|
Post by rick3 on May 3, 2006 11:56:41 GMT -5
Kevin....i have been giving some serious thought to your theory of finding someone "flying underneath the radar" so to speak. I would like to nominate NJSP Leiutenant Lewis J. Bornmann!
LJB arrives at Highfields by 11:25pm on night of 1 March 32. He may even get credited with finding the ladder and chisel.
He travels along with AKoehler for two or more years climbing over fences and into peoples attics looking for the ladder lumber.
He is there on Sept 19th when they arrest BRH and quickly rents the Hauptmann's apartment when Anna moves downtowne nearer to the Tombs.
Holy of Holys...on the afternoon of September 26th he finally discovers what everyone has been looking for--the missing Rail 16 up in the attic. Its nearly a miracle. He is #38 up in the attic.
And after all this hard work and continued dedication he of all persons does not request one penny of the Governors Reward Money! Truly a man for all seasons.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2006 13:16:09 GMT -5
He seems more like a B-52 than an F-117
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 3, 2006 15:23:56 GMT -5
I know, but that is just too much gravitas for me.
|
|
|
Post by rickIII Trooper II on May 3, 2006 16:54:27 GMT -5
kevin: How about Bruno's friend "Frank Talitsdorf 2424 Grace Avenue , Bronx, New York City?
[ from Chicago herald Examiner, Chicago Illinois, October 8, 1934]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2006 18:39:41 GMT -5
Yeah, this more like it. Could there be a close net group of which Hauptmann belongs? Is it cultural, political or just criminal in it's orientation?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2006 5:34:53 GMT -5
I am not sure I understand your point here. Samuelsohn indicates the ladder is different and some isn't his. This is important to me because it indicates he is being truthful. So - even if he is incorrect concerning the pieces he claims were his, I assume Rails 12 & 13 because the reports do not say, then I think his story concerning its purchase has merit. The "left-over" pieces Samuelsohn gave to the Police have recently been discovered by Mark in the warehouse and can always be checked out.
There was a real purchase from Samuelsohn here. We know he built the box so claims of an "attention seeker" do not make sense. He showed investigators the receipt, he gave them left-over pieces, there was a witness to a ladder being in his place around this time, and he gives them a partial identification of some pieces of the ladder. Plus - he is telling a story which neither side wants to hear and is labeled by both sides. And despite being told to go back to the Bronx and "keep your mouth shut" he would later dial up the Governor and continue to communicate his story to him even after being labeled a "nut" by some people.
Yes, I saw what you saw regarding S-226 and didn't see what you didn't see regarding Rail 16 which tends to bolster the theory both you and Rab support.
My position was based upon other documentation concerning observations of a "cat-walk" in reference to the attic flooring by Zapolosky, and Koski - together with some other things I have which tend to show the floor wasn't that wide. Heck, Keraga's study reporting older or used wood on that floor may also support this position due to the fact Koski purchased brand new material.
Well, if nailed down during its creation in 1926, then multiple people were nailing it and not just one person.
It's a rough one but not without some support....that's why I like your theory so much. It tends to explain most of the obstacles and circumstances that cause so many problems with this evidence. Believe me I have run down as many scenarios in my head I could think of.... I have even considered they may actually have found S-226 in the basement.
The "little" lie about the actual date of discovery grows huge when looking at the reports, and testimony. It had to be worth whatever motivator was behind it. Now I think we must consider "other" possibilities other then those we've all helped make famous and figure this thing out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2006 6:40:45 GMT -5
I am not sure I am understanding what propsition is being offered here regarding Samuelsohn and the ladder(s).
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 5, 2006 14:15:18 GMT -5
Rita,
I am sorry I have a real hard time associating the signature to anything. You might have real clues here but I have not made any sense of it. I do not understand Lindbergh creating this signature and have it come back to him. I kind of think they had an instrument to make the holes and basically drew to fill it in. To leave, clues such as motivation, who did it, and why done can only come back to the criminal unless it was drawn to mislead. I truly hope someday I can understand it. If I had to make a story from the signature I would wildly guess it had something to with cell science of human birth.
To everyone,
Most anything in this case is easily drawn off by a misquote or two different answers from the same person for the same question. CONDON says LINDBERGH told him the note was found in the crib. Lindbergh originally claimed on the ledge. This is something you don't forget. Now how can we account for the difference ?
SANUELSOHN as the builder or one of the builders of the ladder I think is a critical point to look at. It would not make sense for SAMUELSOHN to make this claim when the authorities truly have the ladder at hand. There must have been enough to confirm or discredit such a claim. There is no doubt CONDON believed he was the builder but sharply changed his opinion with a little help from MYRA. There seems to something overshadowing this change of heart. Maybe a threat. Maybe fear. maybe even the truth.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2006 14:55:33 GMT -5
I think we are getting our ladders crossed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2006 7:03:33 GMT -5
Gary, I hope you didn't misunderstand my post. I am trying to understand which ladder is being discussed here. There is the actual kidnap ladder and at least two others constructed as copies. It is my understanding that Samuelsohn may have made one of the copies. So which ladder are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 7, 2006 11:24:53 GMT -5
As a newcomer to this fascinating line (or lines, as they sometimes cross over one another) I wonder about the Samuelsohn story from a somewhat different angle. Could it be that the people who appeared in his shop were part of a diversion of some sort?
Did he recognize Hauptmann from a newspaper photo when he said he came into his shop? I don't know if he was ever taken to see Hauptmann?
If the supposed "gang," which we must believe in if we believe his story, had someone like Hauptmann to build a ladder, why go there in the first place?
It also seems hard to believe that he was so slow as not to realize almost immediately after the talkative Condon went public in the press, that he had built the box and supplied wood pieces for a ladder. That little community around his shop seemed to run into one another all the time, and yet there is this delay.
This is not to deny that something is going on there, but what?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2006 12:23:28 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am still a little confused about what exactly is being proposed regarding the Samuelsohn/ Condon/Bornmann/Hauptmann connection. I would add this, however. if I was asked to build the kidnap ladder in the first instance or an exact replica it would not in either case result in the actual kidnap ladder. Why? Simply because as a cabinetmaker I would be unable to re-invent myself and produce such a product and design. I could, if asked make a replica that matched the original in specifications ( dimensions, design, and wood species) as I have done. But upon close examination it would immediately reveal itself as a copy. That is because there is no way that I am going to turn off a switch and become sloppy. I am not going to dull and damage my tools, so my cuts will be clean and precise. In short I fail to see how any cabinetmaker could make that kidnap ladder. Since I have also made a copy of the ransom box, I can say with some first hand knowledge that Samuelsohn was a craftsman.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2006 14:34:39 GMT -5
Since we're talking Samuelsohn I thought I would post this report concerning the ransom box. I especially think this may be a helpful item in supporting Kevin's theory about it. This report originated from Dr. Gardner who was kind enough to share it with me... I think we must look at Samuelsohn's actual story. He claimed that: On Feb 20th, a man and woman came into his shop. The man gave him a "piece of drawing paper" with measurements and ordered lumber to be cut according to the specifications. He left a $5.00 deposit. About 3 days later a two men came into his place for this lumber but stated it hadn't been cut right and told Samuelsohn to re-cut it to the specs. On Feb 27th they came back to pick this lumber up, (3) dowels, and paid the $9.00. Upon inspecting the ladder in West Trenton he identified that only "one or two" of the pieces on the ladder were his work. I do believe these people came into his shop just like he claimed. I think we've always looked at this as if he was either right, wrong, or untruthful. This suggestion opens up other avenues to explore... What do you have in mind? Originally he made the connection from newspaper pictures after his arrest. Later he was shown photos by the Police. Recently, his grand-daughter communicated to me he did see him in person and firmly believed it was him. This is a good question. I think we should search out a possible answer. We must also ask ourselves why so much of this ladder was "replaced" if indeed even those (1) or (2) pieces he identified were his work. Even if it wasn't, all is not lost on his story, he simply could have been mistaken concerning them since his method of identification called for some simple markings there. It doesn't mean his entire story is bogus. Do we know for sure he didn't? I think the more important question is why Condon lied about him making this box in the first place AND lied about the box being made with each side being made with different wood for easy identification.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 7, 2006 16:19:35 GMT -5
"I do believe these people came into his shop just like he claimed. I think we've always looked at this as if he was either right, wrong, or untruthful. This suggestion opens up other avenues to explore... What do you have in mind?"
The idea of laying a false trail. If the people who picked up the pieces had a perfect alibi for that night, maybe they would risk such a plan. But as much as one puzzles over his story, it seems to lead nowhere -- except to implicate Hauptmann. That's what bothers me -- why, why expose yourself in that way? Imagine this: I go into a store a week or so before a big "job," and order someone to cut me some pieces for a ladder. Then I send some other people to go pick the bundle -- in broad daylight. How the h*** did Hauptmann even find Samuelsohn, and choose him?
And yet his story is an elaborate account -- probably too much so simply to be fiction. He does not come forward of his own account -- even when he must have known from Condon's picture in the paper that he made the box. Was he afraid he knew too much? Could the supposed perps have counted on him to be scared of getting involved? But if he does not get involved, then what is the point of laying such a trail -- just a precaution? More like a stupid move I think.
One can only speculate. It hinges on his id-ing of Hauptmann. If he doesn't do that, then one might say that his story suggests that a bunch of guys who don't know anything about building a ladder say, "Gee, we need to get a ladder." Since he built the box, why doesn't he put one and one together?
No one knew what to make of it back then, and we still don't
|
|
|
Post by rick3 trooper2 on May 7, 2006 19:34:02 GMT -5
Well, BrH is already hooked up to the plot, so thats not new? But hooking Condon in with the crazy wooden ballot box at least proves Condon was lying about the woodworker (who knows BrH) so at the very least logic tells us that Condon knows BRH too? Condon says "I can never say BRH is CJ" then under pressure from AGW sends him to the Chair. On what date did Frank Samuelson come forward--too late?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2006 20:55:06 GMT -5
OK, I have to ask this. Why would anyone need a cabinetmaker to supply wood (1" x`4", 1' x 2", & 3/4" dowels) that is readily available at any lumberyard ( cut to length)? The most difficult aspect of the kidnap ladder construction is nailing the damn thing together!
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 8, 2006 4:53:16 GMT -5
Maybe BRH doesnt want anyone around the house to see him building the ladder which will be used to snatch Charlie? Didnt Lizz Pagel show that the ladder was nailed together or tested out somewhere other than BRHs garage? So maybe they nailed it together over at Knickerbocker Pie Company Headquaters?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2006 6:36:36 GMT -5
That is a possibility. But why go to a small cabinetmaking shop where you would be noticed when a large lumberyard would yield you the wood and more anonymity? Why would you even think of a cabinetmaker for such a simple request? If Samuelsohn cut the mortises as well, then he must have been supplied with complete plans for the ladder. Why would a cabinetmaker supply the product with such a mixture of species? Why does it contain used wood? Why do the dowels show an oily finish or residue? I could go on here, but the point is that this story raises more questions than answers and to me makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 8, 2006 7:15:53 GMT -5
One has to share Kevkon's scepticism. It makes absolutely no sense. First, from the standpoint of public exposure, as I have argued, and then, somewhat contradictorily, confining the work purchased to individual pieces. Second, as it came out in the trial, the ladder is not something anyone could be proud of as a piece of carpentry.
But there may be a clue there. Making the ladder the way it was made might have been done to steer investigators away from a carpenter. It might have been intended from the start to leave the ladder behind, rather than be stopped on the way away from the crime with it in the car. That makes sense. (Carrying it 75 feet from the house seems a little dicey, on the other hand, but maybe not if there is more than one person in on the snatch.) Leaving such a ladder behind suggests amateurism -- a hurry-up job, etc. Exactly what you would wish if you wanted to stay clear of such evidence.
What remains, then, of the Samuelsohn story? After attempting to mislead police (or simply forgetting) Condon eventually owns up about the ransom box. The same man then later says he supplied pieces for the ladder. Do we know the precise timing of his revelation? He is taken seriously at first by police. But then they dismiss him quickly -- and the defense wants nothing to do with him, either.
Kevkon is right: the story raises more questions than answers, and, if there is any sense in it, the meaning is deeply hidden.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 8, 2006 8:49:51 GMT -5
what about the lumber yard was so spooky that no one would go near it for esstential lumber, even little itty, bitty pieces?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2006 9:18:18 GMT -5
Believe it or not I have no problem believing a carpenter made the ladder and in fact the police thought so as well. It was more the Hauptmann defense line that promoted this. Now a cabinetmaker or master carpenter on the other hand is another story.
I have always felt the ladder was meant to be discarded, usually this brings up some negative comments. But it seems obvious to me, the ladder did it's job, carrying it around after the crime is only a liability.
6 pieces of 1" x 4" 7 ft long is not itty bitty
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2006 17:49:53 GMT -5
Rick's explanation does answer some questions... For example, no one saw Hauptmann building a ladder AND there were tools required that he didn't possess when arrested. Koehler believed the ladder may have been constructed elsewhere, Squire Johnson asserted (2) people had built it, and Liz's Soil Report has it somewhere other then Highfields and Hauptmann's place prior to being found.
So one might ask "why" Hauptmann simply didn't build this ladder himself and in his garage, but while we don't have the answer we do seem to have facts to show it wasn't done - despite being the most logical situation.
Keraga speculated during his presentation in Flemington that Hauptmann's attic was his "secret place" and that he built the ladder there. For a guy who claims to dislike speculation this seems a bit contradictory to that position. There is no way that happened, and its one of the most "wild" notions I have ever heard. It's too bad that didn't make it into his report.
I don't believe he knew it was to be a ladder. He was given the specs which apparently he screwed up the first time. He didn't mix species nor did he utilize used wood. It is to be remembered what Samuelsohn identified at NJSP Headquarters.
So what we do know, as a fact, is that the ladder as discovered was changed and/or modified with used lumber if we accept Samuelsohn's identification. Again, as Kevin points out - this doesn't make sense. If Samuelsohn is correct then it does imply other things occurred in a very short period of time prior to March 1st.
The bottom line is that despite what I have written above, why doesn't Hauptmann or his partners simply drive to the yard and buy the pieces to be cut by Hauptmann at wherever it was eventually built? What set of circumstances could have existed in order to cause them to visit Samuelsohn? What circumstances caused Condon to have Samuelsohn build the ransom box? $.25? Does anyone believe that?
I have been giving the WC's "diversion" theory some thought and I would think if it was a diversion you don't divert attention by going into the shop yourself. Maybe there's something about this I am not considering....
It was a Defense position but it was Koehler's position 1st back in 3-4-33. He called it, in essence, poor workmanship, crude construction, and the work of a "wood-butcher."
Having walked the entire way to both roads I can relate to this theory. I have often wondered if someone didn't drop these things off via car, and perhaps the same method was to be employed to remove them. I also wonder why the ladder was moved to where it was found. Since the chisel was found near this discarded ladder - are we to believe this was a discarded item too? If not, how do we account for these two items, one a throw-away, and one that isn't winding up in the same spot?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2006 20:09:29 GMT -5
Yes, well that would kill a couple of birds with one stone, wouldn't it? Problem is that building this ladder in the attic would attract more attention than elsewhere when you consider all the individual steps required and what they entail.
Then all he supplying is standard dimensional wood of either yellow pine, ponderosa pine, or doug fir. How could anyone identify this as their own product?
And many "carpenters" are, believe me.
I am not so sure that the two should be compared. I can easily believe the chisel was accidentally lost, after all where are the other tools?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 9, 2006 8:43:43 GMT -5
"I have been giving the WC's "diversion" theory some thought and I would think if it was a diversion you don't divert attention by going into the shop yourself. Maybe there's something about this I am not considering...."
Me. too! That's why I threw it out. You don't divert attention by going in yourself. If Hauptmann ordered the wood, he, in effect , convicted himself if Samuelsohn talked.
So the ID of Hauptmann is crucial here. Did Condon encourage Samuelsohn to make that identification? Suppose, just for the moment, that the wood was ordered there in his shop, and that some of it was used in the ladder (as he would claim). That would put the foxes after another hare. Samuelsohn might never recognize the people who came in -- if they were not from his neighborhood. How much coaching does Condon do when he finally, after a lot of fun and games, leads investigators into his shop? After Hauptmann's arrest, Condon is, as we know very nervous about fears he might be indicted as some sort of accomplice.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2006 9:30:57 GMT -5
Perhaps I am misunderstanding this account regarding the "shopping list" and Samuelsohn, for it just doesn't ring true to me. Ok, let me see if this is what is being proposed. Someone walks into cabinetmaker Samuelsohn's shop and produces a list of materials, not a drawing. This list would look something like this ( dimensions approx.): Material List
6 pcs. 1" x 4" x 80 3/4" fir/Pine 4 pcs 1" x 2 3/4" x 14 1/8" pine
4 pcs 1" x 2 3/4" x 12 1/2" pine
3 pcs 1" x 2 3/4" x 11" pine
1 pc 3/4" dia x 16" birch
1 pc 3/4" dia x 14" birch
Now Samuelsohn looks at this list and doesn't ask what this is for or why this person isn't at a lumberyard. Being a cabinetmaker he would ask what grade of wood is required. Now if I assume that this is the kidnap ladder the answer would be #2 common or construction grade. As he has a cabinet shop, not a lumberyard, he would not likely have this grade in stock. Now Samuelsohn has to get this wood from a yard. Since only the rungs and rail 16 are resawn from a larger plank, he has little more to do. The client comes back to pick up this wood and finds that poor Samuelsohn has somehow screwed up this complicated order. So he goes through the process once again and it is paid for and picked up by the client. Is this how it goes? Now what among this common collection of wood is so unique that Samuelsohn can identify it as having come from his shop? I must also consider that Samuelsohn does not have any power equipment in his shop as the re-sawing and planing are made with hand tools.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 9, 2006 9:54:08 GMT -5
Exactly! What proof do we have that any of the wood came from his shop other than his identification of it? Yet we know he made the box. So did Condon's visits prompt him to come forward with a fantastic tale. If Condon was trying to bolster his own conclusions that BRH was involved, but not the only one (remember he tried stuff on him in Flemington to get him to talk), did he influence Samuelsohn into an invention of these mysterious callers?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2006 21:17:56 GMT -5
I think you are misunderstanding the account. Samuelsohn used all of the same material in his project which he turned over. This is why he claimed the ladder was mostly different and only identified one or two pieces, based upon the species and his pencil marks. He called the wood he used California Pine and, I assume, he identified Rails 12 & 13.
He gave his "left-over" pieces to the NJSP to support his claim. Who would do this if they knew it wasn't a match? Surely no one expected him to have any left-over pieces, yet he volunteered this AND handed over the pieces.
I don't think Condon could have influenced Samuelsohn. Condon wanted no one anywhere near Samuelsohn if you ask me. His "amnesia" as to who built the box proves as much, and I don't believe Condon ever wanted to identify Hauptmann until he was coerced into doing so.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2006 21:51:09 GMT -5
What pencil marks?
Are you still refering to the kidnap ladder or one of the replicas?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2006 4:56:13 GMT -5
The "left-over" pieces of wood were from the job that Samuelsohn claims Hauptmann ordered and lead to his trip to West Trenton on this day 9/26/34. Samuelsohn was requested to build a replica after the fact. I identify certain sides of the ladder by my pencil marks which is an "X" marked where the steps or different type of wood than that I sold to this man with the exception of one or two pieces which are of the same type of wood. I further notice that the pieces which I recognize as being sold by me were recut with a saw, that is notches made in the sides for the cross pieces to be fitted.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 10, 2006 6:17:54 GMT -5
Michael...what are the chances that Samuelson could be involved with "the ladder wood", "the wooden ransom box", Condon and BRH? One in 10 gazillion--per AK? No wonder Condon thought better of getting Samuelson involved and lied about the Ballot Box carpenter? Just one little lie--the maker named by JFC was dead? Dead men tell no tales.
Would'nt Samuelson be considered an excellent prosecution witness who could nail BRH to the Cross? I wonder why he wasnt called to testify in Fleminton? Hmmm.....
|
|