle, as a branch; it is denser. The wood is growing at a different angle, and with such knots, shrinkage typically occurs more noticeably in a roughly horizontal direction, meaning the knot often shrinks in circumference, which is why you sometimes find knotholes, since the knots have shrunk out of their surroundings and dropped out. In this instance the lateral shrinkage of the knot wood (i.e., the board thickness direction) appears to be less than the rest of the board shrinkage, or shrinkage of rail 16. Which is why it is important to measure all the way around the boards, as I did.
It has been speculated that the current similarity in thickness, as I reported, could have been due to changes in thickness over time. This is a fair comment, and it allows for the hypothesis that Rail 16 was originally thinner than S-226, but has overtime—due to some incidence of swelling that effected Rail 16 but not S-226—Rail 16 expanded in thickness. Or—to follow Howage’s comment—that Rail 16 was thicker at the time but somehow shrunk down by about 3/16 of an inch. In either direction, such a hypothesis must include the result that Rail 16 in its current state is coincidentally to the point of having an average measured variance of only 5 thousands of an inch.
So all this begs the question: what are the recorded measurements of Rail 16 thickness prior to the identification of Hauptmann as a potential suspect?
Koehler wrote a summary report based on initial inspections of the ladder, dated March 4, 1933. In that report he gives the thickness as 24/32” or ¾”, or .75”. My measurements averaged .74”, although some single measures were .75”.
The FBI Summary Report, dated February 16, 1934, includes are report of the Bureau’s inspection of the ladder, dated, June 1, 1932, by W.D. Brush and H.S. Betts “in the office of Mr. Knight of the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils in the presence of Mr. Bradley of the Department of Justice and Mr. Kelly of the New Jersey Police.” This report gives Rail 16 a measurement of “3/4 inches thick”.
Detective Bornmann, who accompanied Koehler during much of his work, and during his attic discovery, was interviewed by Governor Hoffman and others, including “Mr. Hoge” (I can relate to the constant misspelling of a name!) on March 24, 1936, a few days before the attic visit. The transcript indicates that “Mr. Hoge” measured the boards during the interview:
MR. HOGE: Governor, will you check this? Rail 16, exactly 3/4. Yes. (p.7)
Photographs of the ladder taken before and after the arrest show the rails to all be approximately the same thickness. So accusation that Rail 16 was thicker but shrunk should include an accusation that all the boards shrank.
There is also Johnson’s 1932 description of the rail wood being 1 x 4”. This at first glance appears to suggest that the wood was one inch thick. However, consider the width of the rails: none of them are 4” wide. Koehler reported them as 3 9/16” (Rails 13 and 15) 3 5/8” (Rails 14 and 17) 3 11/16” (Rail 12) and 3 17/32” (Rail 16), This indicates that Johnson was using the nominal description of 1 x 4s, not the actual measurement. Measure a 2 x 4 sometime and you will see the difference between nominal descriptions and actual measurement. 1 x 4s are typically around ¾” in thickness once planed for sale, although there is variation now, and certainly was then.
In terms of minor variances it is important to consider that wood does not “dry out” completely. It reaches a point where the moisture in the wood is consistent with the relative humidity in its environment. This is called “equilibrium moisture content.” It is not constant; depending on treatment of the wood, species and other factors, the wood will expand and contract slightly according to conditions. This is why panel doors, for example, are built to allow for some expansion and contraction of the wood as the humidity in their environment changes. So minor expansion and contraction will occur with changes in environment, if humidity levels vary.
Fortunately, Rail 16 and S-226 have been in the same environment for many years, with the same relative humidity, and so in their current state (as when I measured them) variations of moisture content due to variations in environment are not a factor in comparing them. There is, however, another simple way to make the comparison. There is a photograph extant in which Koehler has laid Rail 16 on top of S-226, with a ruler in the picture. I tried to upload it here but the site said the file was too large so you'll have to search it out. Table 1 Rail 16 S-226 thickness comparison....xls (34 KB)
Simple test: measure the boards in the picture. Or cut one out with scissors and lay it over the other. You will find that they are, as I reported, very close in thickness with minor variations throughout. Any differences are in the range of the irregularity of shrinkage found in both boards.
Crating: It has also been brought to my attention that someone has alleged that they had determined that the ladder rails are consistent with the metric measurements for crating. That may be, but they are also consistent with American dimensional “1 x 4” stock lumber, which in reality is typically around ¾” by 3½” or so (variations occur). So the size of the wood does not prove a previous use for crating.
In a report dated March 10, 1932, Squire Johnson expressed the opinion that the ladder wood had been used for crating—"with the exception of one runner piece which bears indications of having been sawn by a rip saw and then planed.” The only runner (rail) that fits this description is Rail 16. So Johnson does not appear to be claiming that Rail 16 was part of a crate.
1 x 4s are used for many, many, many purposes. How does the theory of that the other rails were used for crating hold up? What kind of evidence to the other rails provide that this might be true?
Johnson points out that there is a daub of red lead paint on one of the “broken runners”, which he stated was “exclusively used by plumbers, steamfitters and other persons engaged in mechanical work or the installation of machinery”. Having a red barn myself, and living in an area with a number of red barns, I can’t agree with his use of the word “exclusively”—there are many used for red paint. There are a few nail holes. I didn’t study them carefully, so I’ve no idea whether there is something in their pattern that suggests crating versus other uses. Are there labels? manufacturer information, or other such notes one might see on a crate board? I’m not aware of any. Possibly the ends of the boards with nails/bolts were cut off after use as a crate. At any rate, while some of them may have been used for crates, I know of no real evidence in the boards that determines conclusively that they were used for crates, and there are many other uses for such wood, as the staff at National Lumber demonstrated when they build storage cribs with out of 1 x 4s. Many, many alternatives.
Another note: someone asked me if I had talked to other wood experts who disagreed with the findings of the other scientists, (that Rail 16 and S226 were part of the same board) but were left out of my report. The answer is no, none that disagreed.
Hope you all find this helpful.
Kelvin Keraga
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2021 10:47:50 GMT -5
Michael, I did not say that any of the above actions taken by LE or prosecution were acceptable, nor would I ever even imply it. I understand entirely that blatant lies and misrepresentations took place on both sides of the courtroom. What I did say was that the scope of the circumstantial physical wood evidence that directly connects Rail 16 and other wood within the ladder with Hauptmann, proves that a minimum, he had a primary role within the construction of that ladder. That unassailable fact is totally unaffected by floor plan mistakes, personal threats and firings, beatings or lies accepted by the jury. Whether you like it or not, Koehler, in spite of how you’ve demonstrated he fell into bed with those orchestrating the case against Hauptmann, was a xylotomist, an expert in the field of the determination of the origins of wood. As I’ve previously stated, I’m not a fan of what goes on in the courtroom to begin with, but it’s entirely clear to me that the scientific (and unfudged) proof he demonstrated and that helped to convict Hauptmann, goes well beyond the legal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Okay, glad we got that cleared up. However, I do not want you to miss on the significance concerning the wrongdoing the Prosecution committed, based upon the dishonesty committed by both Koehler and Bornmann concerning the Rail 16 evidence. Of course with Koehler it goes well beyond that extending to both Rails 12 & 13 and the chisels. It's a pattern of deceit that I do not believe anyone should ever ignore. In fact, its what caused all the doubt about the actual relationship in the first place. That along with the idea about "how" it actually happened as well. So what occurred here was the two men "stumbling" onto what they suspected was real evidence and having absolutely no idea about it prior thereto. After this occurred, they then decided to make it look like it had already occurred earlier in their investigation then fashioned an untrue scenario and invented a false narrative surrounding it to make it appear more neat, tidy, and believable. This despite all their documentation and statements conclusively disproving it. The fact S-226/Rail 16 were at one time Board 27 does not justify what took place here. Why? Because it can lead to similar actions that do not surround legitimate evidence. So my point is that framing did indeed take place - just not on the scale typically expected because the relationship between the two boards actually exists. I completely accept Koehler believed they matched and its what he used as "justification" for what he did after that. ALL evidence that currently exists points to the fact that Koehler had NO IDEA whatsoever about S-226 on October 8. What occurred was Koehler, during his Bronx visit, accidentally found this missing piece in the attic on October 9. After satisfying himself it was real, he then later worked backwards. Pretending he knew about this before hand is not okay. There is no such thing as time travel so nothing he lied about is justified. He did the exact same thing with Rails 12 & 13 concluding that he hadn't traced them. It's right in his very own reports made for that exact time they occurred. And yet, once Hauptmann was arrested and the relationship between him and National became known (POOF) Koehler contradicts his reports and claims he actually DID trace them back then. Again, that's not okay. Doing something like this is not only dangerous - its illegal. The fake chisel testimony takes it even a step further by totally inventing a situation that never existed. The only real connection between these two chisels was their make and that they were both sharp. As I wrote in V3, the handles are not the same despite what history records. So what happened here is they used the common demonstrator and tied him in falsely because of what they believed was a real connection. Whether there really was a relationship I submit, at that point, mattered not to them. Here again, while Hauptmann was obviously connected in some way, fabricating evidence, no matter how its done, is never legitimate. This idea that if authorities are convinced someone is "guilty" then its okay to lie about anything is insane. It leads to the situation where all these years later people are still saying S-226/Rail 16 do not match. And frankly, if the State had simply presented the evidence/scenario exactly as it occurred I do not think it would even be a question.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 4, 2021 15:30:49 GMT -5
how you doing kel
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 5, 2021 14:57:47 GMT -5
... There is, however, another simple way to make the comparison. There is a photograph extant in which Koehler has laid Rail 16 on top of S-226, with a ruler in the picture. I tried to upload it here but the site said the file was too large so you'll have to search it out. View Attachment...
Hope you all find this helpful.
Kelvin Keraga
Here's the photo that Kelvin is referencing (the one from Koehler) -
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2021 10:52:06 GMT -5
Here's the photo that Kelvin is referencing (the one from Koehler) That works but the pictures in Kel's actual report are far better. I think for most people the problems exist because none of it ever made any sense. So evidence that looks real but surrounded by a false narrative leads one to the conclusion that it was also fake. Believe it or not I had S-226 in front of me on several occasions. Black light, pictures, measurements, and examinations along with other people. No personal expertise in wood so I relied on what those who did told me. Next, I focused on technical challenges, and despite coming up with several the odds were pretty high against them. As a result, I accumulated everything possibly imagined (as evidenced by Chapter 5 of V3) and considered the totality of it all. By pursuing it in this way, I believe, I have been able to properly explain everything. So there isn't a need to shrug anything off in order to accept the truth. A big problem that occurs (unfortunately its human nature) is to believe its " one or the other." Not so. Here we have legitimate evidence surrounded by fabrication. But instead of coming clean and telling the absolute truth they lied to cover up other lies and it snowballed. Hoffman was not to blame either. He was aware of so many similar situations of nefarious behavior, like the cops asking Dr. Hudson if it was possible to forge fingerprints as one example, so that it was an easy leap to make once noticing all the discrepancies. Take the beating Hauptmann took at the hands of the police as another example. Because they lied about it - that doesn't mean he wasn't involved. They lied for other reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 10, 2021 11:55:58 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, I've never been convinced Hauptmann wrote them. I've always been about 50/50 and to this day it hasn't changed. I think people tend to be pushed off the fence by other things, like the ransom money and ladder as examples, but I don't agree with these being used as tie-breakers. One thing I am sure of and that is Hauptmann didn't think up with what's actually written there. Of course this is just my opinion and can be challenged as well. Clark Sellers article, which he wrote for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology is an excellent read, not to mention a pretty compelling case for Hauptmann having written each of the ransom notes. scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2693&context=jclcHi Joe, Thanks again for Clark Sellers’ Handwriting Evidence Against Hauptmann article. While I do admire the article, he made some serious errors. I’m aware that we all make mistakes, so all I am doing here is stating the facts from the luxury of an 85-year-old quarterback armchair. 1) Page 875. Sellers says, “Hauptmann was an experienced criminal. He committed many crimes in his own country-alone; in fact, he was known as a lone wolf.” Actually, it’s just the opposite. Do you have his German arrest records? The 4 crimes he was arrested for were all committed with an accomplice. Also, just for the record, nowhere in the German records are there any accounts that Hauptmann (a) used a ladder or (b) broke in to the 2nd floor window of the mayor of Bernbursh. He did break in the mayor’s house, but there is no mention of a ladder or that it was 2nd floor break-in. Without any doubt, if Hauptmann had used a ladder for a second story break-in, you know that Wilentz would have justifiably hammered that home. He didn’t because those things didn’t happen. (If you don’t have these German records, let me know and I will send them.) 2) Page 877. Sellers says, “…a chisel found under the window…” We all know it was found about 75 feet from the house near the ladder sections. 3) Page 878. Sellers says, “Hauptmann's handwriting was submitted to handwriting experts for comparison with the Lindbergh ransom letters. For the first time those experts reported, "This is the writer." We’ve been over this, but when Albert D. Osborn first studied Hauptmann’s writings he called Col. Schwarzkopf and told him that he was “…convinced (Hauptmann) did not write the ransom notes.” 4) Page 886. Sellers says, “To offset this damaging evidence the defense attempted to make it a battle of experts. They had nine persons examine the handwriting for the defense. It is significant that only one of the nine testified for the defense. Some of them refused to testify and withdrew from the case.” The 8 prosecution handwriting experts had exclusive access to the ransom notes from May 1932 until the day the trial started in 1935. They had access to Hauptmann’s handwriting since September 1934 until the day the trial started. The original 9 defense handwriting experts had a total of 2 hours and 15 minutes to look at all the ransom notes and Hauptmann’s handwriting during one weekend in the middle of the trial! That’s why 8 of them left.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2021 9:46:50 GMT -5
While I do admire the article, he made some serious errors. I’m aware that we all make mistakes, so all I am doing here is stating the facts from the luxury of an 85-year-old quarterback armchair. ... The 8 prosecution handwriting experts had exclusive access to the ransom notes from May 1932 until the day the trial started in 1935. They had access to Hauptmann’s handwriting since September 1934 until the day the trial started. The original 9 defense handwriting experts had a total of 2 hours and 15 minutes to look at all the ransom notes and Hauptmann’s handwriting during one weekend in the middle of the trial! That’s why 8 of them left. Excellent rebuttal Wayne. This has been discussed here so many times over the years that I've lost count. Unfortunately these discussions get lost over time which was partly a motivation for me to write a book in the first place. Anyway, the only thing I differ with is that only Myers & Malone left on their own. As revealed for the first time in Lloyd's book, according to C. Lloyd Fisher, they wanted $500 just to examine the notes and when told there wasn't that kind of money they left. From there a reporter quoted Myers as saying they withdrew because their testimony wouldn't have been favorable to the Defense. Well, Malone was interviewed and asked about this but he neither denied nor confirmed what Myers had said. Later sometime in 1936, acting through a lawyer Myers tried to get into the act by offering to work for the Governor. What's interesting is that Malone gave Myers a letter of recommendation confirming his skills in 1934, and yet, upon "hearing" that Myers was to work for the Governor (he never did), Malone wrote him to make sure he knew that he was not qualified. Next thing you know, the Governor sent both copies of exemplars of Hauptmann's handwriting and a copy of the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip to Malone for examination. As it concerns the others they all wanted to testify but it was Reilly's decision, for various reasons, not to utilize them. I think in a couple of cases he was worried the State would object and they would be disqualified as experts by Judge Trenchard. When it came to Braunlich she claimed that, along with Goodspeed, they saw signs of tampering on the notes. Over the years this has been pointed to by "Lone-Wolf" people to show they were crazy or something. I've come to the conclusion that its possible they never examined the original notes in the first place. Can't prove it of course, but we all know the State wasn't against committing dirty tricks like this. Here's a letter I remember originating from HRO. It was either among the material he sent me or can be found in his collection at the NJSP. At this point I can't remember which.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 11, 2021 10:05:34 GMT -5
While I do admire the article, he made some serious errors. I’m aware that we all make mistakes, so all I am doing here is stating the facts from the luxury of an 85-year-old quarterback armchair. ... The 8 prosecution handwriting experts had exclusive access to the ransom notes from May 1932 until the day the trial started in 1935. They had access to Hauptmann’s handwriting since September 1934 until the day the trial started. The original 9 defense handwriting experts had a total of 2 hours and 15 minutes to look at all the ransom notes and Hauptmann’s handwriting during one weekend in the middle of the trial! That’s why 8 of them left. Excellent rebuttal Wayne. This has been discussed here so many times over the years that I've lost count. Unfortunately these discussions get lost over time which was partly a motivation for me to write a book in the first place. Anyway, the only thing I differ with is that only Myers & Malone left on their own. As revealed for the first time in Lloyd's book, according to C. Lloyd Fisher, they wanted $500 just to examine the notes and when told there wasn't that kind of money they left. From there a reporter quoted Myers as saying they withdrew because their testimony wouldn't have been favorable to the Defense. Well, Malone was interviewed and asked about this but he neither denied nor confirmed what Myers had said. Later sometime in 1936, acting through a lawyer Myers tried to get into the act by offering to work for the Governor. What's interesting is that Malone gave Myers a letter of recommendation confirming his skills in 1934, and yet, upon "hearing" that Myers was to work for the Governor (he never did), Malone wrote him to make sure he knew that he was not qualified. Next thing you know, the Governor sent both exemplars of Hauptmann's handwriting and the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip to Malone for examination. As it concerns the others they all wanted to testify but it was Reilly's decision, for various reasons, not to utilize them. I think in a couple of cases he was worried the State would object and they would be disqualified as experts by Judge Trenchard. When it came to Braunlich, she claimed that, along with Goodspeed, they saw signs of tampering on the notes. Over the years this has been pointed to by "Lone-Wolf" people to show they were crazy or something. I've come to the conclusion that its possible they never examined the original notes in the first place. Can't prove it of course, but we all know the State wasn't immune from committing dirty tricks like this. Here's a letter I remember originating from HRO. It was either among the material he sent me or can be found in his collection at the NJSP. At this point I can't remember which. View AttachmentThanks for filling in those gaps Michael. Nice research.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2021 10:14:18 GMT -5
Thanks for filling in those gaps Michael. Nice research. Thanks Wayne. Supposedly, once Goodspeed and Braunlich shared this observation with Reilly he immediately sent them home. There's a quote somewhere (from memory) " you'll testify to no such thing" or something similar. I've searched for everything I could find on this but there's very little out there. But of course, once again, whatever history had us believe wasn't true.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 11, 2021 10:22:20 GMT -5
Another Osborn Sr. observation. Osborn compared only 3 words from the Nursery Note to Hauptmann’s handwriting. (If you're counting, the Nursery Note contains a total of 65 words, numbers, and symbols.) “We”, “is”, and “singnature”. That’s it. The “is” comparison is on Osborn’s chart S-110 and is no long available. “We” and “singnature” are both on Osborn’s chart S-109. I think, but I'm not sure, that the “We” (next to “Hall”) is compared to 3 of Hauptmann’s “w”s. “singnature” is compared to 2 of Hauptmann’s “ing”s. Take a close look. Is anybody convinced by these comparisons?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 11, 2021 10:50:34 GMT -5
Anyway, the only thing I differ with is that only Myers & Malone left on their own. As revealed for the first time in Lloyd's book, according to C. Lloyd Fisher, they wanted $500 just to examine the notes and when told there wasn't that kind of money they left. Hi Michael, Interesting. I'm just finishing John Trendley's trial testimony and he testifies that both Malone and Meyers were with him in Trenton when they all were allowed 2 1/2 hours to look at the ransom notes: Q. But you had two hours and a half in which to consider all the original documents? A. How could I examine them? There were four or five others there; they were passing them around; you couldn’t get a good examination. Q. Somebody else was there? Who else was there? A. Mr. Goodspeed and some ladies and another gentleman. Q. Mr. Malone there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Meyers there? A. Yes.
|
|