kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 10, 2006 6:41:16 GMT -5
Rails 12 & 13 are yellow pine, big difference.
Over two years later he has worthless scraps of wood saved and can remember his "work"?
After what fact? What is the chronology here?
So he is saying that he marked the rails for the rungs. Then he knew it was a ladder that he supplied the parts for. Why have I never seen these "x"s
Now he is not refering to rails 12 & 13 since they have no mortises. If he is refering to rails 14, 15, & 17, why do they show evidence of prior use? Abd why doesn't he mention the nail holes in this regard?
I don't wonder, I can only wonder how confused the jury would be.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 10, 2006 7:31:01 GMT -5
Could we nail down (sorry) some things about Samuelsohn? He identifies for the State Police certain pieces of the original ladder, and brings in left-over pieces of wood that he claims are from the batch he used to make the ladder BRH ordered. These pieces eventually -- only very recently in fact -- turn up in something found at the museum. It should not be difficult, then, or so it would seem, to have a wood expert check out these pieces. (Of course, it has turned out that this is a contentious occupation). But do we have any evidence, Michael or somebody, that Arthur Koehler was ever asked to make such an examination. If so, is there any record? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2006 21:20:57 GMT -5
I've seen in various reports the same piece of lumber referred to as: white pine, yellow pine, ponderosa pine, and nc pine - therefore, when I see Samuelsohn referring to it as California then it doesn't really mean much - especially when one considers he still identifies some of those pieces as those he handled for that job. One could argue, since we know only yellow pine existed there, that Samuelsohn didn't know his species of pine as well as he thought he did. Heck, even during the NJSP re-investigation their very own Expert declined to identify the rungs as ponderosa pine saying the species was too much like the others. Not sure if they were worthless but he saved them and turned them over. I believe this proves he was acting in good faith. He was asked to build a replica after he made the claim. They did the same with the ransom box. You seem to be getting confused concerning what he claimed happened, his identification, and his creation of the replicas. The identification hinged on his claim and had nothing to do with the replicas he made later on. No he specifically claimed he did not know for what purpose this order was to be used. Additionally, part of the dispute the NJSP made was that anyone could have put the "X"'s there so they obviously didn't dispute they existed. This is a good observation. But I also have found this part to consider: When asked about the grooves of which he speaks, on the end of these stripes[sic], he changed his story and stated that he only put it on one or two and that on the balance of them he made a hole, 13/16". It's hard to say exactly what is going on outside of the fact the Police don't like his story. Actually I don't either. Although Samuelsohn is telling what he believes to be the truth, his testimony would cause problems for the Prosecution. It ruins their ladder story. It also ruins their Lone-Wolf theory. The Defense obviously doesn't like it because it ruins their position Hauptmann wasn't involved. We do have reference in Leon's report these pieces Samuelsohn turned over were given to Koehler. I know positively this wood isn't mentioned in a report as coming from Samuelsohn, however, it might be mentioned simply as coming from the NJSP so I'll have to comb through my reports and get back to you on what I find (or don't find).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2006 6:43:39 GMT -5
Various named species of pine can be extremely difficult to differentiate. But the Yellow Pines are quite distinctive and easily distinguishable from the western pines by even an novice woodworker.
Scraps of common grade wood don't last long in pro wood shops. Even during the depression those scraps would be more valuable as kindling than taking up valuable storage space. And one has to assume that Samuesohn had a designated spot for these scraps as they were kept together. He also has either labeled them or has a remarkable memory in order to recall their origin over two years later .
.
No argument here.
Then what was his purpose in marking the rungs? Where do I find one of these "x"s?
Nor do I. It simply doesn't ring true. Consider a professional cabinetmaker is asked to supply construction grade wood with no joinery involved and only simple length cuts. Yet he makes "x" marks at rung locations. Since these spacings vary in location on the three sections of the ladder , Samuelsohn would need a complete dimensional layout of it. This goes for the dowel holes he claims to have drilled as well. Yet with all the publicity of the kidnapping and the photos, newsreels, and drawings showing this unique ladder to the public, Samuelsohn is completely oblivious to his own creation. Now over two years later he can identify ladder rails as "his work" based on the most common mark in carpentry and the wood. That would be like a fingerprint technician saying he recognized a print from two years ago. And there are other points to consider here. We know the kidnap ladder is comprised of a variety of wood species and some of that is culled or previously used. The rungs and rail 16 are resawn from a larger piece of wood. Now as a general rule of thumb, you try to minimize the mixing of wood in a project unless there is a specific reason not to. You also don't try to make extra work for yourself by re-sawing wood to sizes that are commonly available. So why does the kidnap ladder violate all these rules? To me the answer is either frugality ( both money and time) or fear of detection. I would put my bet on the latter. In either case how does one reconcile this with walking into a cabinetmakers shop and ordering wood for a project?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 11, 2006 9:36:33 GMT -5
As Kevkon says, it doesn't add up. In the latter part of the submission, Kevkon also says you don't make extra work for yourself. So why rail 16 from the attic - given all that has to be done to it? Frugality and/or fear of detection. Frugality -- better-sized rail 16 would cost very little, and be less detectable presumably. But time, then? Could be, but doesn't that clash with the idea of recon over a reasonable period of the past few days or weeks? So maybe it broke in testing? Do we have any indication that the stress in testing would show up on that rail? What do you think Kevkon? I haven't seen that angle explored very much.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2006 11:05:40 GMT -5
Yes I have done several failure tests to examine the nature of the wood breakage. The probability is that any failure is a total one. That is simply because of the extreme loading on the joint and the lack of redundancy ( the joint at sections 2 & 3 is a little better here). However the great variation found in wood and in these pines in particular can have a pronounced effect on the level of damage and how it occurs. So there is a small probability that the area of the joint was partially compromised before that night. I doubt, though, that anyone would make it up without an immediate complete failure. I have been giving some thought lately about what steps one might take to build this ladder without leaving any prints. Obviously gloves come to mind during construction. But how could one insure that their prints were never on the wood prior to building it? If you think about it there are some interesting solutions to this problem.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 11, 2006 12:35:58 GMT -5
Does the age of the wood matter much?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2006 16:46:33 GMT -5
Good question. In a manner of speaking yes. It is not so much the age, but the moisture content and the range of fluctuation there that matters. Wood that has had a wide fluctuation , for example, due to the environment it was exposed to might be prone to checks, warpage and splits. Wood that has been in an extremely dry location, such as an attic, and has a very low moisture content can sometimes be less pliable and more apt to split. Still it is the particular species,grain structure, and presence of defects that will cause the most problems in regard to failure in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2006 19:53:02 GMT -5
Samuelsohn doesn't say these were to mark the "rungs." As far as 'where' they are I just don't know - I have never seen them. However, the NJSP did not dispute this claim they were there, in fact, Leon sees them and notes that, in essence, its a very indefinite way to identify these pieces. You are not the only person to tell me this, yet, I see Samuelsohn claiming this was California Red Pine and then identifying a couple of pieces on the ladder as his work. My conclusion is that he is wrong about the species and is identifying it as one when it is the other. To further support my position, while looking for reference to Samuelsohn's samples being turned over to Koehler I found this: Southern pine or ponderosa pine board taken froma shelf had revolution marks 0.45" apart on one face and 0.46" on the other. Here Koehler isn't even sure which type of pine this particular piece is. Here's another example: Heartwood of southern yellow pine or ponderosa pint finish about 2" wide, 3/4" thick, and 12-1/2" long split on one side. No I don't think either were the pieces Samuelsohn turned over but this exemplifies my point and further supports the NJSP's Expert saying the same thing in the late '70's when reviewing the ladder evidence. Now I do believe I found the sample pieces which were turned over to Koehler. We know Koehler arrived at the NJSP Headquarters on 9-28. We know that Capt. Lamb is the one who assigned Cpl. Leon to take Samuelsohn's statement. OK - so I found reference to Capt. Lamb turning over (2) pieces of lumber to Koehler the day he arrives at the Training School. Koehler identifies this as Southern Yellow Pine. I could go into this more if anyone is interested but it will take a bit of effort to do so in order to properly explain it. This is simply incorrect. Samuelsohn did share with the FBI that he believed he had built the pieces for the ladder when they came to see him about the Ransom Box. Again, I think everyone wants to dismiss Samuelsohn's story without examining it properly. He claims he sold (27) pieces of this lumber and no one has even slowed down for a minute to apply this fact. Obviously these (27) pieces weren't all meant for a ladder - or were they? Also consider that Hauptmann and Kloppenberg had been into various places buying wood, lumber, and material for their display stands. Kloppenberg as late as 1-27-32 on record. Even if Samuelsohn is wrong about his identify marks on those pieces at the Headquarters.....I don't know - maybe its me - but I see worth and/or value here to be explored despite what I perceive as efforts to shrug this story off.... I think that would be a mistake at this point. Maybe we'll get to that point sometime in the future but I see it as being rash and very premature. Some print(s) were found in places only someone who built the ladder could have left them. So I think surmising it was built without leaving any is a flawed assumption.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2006 20:34:54 GMT -5
You and I seem to be on opposites sides lately. Maybe a drink at the Swan or the Boat House is in order.
I don't recall seeing any such marks but assuming they exist "X"s are usually used to denote a connection.
Yes, it is quite easy to identify Yellow Pine, however that would not matter if we are talking about rails 14 & 15. The silver nitrate stain might also hinder identification.
In March 1932?
I am certainly not dismissing it, just trying to clarify and make sense out of it ( I am delusional after all). I have no idea what 27 pieces are for, but I will certainly give it some thought.
I may be wrong here ( my Koehler/ladder files are in the shop) but I believe you are referring to the print(s) found on the underside of the rung which was shielded when attached to the rail. That would still mean it could be present prior to the ladder construction and not necessarily made during it's construction.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 12, 2006 8:38:26 GMT -5
Things are getting interesting here! Michael has told us that the police did turn over to Koehler some pieces of wood, apparently given to NJSP by Samuelsohn. But do we know what he made of them? Did Koehler ever see this replica that Samuelsohn was asked to make? Isn't it curious, if there were 27 pieces (enough or more than enough?) for a ladder, that Samuelsohn is asked to put together a ladder -- when supposedly all he did was supply pieces? To what point is all this? I come back again to some sort of diversion, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone -- anyone -- connected with the crime would be so public about it.
About the "hidden" print. What is more interesting is Koehler's efforts to alert the NJ Police to the possible importance of the print, and his desire to use special methods to find more prints, and the rather nonchalant way NJSP deal with this. Perhaps they had seen it all before, as the saying goes. But, given the poor lab capacities of the NJSP, and the way the ladder had been "farmed" out, so to speak, to so many investigators, do you find that odd?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 12, 2006 9:15:45 GMT -5
Ok, I will throw this out. Is there a possible interest in some reward money here? Could Samuelsohn have been promised something by Condon?
I am sure Michael has more insight regarding this. But for my two cents, I think we often see something suspicious in actions ( or non-actions) that have more to do with protecting one's turf ,so to say, than deliberate malfeasance.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 14, 2006 11:10:46 GMT -5
Honestly I think the disagreement is both beneficial and healthy. Keep in mind though that I sometimes I see things one way but in order to explain away the "stumbling blocks" I present those obstacles to others in order to get their perspectives on how to get past them. I may do so in a way which appears that is my position in order to draw out someone's best arguments. In this case, I just think there is much to look at and while an indicator may point in one direction I think its too soon to close the book on it. I am quite convinced there is something important to be learned here. Couldn't this argument be made against any print found? Yes and no. I believe they were convinced that all prints had already been found and recorded, therefore (it seems to me), they didn't want Koehler wasting his time on this angle. As far as I can tell, they did get all of the prints before this ladder's chain of custody was lost - but that too is debatable. Yes. Again, this is my opinion based upon my research so it can of course be challenged. I have been doing so much research lately that friends are starting to express "concern" so if I am mistaken then its not for the lack of study. I am getting real good at identifying an unsigned letter's author either by handwriting or type-face too! Well anyway....I'm impressed by it. What were we talking about again? Oh yes - Samuelsohn. Anyway, part of the reason we know Bornmann's 9/26 (the 2nd and 3rd versions) were bogus are by Koehler's reports up to and including 10/4. In these reports nothing is mentioned about S-226 but we see he is in possession of the other items mentioned in the Police reports prior to this date as being already turned over. So - in his report covering the dates 10-1 thru 10-4 we see he mentions of the wood and/or seized items from Hauptmann have been turned over and analyzed, therefore, anything prior is from a different source. As I stated above, he is handed pieces the day he arrives to the Training School by Capt. Lamb. These pieces were 3-11/16" and 3-12/16" wide and 2' 10-3/4" long. He matched the pieces together sideways by the grain and scratches. They had been ripped apart with a circular saw, and one of the edges was planed by a very sharp hand plane, the other was ripped with a circular saw, indicating they were once the same board and the original was actually wider then these two when put together. He identifies them as southern yellow pine. Koehler discounts this as being connected to the ladder because: - The dimensions were different.
- This lumber went through a planer with 8 knives in the top and bottom at a rate of .52" per revolution of the heads.
He doesn't appear to know (at the time of his report) where these pieces came from. We must remember these pieces were scraps left-over from the original order which was the following according to Samuelsohn: (3) or (4 )pieces 8" or 10" in width, and about 14' in length and that he cut these boards up into (24) pieces, six or eight were about 6' long or a little longer and about 3-3/4" wide. When finished there were about (8) long pieces about 6' and over in length and all pieces about 3-3/4" wide. The rest of the pieces were short pieces and were in 3 lengths and he did not recall the exact length. Understand that Koehler, in my opinion, made some questionable deductions concerning knife heads and feeder rates and I just don't have the time to go into all that right now. Regardless, my point is that he excludes these pieces as a possibility for what I consider the wrong reasons if you listen and consider everything that Samuelsohn says before, during, and after. Samuelsohn simply can not be identifying Rail 16, unless we are to believe Hauptmann or (somebody) used it for something else before being utilized in this ladder. So he must be identifying Rails 12 & 13 because if he isn't then it proves no part of the "kidnap" ladder as it existed on March 1st was made by his hand. However, this does not invalidate, in my mind, his story or his integrity and I believe a group of people as he explained to the FBI in March of '34 bought lumber cut similar to that as fashioned into the kidnap ladder in Feb '32. Is he mistaken as to the identity of one being Hauptmann? Well, was he mistaken about Condon's? This is real hard to say but my guess is that he did. Samuelsohn would eventually build (3) replicas (1) going to the NJSP. It seems to me - the last thing Condon wanted was for Samuelsohn to be discovered by the Police. He was lying to them in an attempt to misdirect their investigation concerning this guy. From everything I've got and the people I have spoken with - Samuelsohn was afraid someone was going to do him harm for speaking to the Police. Back in March of '34 he was asking the FBI if witnesses would get protection and they told him no. This is why the ladder story ended at that time. Speaking of Condon....did anyone review his testimony concerning Samuelsohn? TT 769Q: Then give me again, search your recollection for the name of the man that made it.A: I do not recall it, but it is on record and I reported it to the Department of Justice. If there is a man in the audience belonging to the Department of Justice-Mr. Reilly: I move to strike this all out as not responsive.
Mr. Willentz: If your Honor, please, I object to it being stricken out. The witness indicated that he can get the name.
The Court: I will let it stand, Mr. Reilly. Clearly Condon is perjuring himself here, and its provable this is not a case of "forgetfulness."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 14, 2006 11:40:11 GMT -5
After finishing my post above, I rec'd an email with the following in it: This post was made on one of the other message boards found here: groups.yahoo.com/group/LindyKidnap/I find it highly suspect that its Author, who has been MIA, now re-surfaces having "research" concerning Samuelsohn. Either its the pinnacle of coincidence or we're about to be ripped off again. Let's hope that if any of our research makes it into whatever he (and the other person he references when he says "we") posts in the future - that we are fully cited as I just did concerning his post above. Too often I have seen my stuff (and others) find its way into his post with his strange illogical deductions, and contorted twists without any citation whatsoever. I'll cross my fingers but I certainly won't hold my breath. If he doesn't walk a straight line here, rest assured - then I will point it out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 14, 2006 13:43:37 GMT -5
Absolutely
Yes, but the original question was in regard too a print that could only be left by the builder. That could only occur within one of the mortises.
For my part I apologize if these questions are a bit much. I realize that , unfortunately the burden all too often falls upon your shoulders.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 14, 2006 17:15:16 GMT -5
I think everyone here has a duty to ask the tough questions and by doing so advances the knowledge of all who read the discussions. My observations are certainly not more important than others who express their positions. Obviously this is my hobby so I will always being doing the research - my comment was more geared toward a joke then anything else.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 15, 2006 10:23:45 GMT -5
Well, if you put it that way....... Seriously, it may be useful with all of these discussions regarding fingerprints to look at the process of identification and especially during that time period. The FBI site has some good info; www.fbi.gov. I think that there were and are many misconceptions about the whole process, especially regarding identification. Unfortunately I think most people's knowledge of this science is based on popular fiction and Hollywood. It is also important to remember that prior to the computer and the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) matching unknown prints was laborious and extremely time consuming. It was also often localized.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2006 17:20:19 GMT -5
I agree with you totally and recommend those who haven't investigated this angle to do so. I can't speak for anyone else but I have done more then my share of research which is why I am fairly confident in what I have posted. If anyone has issue with anything that I have written than I would ask for them to challenge it specifically with exactly why they think I am incorrect.
I plan on posting on another thread soon where I will comment on the ladder and finger-prints.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 17, 2006 17:37:18 GMT -5
I think many may be urprised at how time consuming a process it was to compare prints on file even in a small city before the advent of the computer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2006 19:26:03 GMT -5
It's a good point to also consider this and the process of checking the ransom serial #'s not to mention the handwriting as well. Very tedious work.
If there was ever any doubt though....Calspan put an end to them.
|
|