|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2013 10:19:00 GMT -5
Adam Schrager "The Sixteenth Rail: The Evidence, the Scientist, and the Lindbergh Kidnapping" Wednesday, Aug 14 7:00p Boswell Book Company Milwaukee, WI
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2013 10:24:23 GMT -5
Doug Moe: The scientist and the ladder July 31, 2013 • DOUG MOE | Wisconsin State Journal Once Schrager decided to write a book about Koehler and the Lindbergh case, he found an invaluable ally in Koehler’s son, George, 48 days older than the Lindbergh baby, now in his 70s and living in Nashville. Schrager was the first writer given access to hundreds of letters written by Arthur Koehler while he was involved in the Lindbergh case, going back and forth from Madison to New Jersey.
Although Koehler first looked at samples from the ladder a few months after the kidnapping, his real investigation didn’t begin until early 1933, when he took a train to Trenton at the request of the New Jersey State Police and the FBI. Once there, Koehler began the painstaking process of, in Schrager’s words, “making the wood witness talk.”
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2013 10:44:53 GMT -5
Wednesday Nite @ the Lab The Saga of the 16th Rail: The Evidence, The Scientist, and the Lindbergh Kidnapping University of Wisconsin-Madison Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 7 p.m.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 9:49:11 GMT -5
I am posting this here because it is about something I have read in The 16th Rail book. On page 40 Schrager tells us using Koehler's words from the Saturday Evening Post that within days of the kidnapping Koehler sent a letter to Lindbergh saying "I thought it might be possible to trace that ladder's members until the wood matched up with other wood so as to compromise the man involved." This is within days of the kidnapping when the trail is very fresh, yet no one gets in contact with Koehler. No response from Lindbergh, Breckinridge or Schwarzkopf!!!!
Then there is O. A. Ross (page 44) who is a consulting engineer with offices in Los Angles and New York. He sends a typewritten letter to Lindbergh on MARCH 3 advising Lindbergh that telescoping type ladders are used by window washers and could indicate a local connection is involved with this crime. Ross goes on to suggest having a section of the ladder taken apart to inspect the workmanship to see if it was made by a skilled carpenter. As an investigator he says that the manner in which the nails are driven could indicate whether it has been constructed by a skilled carpenter or not. Ross even suggests having the ladder examined in this manner by a skilled carpenter. This would have been a good time to bring Koehler into the picture but they don't.
O. A. Ross also sends Schwarzkopf a letter(page 46)on the following day, MARCH 4 and suggests to him that he should have the ladder examined thoroughly since it is a vital clue in this crime. And Ross also suggests that, if possible, LE should question all MILK DELIVERY MEN to ascertain whether anyone is suddenly ordering additional milk to their residence.
Apparently Ross did not receive any response from the 3 Colonels either since Schrager doesn't mention one. Unbelieveable, considering Ross even offered his service for free to help them apprehend the perps. Schrager does mention the overwhelming volume of mail being received at Highfields and hints that perhaps letters were overlooked. I don't think they were "missed". Check out the "Tours that Never Happened" thread on this board in the Theories section I believe it is located in. You will find that Michael posted a report dated MARCH 21, 1932. This deals with LE checking out the man who delivered milk to Highfields. I think the letter Ross sent was read in a timely fashion.
Michael, are the letters from Koehler and Ross at the archives?
Adam Schrager's book is a very interesting book so far and seems very well researched. I am only on page 46. I am still reading another book at the same time as this one!! I am glad that I purchased this book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2013 13:00:10 GMT -5
I've known about Koehler's claim from the same source - the Saturday Evening Post article. But I don't have a copy which means it's either is not down there, I missed it, or when I saw it believed I already had a copy. My guess is that it's not there - but Mark would definitely know. One thing I want to point out is there were heaps and piles of letters coming in, and that a good number were repeating points and suggestions, many of which the NJSP were already engaged in following up, or if they weren't, had their own ideas about "who" should be doing it. Squire Johnson, for example, was the "Ladder Expert" they originally relied on. I do know that his first appearance in the case came as a result of Kelly's Washington D.C. trip with the ladder to be examined by Scientists from the Department of Agriculture. Incidental to this exam, some "pieces" were sent to the Forest Products Laboratory in May to be identified (May 1932). These were made by Koehler although no one had made a specific request of the Forest Service as to "who" would be involved. It was actually Hoover who suggested a full inspection should be made by the Forrest Service. Confidentially he was quite upset this hadn't been done earlier. Upon receiving a reply concerning this request he promptly turned over that letter to Schwarzkopf. Schwarzkopf would act on this which would eventually bring Koehler into the case as the Expert. Still though, its important to point out he wasn't asking for anyone specific when the request was made to R. Y. Stuart in D.C. Stuart turned the matter over to Charlie P. Winslow who then assigned Koehler to the job on 2-27-33. Copies of Ross's Letter do exist because he sent a copy of it to Schwarzkopf which are now located in the NJSP Correspondence Files:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 14:47:45 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, for posting the Ross letter. Your point about letters repeating the same ideas and offers is a good one. I am sure NJSP had their own experts to go to. Which brings us to Squire Johnson. When did they first consult with him? He is mentioned in Gardner's book but I didn't see a date. Also, why did they change to Koehler if they already had Johnson on board?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2013 18:50:38 GMT -5
Which brings us to Squire Johnson. When did they first consult with him? He is mentioned in Gardner's book but I didn't see a date. Also, why did they change to Koehler if they already had Johnson on board? His name first pops up on March 5, 1932. He was a Construction Engineer, and Asst. Director of Division Architecture & Construction for the New Jersey State Department of Institutions and Agencies. He made an examination of the Ladder on March 7th then a more detailed inspection on March 10th. I believe they (NJSP) brought the ladder to Washington for an in depth look - specifically on the soils found on the bottom rails as well as the chemical make up of the red paint found on a rail as well. They were hoping to possibly trace both, or at least get a lead of some sort based upon these analyses. While there the other angles were examined as well. I think Kelly was impressed by their resources, and it just seems they saw an opportunity to pursue a more sophisticated examination through the Forest Service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 18:53:16 GMT -5
Michael,
On page 131 of Schrager's book he says that Koehler believed that the birch dowels used to connect the ladder sections might have been part of a gymnastics apparatus. He felt that the film on the dowels might have come from sweaty hands.
Then on page 132 Schrager talks about Koehler going into Condon's neighborhood. He says that Koehler was suspicious of Condon's involvement in the case. It is known that Condon was very involved with athletic programs for boys. How well did LE investigate the students, current and former and also at the college level, that Condon had contact with? After all, we have CJ saying that one of the gang knows Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2013 20:29:07 GMT -5
How well did LE investigate the students, current and former and also at the college level, that Condon had contact with? After all, we have CJ saying that one of the gang knows Condon. Amy, They kind of did a "reactive" type of investigation. There's a document which appears to have compiled a complete list of all of his Students. Needless to say its many pages long. But they didn't go out and investigate each name on that list. What they did was use this document to cross-reference any names that may have come up during the course of the investigation. Like, for example, once the "J. J. Faulkner" deposit slip entered the situation they immediately remembered a "J. Faulkner" was among the names on that list then looked into him. See what I mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 15:52:30 GMT -5
Yes, Michael, I do understand. With the list being many pages long it would not have been possible to check out every student Condon had contact with. Were the authorities able to locate this former pupil of Condon's? Gardner says in his book that Jafsie thought the student's handwriting was similar to the ransom note handwriting. Plus the address this young man lived at puts him right in the vicinity of St. Raymonds.
I thought it interesting that Koehler called the kidnap ladder a "pick up job" meaning the builder used whatever wood he had access to. This implies that there would not have been a specific purchase of the wood just to build the ladder. If true, then the whole angle of Abe Samuelsohn supplying the wood for the ladder seems weak.
So we have a ladder that was built with left over pieces of wood, a Buck Brothers chisel that dates back to 1892, inexpensive bond paper used to write the ransom notes on, and a used burlap bag to remove and bury Charlie in. It seems this kidnapper(s) invested very little money to accomplish the crime of the century.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2013 21:44:05 GMT -5
Yes, Michael, I do understand. With the list being many pages long it would not have been possible to check out every student Condon had contact with. Were the authorities able to locate this former pupil of Condon's? Gardner says in his book that Jafsie thought the student's handwriting was similar to the ransom note handwriting. Plus the address this young man lived at puts him right in the vicinity of St. Raymonds. Everything Lloyd wrote is verifiable and true. Here's something I can add: Apparently there was a Father and Son with the same name. What appears to have happened is the Father passed away in 1927 and they stopped looking for the Son thinking they were one in the same. As a result, I do not believe he was ever interviewed. I do know that once Gov. Hoffman began his "re-investigation" Private Investigator Meade was suppose to look into this, however, there is nothing in the files that shows he followed up or tracked him down. I will go through some other files tomorrow just to check but I think I'd remember it so I don't expect I'll find anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2013 10:20:17 GMT -5
While I continue to search, I wanted to post the relevant page from the "Former Condon Students" List: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 14, 2013 14:42:26 GMT -5
In terms of everything Lloyd Gardner wrote being verifiable and true, what about where he says in his book that Whateley gave tours of the house? Is this true or not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2013 15:24:54 GMT -5
In terms of everything Lloyd Gardner wrote being verifiable and true, what about where he says in his book that Whateley gave tours of the house? Is this true or not? I meant that concerning his information on Condon's former student "J. Faulkner" which Amy mentioned. However, concerning this point you make above, it's "verifiable" in that the FBI Summary Report says this. But it's inaccurate because the Summary Report is incorrect about this. Obviously Lloyd may disagree with me here, I don't know, but that's my position. And after everything I've read in the source material its written in stone on my end. If anyone thinks I am incorrect I have no problem going into it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2013 17:11:07 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting the page from the student list. I appreciate your efforts to find additional information on this student of Condon's.
I wanted to ask you about this letter you posted back in November of 2010:
It seems strange that of all the papers to choose from to advertise, he should select the Bronx Home News, a paper that is scarcely read by any one except a Bronxite, and then he should select St. Raymond's Cemetery to meet the alleged kidnaper,. The paper, the cemetery and all are associated with his life work in Westchester Village where he was a school principal.......
......My suggestion is that you look this man up, inquire about his eccentricities of the school teachers who taught under him in P.S. #12, Westchester Village, Borough of the Bronx.
[Anonymous Letter to Lindbergh, undated, (excerpts)]
Do you have anything more you can share about this letter? Perhaps the date it was written and whether any follow-up was done with it especially after Condon came under suspicion?
If I am remembering correctly, the first time Condon talked with John on the phone, John told him that he was calling from Westchester. It just so happens that Balcom Ave where John J. Faulkner lived runs behind St. Raymonds cemetery and St Raymonds neighbors with Westchester Village where Condon was principal of P.S. 12.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2013 18:16:02 GMT -5
Amy, I've searched for this letter in my "Anonymous Letters" folders as well as my "Condon" files. I haven't been able to find it. I have a vague recollection that the letter in question was penned out in response to Condon's March 1936 Liberty article but I could be mistaken. Unfortunately this happens to me a lot and I apologize for it. I wish I had a better system for "filing and finding" but I haven't been able to come up with one yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 22:14:14 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for sharing what you remember. I happened upon that post when I was going through my Condon file and since it fit in with the topic I thought I would take a shot with it and post it. I realized it was from 2010 and didn't know what you might remember about it. Totally understand about filing and finding! I have started making several copies of items and then filing them in various folders where I think I might need them. I cannot even imagine what it must be like for you. You have an enormous amount of material and it amazes me how you are able to find so much to share on this board!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2013 21:15:42 GMT -5
As a result, I do not believe he was ever interviewed. This is incorrect and I wanted to make sure I updated it. While I was searching for something else, I came across a Report which included that Condon's former pupil, "J. Faulkner" was interviewed. He was a NYC Cop, admitted he had been in trouble when he was younger and had been in a Reform School because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 11:15:15 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting this. Since he went on to become a police officer it doesn't seem likely that he would have been involved with the extortion of the $50,000. I guess the reform school set him straight, maybe.
This does make me think of one of the kidnap notes. The night of the payoff (April 2)the note that was delivered to Condon's house by the second taxicab driver who is never found, but the note does have the secret symbol on it states "If there is a ratio(radio)alarm for policecar, we warn you, we have the same equipment." Interesting statement. I don't recall any radio equipment of that type ever being found around Hauptmann's house, garage, buried in the ground or in his car. Someone was giving assistance to this whole extortion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 11:08:45 GMT -5
Michael,
While I was looking for things about Koehler's position on Hauptmann and his tools and skills, I came across something else I would like your thoughts on. As you know, Schrager's book has no footnotes for anything so I need to ask you to check up on something I read there.
From Schrager's book, page 200, first paragraph. Wilentz is going to address the court once again to get the kidnap ladder accepted as evidence in order to pave the way for Koehler's rail 16 testimony. In this first paragraph Schrager says that Wilentz gets up to speak about the chain of custody of the ladder being accounted for and that with few exceptions, "it is as it was found when brought up Lindy's Lane the night of the kidnapping."
Based on the above quoted portion would you know if this was ever the prosecution's position about how the ladder (which would have to include the kidnapper(s)) came to be at the southeast window? I have never seen this position taken by the prosecution in any book I have read. Did Wilentz or any of the LE agencies claim the ladder came up the driveway? I know that we have been discussing this route on this board for some time. I always had the impression that LE thought the ladder was carried from a car parked on Featherbed Lane. I would appreciate whatever clarity you are able to bring to this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2014 17:04:01 GMT -5
Based on the above quoted portion would you know if this was ever the prosecution's position about how the ladder (which would have to include the kidnapper(s)) came to be at the southeast window? I have never seen this position taken by the prosecution in any book I have read. Did Wilentz or any of the LE agencies claim the ladder came up the driveway? I know that we have been discussing this route on this board for some time. I always had the impression that LE thought the ladder was carried from a car parked on Featherbed Lane. I would appreciate whatever clarity you are able to bring to this. If you look at their Opening it seems this was their position. It's more clear in the Trial Preparation Notes: And carrying the ladder until it became too heavy and leaving it seventy feet away - abandoning it. Then carrying the body of this child nearly a half-mile on this cold and raw night, knowing then that the child was dead-still in Hunterdon County - knowing full well then that the child was dead and even though it was a cold and raw night, he stripped the child of hits sleeping garment, and at that particular point was found a metal thumb-guard which had been fastened to the thumb and firmly fastened to the child's sleeping garment. DESCRIBE THUMB GUARD. So he's leaving by the same route he arrived. Everything hinged on this Burglary Charge, and the main goal was to get that Ladder admitted. According to Peacock, the ladder supplied the "last link in the chain." In the meantime, the Defense knew less then most people realize. For example, at the Petition for Rule to Show Cause Proceedings Pope requested that the ransom notes, the ladder, and the chisel "found in the bedroom" be impounded so the Defense could have Experts examine them. Judge Trenchard reminded Pope of the general rule that the State cannot pry into the Defendant's evidence, and therefore the Defense cannot pry into the State's. That once this evidence was admitted they could look at them then. Now consider that the State had people pretending to be Defense Witnesses so they could report back to them what they heard as such. That they were threatening Defense Witnesses with arrest if they believed something they would testify to would hurt their case. Paying off Private Investigators not to assist the Defense. Stealing and searching a Defense Investigators bags. Eavesdropping on Hauptmann's privileged conversations with his Lawyers. And offering a Defense Lawyer a huge sum of money to switch sides to the Prosecution so they could learn about the entire Defense strategy. Hauptmann never stood a chance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 9:32:09 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying here. If he left that way, he came up that way. It sounds very logical, espeically if you view the thumbguard as having been lying on the private drive for almost a month with no one seeing it or stepping on it. This is the position Cahill puts forth in his book also and why he disregards the footprint trail from the discarded ladder as being made by someone not associated with the kidnapping. If you embrace this theory then Featherbed Road, the Access Road and Fetherbed Lane are meaningless except possibly Featherbed Lane being a rendezvous point for the kidnapp ladder car and another car. And that only holds if you believe that more than one party is involved in this kidnapping.
I think this was a very carefully stacked deck of cards which required people to turn their heads the other way on things that they should not have, to exclude evidence that got in the way of the picture that was being painted, and to give false testimony to help produce the desired verdict. I certainly understand why you feel Hauptmann never stood a chance.
|
|