|
Post by steve for mike on Apr 26, 2006 22:24:58 GMT -5
i dont think its a crock. knowing kel since the begining of his research, i felt all along the wood is damaging evidence against hauptmann. kel only discovered more then koehler did
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2006 6:38:10 GMT -5
Again Steve - the issue is neutrality. I say there was bias. From my perspective there was less evidence of it before I was aware the process was under way but years before it was finished I saw clear evidence of it within an email. Now it takes a special person to proceed free and clear of prejudice concerning the evidence so he's certainly not alone.....but to say he was, when he wasn't - is silly.
And when you do set out to find something you usually do even if its not what you really find. Additionally, if you find something you aren't looking for (ooopps) that gets "lost" or deemed not important enough to mention.
My position is clear. There are omissions, speculation, and over-statements contained in this report which profess to be based upon Science in order to prove something. There are circumstances that need a closer look and others that need explanation.
Rick,
I like your investigation into this angle but be aware that several of the "quacks" and others looking for reward money were masons... So I don't think this would have gone unmentioned for very long if this "signal" to them truly existed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 27, 2006 8:26:47 GMT -5
Too bad someone who is convinced of Hauptmann's innocence hasn't spent the time to analyze the wood evidence, then perhaps we could compare two "biased" investigations and see how they differ. I would be interested to see how the evidence could possibly reveal a different conclusion.
I think that the environmental conditions that existed that evening are once again being exaggerated. The kidnapper wasn't climbing that ladder in a tropical storm. The letter would be easy to keep protected and the ledge placement makes sense with a second climb.
|
|
|
Post by rickIII Trooper II on Apr 27, 2006 8:38:34 GMT -5
Michael--thanks for your support. I know what you say is true and Im just trying to float this out into everyones sub-con-scious to see if it triggers anything.
All of our focus should be on the Nursery Note. We are led to believe that the perp(s) constructed it. As such, it could also represent an attack on the CAL/Masons for their viscious anti-semitic stances/ both public and private. Especially if you connect up the attack by the NSDAP at the same time. Nice bedfellows. It just has to be a recognizable secret symbol/
Because of CALs apparent "slight of hand" with regard to discovering the Nursery Note, has anyone ever considered that CAL opened the envelope, read it and put it back before Betty realized it was there? That could explain the wierd location? Since there were no addresses on the outside of the envelope or fingerprints or mud. Was there really an envelope? {Someone reported there was a little mud on the covers}
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2006 17:37:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to see another report made by anyone with an agenda or conclusion before the wood evidence analysis began - that was my point. Would anyone want a cigarette company doing up a report on the harmfulness of tobacco? We had, as a matter of fact, a qualified Expert with no agenda make an in person examination of the wood and drew a different conclusion. That too is something else I simply can not dismiss based soley upon Keraga's report. Furthermore, I think if you are going to tackle this issue you must do so in its totality. That is the reports, all of them, must be reviewed to see if what had been seen is now the same situation. And if not - 'why' would be a valid question which should have a reasonable answer. Exclusions, framed questions, wrong questions, one-sided perspectives, and guess-work disguised as Science have no place in something which purports to prove something else. Old or "used" wood in that attic? No way... all lumber was purchased brand new. So where did this "used" wood come from mentioned in the report? (Shrug) Nevermind that question - it doesn't matter. Had Koski laid the floor after the Electrician ran the wiring? The Electrician wasn't even sub-contracted until Koski was working on the roof. So how did the Electrician run the wiring before the attic floor was laid? (Shrug) Nevermind that question - it doesn't matter. Was Rauch the Contractor? No. So why did Rauch testify he was? (Shrug) Nevermind that question - it doesn't matter. Did Keohler see the planer marks Keraga did more then 70 years earlier (when he was searching for them)? Nope. So how can Keraga, who isn't anywhere near the Expert Koehler was see these when he claimed he wasn't even looking for them when we know Koehler was? (Shrug) Nevermind that question - Keraga says he found them and they match so just drop it. What were the (3) wire nails doing in a brand new joist over which a brand new floor was being nailed over? For what purpose? Where'd they go? You see... one could have just asked, very recently mind you, how Keraga could have been wrong about his rock solid conclusion concerning Hauptmann crawling into this attic and sawing his floorboard. However, Kevin was bold enough to use his skill, common sense, and his observation to challenge that conclusion and basically call it into serious question. We must never let go of that type of drive or deprive ourselves of the determination to ensure we get it right because someone thinks they or their assertions are above challenge. By all accounts we have wind, mud, and rain. I think the amount of mud and where is in dispute. Do we now question the wind and rain? If not, then I have a problem with the note being where it was found, with the window closed, not wet, and no trace of mud found near or on it. We know the person placing the note on the sill had been wearing gloves because no prints were found on it. Did the entrance occur going in head-first? What left the mud on the suit-case...a foot or a hand? Do we believe Gow's trial prep statement about the dirty sheet? Kevin, could you explain the scenario to fit these circumstances and leave the note where and as it was found so I can take a couple of shots at it? Rick, No one seems to notice the note when they see the baby is gone. This, to me, isn't very surprising because they are looking for a toddler and not a note. CJ, who I think most people believe was a member of the gang, said the note was left in the crib. - Maybe CJ wasn't in the Nursery.
- Maybe Condon lied about CJ saying this.
- Maybe the note had been moved.
Now if the note was moved then who moved it? One thing for sure - they were wearing gloves. Anyway - keep going with the mason connection and let's see where it leads us. I don't think a blanket theory can be applied as it involves the entity, however, there may be some sort of "offshoot" connection or tangent to consider hidden away for us to find.
|
|
rickIII Wilburtha trainee
Guest
|
Post by rickIII Wilburtha trainee on Apr 27, 2006 17:20:33 GMT -5
kevin...you said your own self "who wants to spend 4 years trying and prove Bornmann, Koehler and Davis wrong"? Apparently noone? Who wants to counter the Osbournes and $55K dollars worth of handwriting analysis. Apparently noone? Its etched in stone--at least for now. All the above is the given in the LKC. Its impossible to prove a negative: " Mr. X did not do something"/ you always have to prove a positive association.
Aha--and it is always possible to suggest, show, prove that someone else actually did something that they said they did not do. eg they lied.
New information, new leads, new historical perspectives and reconnecting the dots in different ways....all have the possiblity of turning this entire LKC upside down on its head. At that moment in time it will all make sense. Without ever proving any negative. there are lists of 50 questions without answers--so far we have yet to answer even one of them.
I think some Computer Handwriting Analyisis or Forensic Document Computer Analysis Profiling might show alot. After all it looks more and more like a gentlemanly exchange starting every note with "Dear Sir" and then never telling CAL how to exchange the ransom dough for Charlie. How the heck can that be? Are these Marguis of Queensbury rules?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 27, 2006 18:42:05 GMT -5
I would say that after all these years, investigations, books, and discussions, proving either a negative or a positive is quite an accomplishment. If for example you can prove that the window could not be accessed by that ladder, then you effectively prove the kidnap scenario as commonly accepted is false. Thus this "negative" proof is proof positive of an alternate occurrence. Similarly, disproving the wood evidence linking Hauptmann to the ladder would surely revitalize the investigation as well as severing one of the three greatest evidence links between Hauptmann and the kidnapping. So until the evidence is negated any theory must incorporate Hauptmann as a participant.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 28, 2006 6:34:51 GMT -5
I am only stating that , like the mud, the severity of the rain seems to be overestimated. Had there been heavy rain I would expect to see pooling in Kelley's photos taken that night. It would also be doubtful that any Nursery windows would be left open as the shutters won't keep out a heavy rain. My primary point is that one cannot assume that a kidnapper employing the ladder during the relatively short period of time needed would find himself covered in mud and soaking wet. It seems to me that this assumption of the severity of rain and mud has an element of prejudice involved.
I still believe that the ladder was staged several times and in several configurations. I do plan an experiment later on to confirm the feasibility of this. I believe the final ascent and descent occurred with the ladder in two sections and to the right of the window to avoid being seen through the library window. The final ascent was made to place the note ( which may not have been completed until that night) on the sill and close the window, both of which are within arms length.
|
|
|
Post by steve fr mike on Apr 28, 2006 7:33:17 GMT -5
who is this expert with a differnt conclusion? the questions youask about the wood does not take away the obvious simple illustrations of the planer mark comparisons, the grain match ups, nailhole lineups. the fat rail 16 was on the ladder march 2 until now with photo comparisons. im convinced/ mike where are you going to be sunday afternoon?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 28, 2006 7:55:48 GMT -5
Sometimes I think the whole planer mark issue is detrimental simply because the more important point is the unique grain/ growth pattern which as far as I am concerned makes rail 16 and s-226 a definite match with out any subjective interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2006 22:16:28 GMT -5
As with just about every topic this one has gone all over the place. This is why our search function icon (found in the welcome center) is a "must" when looking for our old posts. For the most part I think we have done a good job keeping the topics within the proper threads but as one following this thread can see - its simply impossible here....
This is excellent logic and a very hard one to debate in my opinion. Over the years I have tried and the result is that while you simply can not trust the Police & Prosecution, you certainly can't trust Hauptmann either. So we must sift our way through the evidence piece by piece and bit by bit.
Everything can't be faked so we must consider the odds concerning the amount of evidence that exists. Regardless of how culpable Hauptmann's involvement made him, the evidence still points to involvement. For me, I am wrestling with exactly what that involvement was. I don't believe Hauptmann was in Hopewell on March 1st, and I do not believe he was Cemetery John.
There's no denying the ransom money possession and this connects Hauptmann - period. Now believing he was "duped" completely and had no idea this money was connected to illegal activity is impossible in my opinion. And while his "Fisch Story" seems to have some support concerning: the leak that existed in that closet, Kloppenburg's eyewitness account, and the newspaper's dates which the money was wrapped - we can't ignore Rab's research or shrug it off.
I also give a lot of weight to Lt. Finn's observation that Hauptmann was way too relaxed under the circumstances and appeared to have "prepared" for his arrest by running down a list of excuses and/or stories in the event his arrest actually occurred. However I am also perplexed, if this is true, concerning other circumstances which seems to indicate he wasn't this smart and/or shows lack of preparation.
For me after the arrest, while Hauptmann is attempting to protect himself, it becomes clear he is protecting other(s) first & foremost and went to the chair for this reason when he certainly didn't have to. Those who say Hauptmann didn't know he was going to die until it was too late are just flatly incorrect.
I think there is little doubt concerning the wind. The amount of rain, for me, is irrelevant. Why? As anyone knows when the wind is whipping even a mist will have you covered in no time. Now I notice you say above that a person is employing the ladder in a relatively short period of time.... This suggests the ladder and person(s) employing it were dropped off near the house? Surely if these people are trudging from either Featherbed Lane or Hopewell - (Amwell or Wertsville) Rd this wouldn't be true. Isn't this the "forgotten" variable here? I do agree that the actual "snatch" was a quick one based upon Ellis Parker's observations. If he is right they struck very near 8PM.
Dr. Hoadley concluded a match between S-226 and Rail 16 could only be confirmed by matching specific anatomical structure - such as resin canals. He drew this conclusion after examining the ladder and other wood evidence at the NJSP Headquarters in March of '83.
You have completely ignored the points Kevin and I have made concerning the planer marks.
During Keraga's presentation which I attended in Flemington, he did a fine job of displaying the similarities concerning the grain and ring sequences - in fact it was an excellent presentation and I recommend attending his future presentations if and when they occur. However, I still can not say its conclusive especially taking into consideration what I've posted concerning Dr. Hoadley's observations AND the Expert (who is quoted in Keraga's report agreeing with his conclusions) but telling me he'd have to see the wood before he could testify to it.
We know this is the same Rail 16. We don't know if (4) holes existed there originally. We do know they existed sometime before June '32. We also know that spliced overlapping joists made the match possible. This wasn't unique to Rauch's house and the Governor insisted those holes in that joist was "fresh"...
Do they look like they match? Yes, in fact I'd say they probably do, however, "probably" ain't good enough. Kevin's and Rab's theory, which is backed by a set of likely circumstances that are hard to argue against, have helped me to get to the point where I see a very good possibility this board was in the basement of Rauch's house. If I know Hauptmann like I think I know him from all of my research I've done over the years - then he was taking as much left-over wood out of that basement as he could get his hands on.
Sunday afternoon I'll be at SRO on North Union Street. Stop by and have a beer if you get the chance. There's also a micro-brewery, Riverhorse, right down the street. They're calling for beautiful weather so it will be a large crowd.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 29, 2006 6:56:23 GMT -5
Dr Hoadley is one of the best in my opinion, I have learned much from him. I think it is important to remember that wood fibers exist in a 3 dimensional plane. Photographs, while helpful are by their nature two dimensional. When you analyze the fibers or grain direction in rail 16 and s-226 the three dimensional orientation is a match . Then looking at resin canals and growth ring structure and deformation there is no doubt of the match.
See my post under The Usual Suspects I think we are on a similar wavelength.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2006 7:46:47 GMT -5
That's just it. Dr. Hoadley, after examination of this evidence, asked for permission to make invasive study in order to examine the resin canals and this was denied. Bryan was persistent in seeking a Court Order for these tests. The Judge kept attempting to have both sides informally resolve the matter before the Court stepped in. The State repeatedly balked at this test claiming they were "destructive tests" which would permanently "alter" the evidence forever. This coming on the heels of their own invasive studies and not to mention Koehler's which we all know occurred continously for years. Now I can't say for 100% sure, but it appears the Wrongful Death Action was dismissed before any Court action took place on the matter. But I can say there was absolutely no evidence that Dr. Hoadley was ever able to conduct the tests he said needed to be performed in order to draw any conclusions. I also can not say anything concerning Dr. Hoadley's opinion and/or observations after this specific matter outside of breaking my (implied) word. However, there are other mentions in these links: 128.119.101.5/pastchancellors/scott/oldreports/report8-98.htmlgraphics.boston.com/globe/magazine/1998/5-31/ideas/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2006 7:16:03 GMT -5
As I said, I am 100% convinced of the rail16 & s-226 connection based on wood characteristics not machine marks. I still find that there are some aspects to the ladder design & construction which are troubling to me and which could potentially reveal new information.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2006 8:54:31 GMT -5
You're certainly not alone. It definitely appears to be a match especially after watching Keraga's presentation. I have asked and consulted several Experts over the years and most said while they believed they did match there was no why to conclusively say so without seeing the wood themselves. Keraga's own source communicated this to me. Some have said while they believe they match only invasive testing would prove it. Dr. Hoadley's position in '83 was the most interesting: Arthur Koehler based his opinion that the pieces matched primarily on visual similarities in the growth ring patterns. However, the very approach used by Koehler can just as logically be used to prove that two non-aligned pieces of wood can also possess similar growth ring patterns. Please share if you feel the time is right.... I find Samuelsohn and his story most interesting. It's bolstered by several facts surrounding it. I also believe Squire Johnson's immediate observations concerning the ladder's construction, which was made before any break in the chain of custody, tampering, and destructive testing - is also very important.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2006 9:04:58 GMT -5
As I said before the three dimensional match is exact as well as the ring pattern which is enough for me, When one puts this into context with a theory of a "planted" board (either s-226 or rail 16) it becomes apparent that it would be impossible to find a match in such a short span of time. You wwould be lucky to find a pice of yellow pine that was close.
Every time I bring this up I usually get slammed, but there is something very wrong about that ladder. I almost get the feeling that two different people were involved in it's construction or that it was not built in a single attempt. The joint between sections one and two are just so fundamentally different from the joint at sections two and three. Also the switch from mortised rungs to non-mortised ones as well as the rung spacing. Building the replicas caused me realize the different methodology going on here, very unusual for a single constructor.
|
|
|
Post by steve for kevkon on May 1, 2006 19:45:46 GMT -5
the wood evidence in this case is very damaging. its played with to much by researchers. i strongly feel it cannot be budged. thats after studying it since 1990. if theres planting and tampering. i never saw it
|
|
|
Post by rick for steve on May 1, 2006 21:53:10 GMT -5
The wood evidence in this case is strong but not ironclad or bulletproof by any stretch of the imagination.
Bornmann finds the ladder on March 1st 1932 and 30 months later finds the wood in the attic? Statistics will tell you that is way unlikely. Especially after 37 NYC cops including LJB miss it completely? Do You Believe That?
Bornmann rents the attic for 6 months during which time noone can see the attic. Out the other end in 1935 comes the evidence? Not right aways by any means.
Dr.Hudson raises 500 prints on the ladder including Bornmanns, but not BRH. "You've got the wrong man".
Almost noone that believes or supports this evidence has seen the wood, just the doctored photos. Turned, twisted, angled, raised and fitted.
Who really cares if a few holes are drilled or a few slivers are taken for microscopic analysis or ICP spectroscopy. Only 12 persons in the world have ever seen the ladder in 75 years. Who? Only the NJSP is blocking confirmation by PhD World Class Wood Anatomists in a double-blind Shroud of Turin testing process. Bring them on!
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 1, 2006 23:21:36 GMT -5
I do think the wood evidence is the most convicting evidence. Yet it is this evidence at this point in my study that I am unable to use in a hands down conviction of Hauptmann. This is not any disrespect in Kel's evaluation. I think he did a marvellous job.
Let me explain. I believe there was a vendetta like effort to frame Hauptmann. This might not have been considered vicious because I think they believed they had the right man and actually might agree. The finding of this evidence does not fit a consistency and disturbs me. Rick you brought up the lack of fingerprints on the ladder. Actually we find much more than that. We find and overall successful work not to subscribe anything of the crime scene to point to Hauptmann. I have to believe he covers his shoes for no footprints. We find no fingerprints anywhere of Hauptmann. Yet I am told to accept rail 16 comes from Hauptmann's attic. I would have to accept Hauptmann pretty much did everything right yet made a blunderous mistkae here. The prosecution brings Whitted, Barr, Hockmuth, condon etc... that we know in all liklihood was misleading and maybe just down right false. It is this same team that we are told to believe that has the evidence that rail 16 match the attic of hauptmann.
What if Samuelsohn was right. He did make this ladder. What if Samuelsohn's account is right & the investigators had the tools of a frame up before Hauptmann was even known as a suspect. What if this match was identified early within the inventory of Samuelsohn. Why is there little information on Samuelsohn's story. He bult the replica. Why is there no account of its likeness or non likeness to the original. Why did Condon abandon his belief in Samuelsohn's story?
|
|
|
Post by rickIII TroouperII on May 2, 2006 6:30:27 GMT -5
Gary, I fully agree. i also beleive that the Chain of Custody of the ladder would not sustain a vigorous defense effort bya a sane, sober and BRH-neutral Defense. it was left lying around for 90 days/ and then taken apart and put back together upty-umph times. I doubt showing News Photos would impress a jury of original wood.
On the issue of the fingerprints, Dr. Hudson specifically stated that prints would last from "construction" to the time of abandonment. Not just the nite of the snatch. The Prostitution would have lots of splaining to do about not tracking down the dozens of latent prints not found to be the few persons tested? Very few persons can build a ladder with socks on thier hands? how long is the list of persons never fingerprinted? Red/ Betty/ CAL/ Fisch/ Samuelson? Johnny Cochran would have noticed that!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2006 7:03:52 GMT -5
Rick I would like to see this happen just so that this issue is put to rest. I think it won't because of bureaucracy and the simple fact that the state has nothing to gain here.
Gary, I understand your point and there certainly was a good deal of improper behavior conducted by the state. However , there is no way that S-226 and rail 16 were faked. They are of the same board and any test man can come up with will only continue to prove this. So what ever theory one chooses to follow it must incorporate Hauptmann and not just because of that one board. Evidence is cumulative, we have the drawing of the ladder, the plane marks from his hand planes and the saw kerfs. So if one wants to believe cabinetmaker Samuelsohn made the kidnap ladder that's fine as long as you can dovetail Hauptmann's attic board, drawing and tools into the account.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 trooper2 on May 2, 2006 9:40:48 GMT -5
Kevin....there are a minimum of 3 entities protecting themselves, usually referred to as CYA: the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, and the Lindbergh-Morrow families. Nothing has changed in this regard for over 75 years--in fact since 1 March 1932. This clearly implies that all were in collusion with CAL from the get go. All of Charlies bones, DNA, clothing etc has been removed by the family to include fingerprints. the State of NY or NYC has never transferred its files to Wilburtha. And every official including the Governor of New Jersey has blocked any DNA analyisis of the envelopes or microscopic (invasive?) analysis of the wood evidence. If they all have nothing to hide then whats up with that.? Even the Catholic Church tested the Shroud of Turin so that tells you how much there is to hide. Noone ever missed the little pieces of cotton cloth? They never will because JCs reputation was not at stake there.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2006 11:01:11 GMT -5
Rick, I guess you and others just have more faith in the ability of government bureaucracy. Personally, I don't. I think that the best way to insure something will be screwed up or that a secret will be revealed is to let the government handle it. If the great state of New Jersey and it's esteemed leadership could actually pull a Lindbergh conspiracy off and keep it under wraps for this long I would think they might even be capable of balancing their budget. Hell, they might even conspire to fix the roads.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 2, 2006 15:07:53 GMT -5
To Kevin:
Thank you for your reply kevin. I think you missed my point a tad. II have little doubt s226 matches rail 16. My point is (and may be mis directed) does s226 match Hauptmann's attic boards as in for sure coming from his attic. What I am saying is if Samuelsohn built the ladder (and I don't know) what if the match was found among Samuelsohn's workshop. Now I believe this is a long shot but for a moment lets assume it was found and then used later to enhance a conviction of Hauptmann. Now I have a hard time believing this but if it was miraculously found in this manner I suggest, would it be beyond them to fix this evidence. This is only conversation not in any theory I have.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2006 16:46:32 GMT -5
Gary, I see know what you are saying. That is a real long shot. We know that rail 16 was original to the kidnap ladder via photos and documentation. How would Samuelsohn, or anyone else for that matter know the overall dimensions of the attic flooring and the site specific nailing pattern in Hauptmann's attic 2 yrs prior to his arrest? Unless we know consider Samuelsohn to be a suspect, he would certainly have recognized this odd ladder as photos and sketches of it were widely publicized. Also, it is a pretty sorry cabinetmaker who would produce that ladder in the first instance.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 TrooperII on May 2, 2006 17:00:00 GMT -5
Gary and Kevin....once you begin thinking about adding S-226 to the attic, well the possible locations to find it are infinite. Skillman, Shippel, Samuelson etc.{ I think it makes it harder to find it with 2" missing} One issue that supports this notion is the abscence of toe-nailed tongues. You know, the ones with the angle right thru the tongue facing outwards towards the center of the attic floor:
"The first rows must be nailed by hand rather than with the hardwood floor nailer because of the vertical wall obstruction. When clearance allows, the hardwood floor nailer which drives 2-inch (5 cm) nails (or cleats) can be used to simplify and speed the nailing process."
But as we checked out at NJSP-Wilburtha all the T&G boards from the first row "have no nails thru the tongue". I think the entire row is there now, to include S-226. There is no verticle wall obstruction out that far from the edge of the floor. Its not an absolute, just something that can't possibly be done afterwards or pulled up by hand?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2006 19:02:16 GMT -5
Rick, the hardwood floor nailer or power nailer you are referring to is commonly used today to install plank and strip flooring. However in 1932 t & g flooring was installed by hand nailing using cut nails. The first board laid, or toe board, is face nailed regardless of it's proximity to vertical surface (wall). There are several reasons for this. Primarily face nailing is used on this first board to keep it straight as the rest of the floor will follow. Another reason is simply the difficulty in toe nailing this first board without a floor to work from. In fact in an attic installation of t & g sub flooring it is not uncommon to see the first several rows face nailed until there is enough room to work from. Toe nails can be used in conjunction with face nailing if possible, but it is optional. Additionally the toe board ( rail 16 and s-226,e ) in Hauptmann's attic lies above a bearing wall where the floor/ ceiling joists are lapped which results in a distinctive nailing pattern.
|
|
|
Post by steve for rick on May 2, 2006 19:58:15 GMT -5
that all i heard all hese years people missed this evidence before bornmann discovered it. does this prove planting evidence? hell no because when you fast forward and pay attention to kels great research rail 16 looked the same in photo comparisons then and now. the toolmark and planer marks are still there the grains match, koehler saw four nailholes in rail 16 before the arrestof hauptmann. the research today proves to me no planting. if gardner and mike have anything otherwise id like to see it because this on going garbage of how everybody missed it and bornmann planted evidence is nonsense
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2006 5:39:38 GMT -5
If you read Samuelsohn's affidavit, after looking over the ladder at the Headquarters he only identifies a couple of marks on the ladder as his but says some of it had been replaced and was not his. I have always felt that Bornmann's backdated reports were due to Samuelsohn's affidavit which was made on 9-26. We must remember what Samuelsohn's exact story was. On this day he turned over some "left-over" pieces of wood from this job. It's interesting and should be explored instead of saying the same old same old.
One Expert I consulted had suggested that if several pieces of lumber had been purchased from the yard at the same time, these pieces could be from the same tree or stand of trees and yield rings similar if not identical but not be the continuation piece. This too is a "long-shot" of course, unless one applies Samuelsohn's story into the mix.
In the past I have been damn near convinced there was not 27 boards on that floor. I have some material that I interpret which seems to show this to be true. I also think the nailing patterns in the attic doesn't prove a thing if you consider the possibility that 27 boards were never original to the floor. Furthermore, if we look at Hauptmann Sergent's plane and conclude it was used then we simply must ask why it was only used on some pieces.
Additionally, the lies concerning when, where, and what went on in that attic involving the Police cannot be shaken despite those who try to gloss over it. Now, as with everything else, sometimes we see evidence of something, which is real - but apply it as proof of something that it only appears to prove.
Sometimes its evidence of something we never considered. In this case there are two opposing views, therefore, when this evidence is regarded its only those (2) possibilities that are ever given thought to. It's like HRO's quest to prove he was CJr. He did turn up some interesting material but everytime saw it as proof he was who he wanted to be. People then try to dismiss good leads and material just for that reason but fail to ever consider it as applying to a set of circumstances which may not yet have been discovered. I think there are things about the case none of us know yet right?
Anyone picking up what I am putting down here?
Anyway, as Rab had pointed out years ago and quickly shot down....Kevin independently saw and brought up...and quickly shot down again. My suggestion is for everyone to take a very hard look at their assertion and see the possibilities in this and everything else. And know these Police did not back-date reports concerning a discovery which wasn't made until 10-9 for no reason whatsoever.
We have been either dismissing this or applying it to support a specific theory - We must look for all possibilities to see what could work outside both of these positions.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2006 7:36:09 GMT -5
Who is on first?
What about the silver nitrate staining?
Why? This can be where the "shadowing" I observed on S-226 can help prove it was in place for some time.
Perhaps and perhaps not. There is a unique quality to nailing patterns resulting from the conditions and the nailer.
I know, but the idea that s-226/rail 16 is a plant defies too much gravity for me.
|
|