There are some web sites out there dedicated to the Lindbergh Kidnapping. After the release of my book, Lindbergh researchers and those just interested in the case had a lot of comments, some positive and some negative. (More positive though -- thank God). They also have offered many questions such as why I chose certain sources over others, why I focused on one thing and not the other, etc.
I decided to do something that most true crime authors do not and have not done. I have decided that I will use my site/blog for Hauptmann's Ladder to not only answer their questions, but also to accept more questions.
So, if you have any questions about the Crime of the Century or about my book, fire away. I will answer them as quickly as I can. Just be patient especially for more detailed and complex questions.
I have one rule, however. I will not tolerate or even post obscenities, insults, or silliness. I will just delete such comments and questions. My hope is to make this interesting and fun.
I am going to start things off by answering a few of the questions I saw on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board.
ReplyDelete1) "Amy35" asked and the moderator commented about my claims regarding the beating Hauptmann took at the hands of the police. Thereafter, in some comments (on that site and elsewhere), people claim that I deny the beating ever took place at all.
To clarify, I believe Hauptmann was roughed up, but not to the extent he claimed. Hauptmann claimed he was hit over the head with a hammer. The booking photo taken shortly after this beating reveals not one mark on his face or head. If he had been hit with a hammer in the face or head, I think it would have left a mark.
I have no doubt that Hauptmann was roughed up. There are some reports from FBI agents mentioning some harsh treatment involving twisting of the arms and legs and punches to the back.
He was treated roughly, but was not beaten to the extent Hauptmann later claimed. He exaggerated it rather substantially.
Medical reports from a doctor brought in by the police and a doctor hired by the defense each take the extreme position, i.e. the police doctor said Hauptmann had no evidence of a beating an the defense doctor reporting he was severely beaten including on the head.
Those who have litigation experience realize that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of the "expert" opinions. When reviewing these opinions, one does NOT have to select one or the other. The better way is to accept from each report those things or facts based upon its credibility.
Yes, he was roughed up, but not to the head or face, and I do not believe it was with a hammer.
Why, in your view, would Hauptmann have decided to kidnap the Lindbergh Baby of all people and, if he had decided to do this, why ask for relatively so little money? Do you believe he was a lone wolf perpetrator, and, if so, how does one explain the two sets of footprint trails leading away from Highfields and the difficulty of getting into the house through the nursery window? I don't think getting in through the window would, on its own, have been that hard, but launching oneself over the windowsill and chest into a dark room you'd never been in before... That's what would've been difficult for a single kidnapper acting alone, I would think.
ReplyDelete1. Lindbergh had the money to pay. Dudley Shoenfeld, the psychiatrist who reviewed the case and did a profile of "Cemetery John", theorized that Hauptmann chose Lindbergh because Hauptmann's hero was Baron von Richthofen (the Red Baron) and he wanted to prove his superiority over the great American Aviator.
DeleteSince Hauptmann never confessed, your question (which is a good one) can not be answered definitively. We must speculate.
2. The amount of the ransom is a small amount by today's standards. However, $50,000 in 1932 money would be worth anywhere from $800,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 in 2014 money. That is a lot of money.
3. I believe he likely acted alone. However, I do not reject the possibility of an accomplice, though I think any accomplice was after the fact, i.e. helping to launder the ransom money. If there was an accomplice at the scene, that person would have been limited to driving the waiting car. I find no evidence at the scene proving an accomplice.
3. There were not 2 sets of prints leading away from Highfields. There was only one, unless you count the dog paw prints that were seen. I also do not think the prints leading from the ladder off to Featherbed Lane belonged to the kidnapper. (For more detail on this conclusion, you will have to read my book. :) )
4. The entry and exit from the nursery by the window and ladder by one person was difficult. It was not impossible. The physical evidence, however, supports the conclusion that this happened.
Please understand that criminals do not always use the best method to commit a crime. Frankly, that is how most culprits get caught. They do something stupid.
Thank you for the questions. They were excellent.
In your view, how would Hauptmann have known which was the nursery window and when to strike? Also, getting inside, how do you think he managed to navigate a dark room that he presumably had never been in before without making a racket that would have, at the very least, woken CAL Jr. and/or alerted the dog? Finally, what's your take on the lack of fingerprints in the nursery (at least in certain spots)?
DeleteGood questions. Let me deal with them one at a time.
Delete1) How did he know where the nursery was? This cannot be answered definitively. However, we can speculate based on the evidence. As such, there are a few possibilities. He could have scouted the place previously. He could have had inside help. But, I think the most likely possibility is that he watched the house that day.
The house was not completely finished. There were no curtains on the windows for example. Anyone with a reasonable pair of field glasses could have seen what was happening in the house. Since we know that Mrs. Lindbergh took a walk earlier that day and the nursemaid held the baby up to the window to waive at his mother, Hauptmann, had he been watching at that moment, would have seen the proper room.
2) How did he navigate the room? I guess I'll answer that with a question. When Betty Gow came into the room to check on the baby, she did not turn on the lights and yet could navigate the room. According to her statement, she just waited a moment to allow her eyes to adjust to the level of lighting. Hauptmann could have done similarly. Maybe he had a flashlight.
3) Lack of fingerprints? I have great reservations about the skill of Investigator Kelly when it came to fingerprinting, The fact that Dr. Hudson found more prints using a different method of detection proves that. Additionally, it is certainly possible that Hauptmann used gloves.
I know my answers are largely speculative. However, since there is no known witness (other than the kidnapper) who actually saw the crime take place and considering my strong and supported belief that the crime scene was contaminated, it is impossible for anyone to state exactly how the crime occurred without possibility of error. The best we can do is reconstruct the crime as best we can based on what evidence we do have.
Another question on the discussion board from "AMY35"
ReplyDelete"I have another question for you. This involves St. Raymond's cemetery. On page 79 of Richard Cahill's book, Lindbergh and Condon have arrived at St. Raymond's cemetery and are parked in front of Bergen's greenhouse. Condon has read the note that was retrieved from the table outside the flower shop. While Condon was standing outside of the car Lindbergh sees a man walk by the car with a handkerchief covering the lower part of his face. The man glances at Lindbergh and Condon while he continues to walk down the road. This is not the man who blows his nose. That man comes by later.
If you go to page 85, Richard Cahill says that a Captain Richard Oliver of the New York Police Department had followed Lindbergh and Condon to the cemetery that night and watched Condon leave Lindbergh's car. He was about to follow Condon into St. Raymonds when he stopped. Although he thought the baby was dead and he could catch the kidnapper and be a hero, he also considered that if the child were actually still alive, he could cause the kidnapper to panic and he might kill the child immediately so Captain Oliver went no further. He returned to his car and left the scene.
Could the man Lindbergh saw walk past with a handkerchief covering half his face have been Captain Oliver as Richard Cahill suggests in his footnotes?
Also, since this is not the man who blows his nose, who was seen by Lindbergh later while Condon is actually exchanging the money for the Boad Nelly note, would this mean that there were actually two different men observing Lindbergh and Condon that night?"
Here is my answer. The premise of your question is not correct. At page 82 of my book, while discussing the man who blew his nose, I wrote, "This was the same man Lindbergh had seen minutes before with the brown suit and felt hat."
They were not 2 different men. It was one man. The source of my statement is noted in the footnotes. It comes from Lindbergh's 5/20/1932 statement to the New Jersey State Police.
Concerning my contention that this man may have been Captain Richard Oliver, my reasons are set forth on page 85, s well as footnote 22 for that chapter.
Hi Richard,
DeleteI am Amy35 from Michael's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board. I wanted say I am sorry if I misrepresented what you were saying in your book. I wish you had read down a few more posts. You would have seen that Michael called me on this and you would have seen my explanation which was:
"Very simple answer. I was not aware that he (Lindbergh) saw any other man but the one who blows his nose loudly. When I read about Captain Oliver being there (in your book, Richard) and that he passed by Lindbergh and Condon with a handkerchief across his face, I thought this was a different man from the one who passes by later after Condon leaves Lindbergh's car with the ransom money."
I think your theory that it could be Captain Oliver is great. I go on to say this when you read further down on the thread. In fact, this subject just came up a few days ago on another thread where I once again said that I thought your theory about Captain Oliver being the man at St. Raymonds was possible. I also am considering that this man might have been one of the P.I.'s hired by Breckinridge. I think that Lindbergh would have wanted to make sure that the money passed from Condon to CJ. This is the climax point of all the negotiations.
I enjoyed reading your book and I learned things I did not know. I find every book has something to offer, so I read as many as I can.
Thanks, Amy. I saw the subsequent comments, but you were not the only person to suggest that very point. So, I decided to use your question and answer it.
DeleteNo need for an apology. You asked an honest question and frankly I am pleased you enjoyed my book and took the time to post on my blog.
Best wishes, Amy.
Another question that comes up is my contention that the baby was found on its side. This requires clarification. I wrote that the child was not completely face down. According to an interview with one of the two men who performed or directed the autopsy, as well as pictures taken by the police, the child was not completely face down. This is why one side of the face (the one in the mud) was well preserved and the other side of the face, which was exposed directly to the air, was badly decomposed.
ReplyDeleteI did question your positon about the body being on its side when found. You said on page 95 of your book,paragraph 4, when Allen and Wilson looked at the body more closely they noticed clumps of hair on the skull and tattered clothing on the body. Also that a large portion of the body had been eaten by animals and scavengers. Then you say and I quote:
Delete"The body was lying on its side and the portion of the face they could see was black and decomposed."
Did William Allen and Orville Wilson ever say the body was on its side and that they could see a portion of the child's face? Do either of them say this in the statements they gave to police on May 12th, 1932? You don't have a footnote for this paragraph.
I find your position troubling because that is not how either of these men testified at the Flemington trial; especially William Allen who was clear that he could not see the face of the child at all. He testifies that the body was lying face down, flat to the ground. Check his trial testimony on page 1442.
Is William Allen perjuring himself?
Neither man's statement say one way or the other.However, there are numerous photographs taken at the grave scene that are available at the NJSP archives which show the position of the body when found.
DeleteAdditionally, this is supported by the fact that one side of the face was decomposed while the other was in the mud and was preserved. In fact, the eye of the preserved side of the face was still blue.
As for Allen, he might not have seen the face. He wasted little time getting the police when he found the body. I cannot say he intentionally perjured himself. He might not have seen the face.
I recommend strongly that you have a look at the photographs of the body when found. They are available at the NJSP Archives.
Thank you for responding to my question. I have seen some of the pictures reproduced in books but have not seen all the photos at the archives, which I should do.
DeleteHowever, my problem with the photos is that Sergeant Zapolsky of the NJSP arrived at the scene first and turned the body over and compared the face of the body to a picture he had of Charlie and made that tentative ID of the remains. Do you know when the police photographer arrived at the scene? If he came after Zapolsky had manipulated the body to ID it, then it would not have been in the original position that William Allen and Orville Wilson saw it in.
Timing is an important factor when looking at this case, so I think it is important to know if the photographer arrived with or after Zapolsky did to take those pictures. If you know, could you please post it. Thanks!
At page 96 of my book, I wrote, "After Kelly took photographs, Zapolsky turned the corpse over to examine the remainder of the face."
DeleteAnother question from "AMY35" an "Michael" the administrator asks why I used Waller's and Condon's version of the 6/6/32 questioning of Dr. Condon.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is that it is the only version available from an actual party or witness to the events. I do note in footnote #4 that I used Condon's book, but express skepticism at some of his accounts. For example, in the same footnote, I mention a different version noted in Jim Fisher's book, though without a source reference therein. While his account in some ways seems more likely, I cannot find a source to back it up.
Additionally, I chose to use Condon's version because it offers a great look into Condon's personality and ego, which I think is essential in understanding this man.
"Michael" offers questions and comments on the discussion board about my repeated assertions that the scene of the crime was not properly preserved. He challenges my assertion by citing some newspapers and comments therein by officers.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Michael, who is an avid researcher of the Lindbergh case and very knowledgeable about it, I must respectfully disagree with you.
I stand by my position that the crime scene was not properly maintained or preserved. Lieutenant Bornmann noted in his recorded interview that he had to bring the ladder into the house before it could be photographed in the position it was found because reporters were swarming all over the place and touching the evidence.
If the scene was protected properly, reporters would have been kept away and evidence (like the footprints) would never have been destroyed.
You are a knowledgeable man and well versed in the case, but we will have to agree to disagree on this one which is fine because there could not be fun debates about the case if everyone agreed on everything.
By the way, you noted on your page that you did not finish my book because you disagreed with so much of it. I urge you to finish it. There were many books on this case that I struggled through because they were so bad. It is important to read through them. You never know when one of the really bad books will have one real nugget of value.
Besides, though I am biased, I think my book is pretty good. :)
The newspaper article I used was meant to complement my position about the footprints. Concerning the crime scene - for that I used original Police Reports and Statements even quoting Bornmann from his written on March 9, 1932 at 10:15PM. It's my position that sources closest to the actual events are more likely to be accurate rather than, for example, an oral interview made on June 28,1983 at 11:30AM. While the crime scene was eventually surrendered, it had been secured up until that point and I completely stand by what I've written on my Board.
DeleteBelieve me, no one appreciates the amount of research it took for you to write your book, and I would like nothing more the agree with everything you've written. However, like you said, no one will ever agree 100% about everything - especially concerning this case.
Michael,
DeleteThank you for posting.
I do not expect you to surrender your position. I expect you to offer evidence like you just did to support it.
Later, I will give a more detailed posting on my position on the crime scene. I am in a restaurant right now using my cell phone.
I appreciate you posting but appreciate even more the Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board you maintain and moderate. It is a great site to learn and debate about this case.
We may disagree, but do not think for one second that I do not respect your work and research on this case. I definitely do. I hope you get the manuscript you mentioned on your site published. I am sure I would really enjoy reading it.
Now that I am home, I can respond in a little more detail.
DeleteMy conclusions about the scene not being properly protected are not based solely upon the interview of Bornmann conducted years later, though that is part of it.
Bornmann testified during the trial that reporters were already there when he first saw the ladder (R. 364) As a result, evidence had to be taken inside.
In Bornmann's 3/9/1932 written statement, he wrote that he "went out into the yard again and due to the number of strangers around the ground we decided it best to remove the ladders into the house.” His reference to ladders in the plural is because the kidnap ladder was not fully assembled. Two parts were together and the third piece was separate. So, in a sense, they had 2 ladders to bring in even though they were part of 1 full ladder.
Bornmann further wrote in this statement, “Took ladders and dowel in the house and put them away for safe keeping. The wood chisel was left until daylight to take fingerprints.”
This is confirmed by Investigator Kelly's 3/16/1932 statement though interestingly he wrote that both the dowel pin and the chisel were left outside over night,
So, we have confirmation in the very first written statement from Bornmann and from his trial testimony in 1935 that reporters were at the scene and their presence was such that they could not leave the ladder in the position where it was found. Obviously, they were not being kept at bay.
Trooper DeGaetano notes in his 3/9/1932 statement that he was given orders about the reporters. He wrote, "Newspaper reporters were gathering in great numbers and I was detailed to keep them away from the house." Note -- not from the outside evidence or grounds, but from the house.
Charles Williamson, Assistant Chief of the Hopewell Police, noted in his 3/9/1932 statement, " . . . and in a short time Troopers started to arrive in groups, as well as fingerprint men, reporters, photographers, etc."
Harry H. Wolf, Police Marshall of Hopewell Borough, noted in his 3/16/1932 statement that he did try to keep people back. He also noted, "There was a big crowd of photographers, reporters, and Troopers when I Ieft."
So, according to these statements, trial testimony, and years later a recorded interview, reporters showed up in mass and were there in droves before the ladder was processed or taken inside. Their presence was bad enough that the Troopers made the decision to move the pieces of the ladder from the position where they were found before they could be photographed or processed for prints.
If the reporters were being kept away from the evidence and the scene was secured, why did the Troopers feel the need to move the evidence? Also, why was the chisel (and possibly the dowel pin) left overnight and processed in the morning?
This is not a properly secured scene. A properly secured scene would have had Troopers and other officers preventing anyone from getting close to the entire grounds of the house, not just the house itself.
These reports show that some of the officers tried to protect the scene, but failed. As such, I think my conclusions (that the footprint evidence and fingerprint evidence of all of the evidence found outside the home were compromised by the failure to properly maintain the scene) are well supported.
What I normally do, and you may not agree, is if the testimony and source material from the scene contradict I will defer to the original source material. While Bornmann testified (p364) that he had seen who he believed were Reporters arriving to the house when he first saw the ladder, his 3/9/32 Statement says when he first saw it he "...instructed a Trooper to guard Foot prints, ladder, etc." It wasn't until sometime after the arrival of Capt. Lamb that he went out to the yard again and due to the number of strangers around the ground we decided it best to remove the ladders into the house. So what he did was precautionary and there were indeed a number of "strangers" there guarding the area who he may not have known. At some point Reporters did start to arrive, however the Guards had the area under control. No where is it mentioned the area or the evidence had been tampered with. In fact, as you noted above, he left a dowel and the chisel in the yard so as not to erase the fingerprints. At daybreak, Kelly went into the yard and retrieved them right where they were, unmolested, when everyone first spotted them.
DeleteIn DeGaetano's 3/9/32 Report he does state what you cite. However, it's important to not to ignore the timing of this event. Leon and Kelly arrived together. Leon said he arrived "around 12 o'clock," and that Schoeffel, Keaton, and Zapolsky arrived "about 10 minutes" later.
After they arrived, Keaten, Leon, Lindbergh and DeGetano traced the double set of footprints from the ladder onward. So the crime scene is still secure at this time because the ladder is still outside and they see do not see any "Strangers." They returned to the house then were picked up by Cpl. Leon in a car to catch up with Lindbergh and Keaten who had gone to a nearby house. Once there Cpl. Horn picked them all up and they made a "hurried search of the neighborhood." It was after all this transpired that once DeGetano returned to Highfields does he then get detailed to keep Reporters away from the house.
Con't below
Con't....
DeleteConcerning Police Marshal Wolfe's 3/16/32 Statement...Then Corporal Wolf, of the State Police, came in. He drove in and I met him here. We stayed outside; more troopers were coming and I was stationed in the driveway. My instructions were from the Colonel not to touch anything nor to let anyone go around or destroy the footprints. All I did after that was keep people back and help out all I could.
Does he say someone got by him? Does he say the scene was compromised? No, in fact he is doing exactly what you assert was not done. What he does say is when he left, at 3AM, there was a big crowd of Reporters and Troopers. But he doesn't say they had, or were, compromising the crime scene he and the others were detailed to guard.
Trooper Cain and Trooper Sullivan were dispatched at 10:53 and they arrived 20 minutes later. Cain's March 1, 1932 Report specifically says only Lindbergh, Wolf, Wolfe, Williamson, the Butler, his Wife, the baby's nurse, and Mrs. Lindbergh were there when they arrived. Cain says "I was detailed to keep any one away from the side of the house, or going into same, until arrival of Capt. Lamb." Also see Cpl. Wolf's Trial Testimony on p348. He specifically says that he detailed someone to guard the print and that side of the house.
There were so many Troopers guarding the scene and on site that when Trooper Turnbull, and Trooper Ruggiero arrived and were detailed to search the woods. According to Trooper Johnson's 3/1/32 Report, once he and Trooper Dean arrived that night they were instructed by Major Schoeffel to return to the Station because there was "nothing for them to do."
And so it appears to me that your position the Police "failed" to protect the scene is flawed. There's nothing to suggest anything was compromised or the actual scene was intruded upon until it was eventually surrendered to the Reporters by the Police themselves.
By the way, Michael, I wish more people could debate this case logically and intelligently. Too many time I have seen Internet debates get really nasty. As much as I love talking about this case, those kind of debates are about as "unfun" as you get.
Delete"Sam" asked on the discussion boards as to which books on the subject I have read. The answer is just about all of them. I have read everything from the Great Lindbergh Hullabaloo (the first one) all the way to Cemetery John (the last one before mine).
ReplyDelete"Sam" and "Romeo12" question my assertion that Lindbergh was to be the guest of honor at an event schedule on the night of the kidnapping. Citation is made to the official program (available at the NJSP Archives) which states that Lindbergh was not scheduled to speak.
ReplyDeleteHere is my reply. Lindbergh was the most famous and revered man in the world. Any event that he chose to attend would have regarded him as the guest of honor regardless of who was advertised.
I think this is perhaps an argument about semantics.
You commented on your web site that it was amusing that we have almost 35 years of research between us and yet we see the same evidence very differently. How true.
ReplyDeleteI view the evidence as a former prosecutor and former criminal defense attorney because that is exactly what I am. I can tell you that any good prosecutor would be horrified and a criminal defense attorney thrilled at the idea that evidence had to be moved from the point where it was found prior to being photographed or processed because of a concern that the media might swarm the area.
Any potential fingerprints on the ladder were likely damaged or destroyed once they moved the ladder. Without photographs of the exact location and position where they were found, the prosecution had to rely on the word and recollection of the officers. Any good defense attorney would have a field day.
Add to that the fact that the chisel was left out all night but the ladder was brought in for fear of contamination. The question to be asked is why bring the ladder in and leave the chisel outside? The ladder is clearly the better evidence.
As for the timing, we disagree on that too. To be fair, the statements and trial testimonies are inconsistent on this point. We each reconstructed as best we could and obviously have different time lines.
The key thing that does not make sense for hauptmann to have committed this crime that I have never heard discussed is the timeline for him to have done it without being noticed by his wife or being caught in the blockade of cars back to New York. If we understand that the absolute earliest the baby could have been kidnapped would be eight o'clock. The baby was dumped in the woods two miles south of the lindberg home. It would have taken at least three and a half hours to drive back to the bronx. His wife was picked up by him on Tuesday nights around nine. There is no possible way she would have not remembered him picking her up at midnight without herself being involved in the crime. Surely the next day when the news came out she would have connected him being so late when he was arrested. Also how could he have possibly avoided the police blockades that were involved that night checking cars coming back into New York at he hour he would be driving? Other than this one unavoidable circumstance I would believe he was guilty. Do you have any explanation for this? Thank you,
ReplyDeleteMickey,
ReplyDeleteThere are several problems with your statements.
First, it would not have taken 3 1/2 hours to drive from the area around Hopewell to the Bronx. It would not have taken anywhere near that amount of time.
Second, Hauptmann's wife said that Hauptmann "usually"picked her up on Tuesdays. She was not certain that he did so on March 1, 1932. Moreover, he would not have gotten back around midnight as you suggest.
Third, the child was not discovered missing until around 10 pm, likely an hour after the kidnapping. By the time the police arrived on the scene and then made efforts on traffic, Hauptmann could have already made it back to the Bronx.
Finally, you should keep in mind that Anna Hauptmann also claimed that Hauptmann was at home on the night of the ransom payment playing music with his friend, Hans Kloppenburg. However, evidence has come to light showing that the musical evening did not occur as alleged.
The bottom line is that Hauptmann had plenty of time to commit the crime. Thank you for the questions though. I urge you to read my book which will give much more detailed answers to your questions.
Thank you so much for your response! The other point that is intriguing is how could one person have committed this crime. I can see how an athletic person like Hauptmann could climb and enter the window. However to be able to climb back down the ladder with a 35 pound baby I find to be extremely difficult. I can see him dropping or even just letting the baby fall when he realized there was no way to negotiate the ladder fot the way down. this might explain the head fracture. The other incredible point is that he did not confess particularly when he was offered to be spared from the electric chair. Either he did not want to spend his life in prison with the stigma against his family, or indeed he was innocent. I am about to read your book so I am sure I will find the answers. Thank you again!
ReplyDeleteYour book is the fourth book I have read on the case and certainly the most thorough. I agree completely that Hauptmann was guilty in the kidnapping, however he should not have been executed. Perhaps in time he would have confessed and ended what mystery that still remains. There is absolutely no proof that he murdered the child. I think it was an accident. If one looks at the pictures of the house with the two ladder sections against it, at least to me it looks extremely difficult for a person with a thirty five pound baby to back out of the window and get down the ladder. Is it possible that the two sections were first put against the house to access the shutters, open them and the window and then remove the ladder , add the third section and climb into the nursery? It looks like it would be far more easier to climb in and come down with the third section in place. If the shutters were closed one could not open them with the three sections since the ladder would be leaning against the right shutter. the most incredible thing about the case is that Hauptmann did not confess to save himself from the chair. Did the psychiatrist Schoenfeld have an opinion as to why he didn't?
ReplyDeleteMickey,
DeleteThank you for the very kind comments. I am glad you enjoyed my book.
The kidnapping itself was difficult, but not impossible. Remember that people who work on ladders very often tend to be reckless with them and are willing to take much greater chances than those who do not work with them regularly.
It is possible to have used the 3rd piece of the ladder, but unlikely. Marks were found on the house from the use of the two pieces of the ladder. No mark was found where the third piece would have rested against the house. This does not completely rule it out, but makes it unlikely.
Finally, I answered your question about Shoenfeld at page 132. When he gave his profile of Cemetery John, he said that if apprehended, he would never confess. To do so would admit defeat. His feelings of supremacy would never allow it.
Thanks again for the comments and questions.