Thursday, May 10, 2018


Presentation of Award

This past Saturday, May 5, 2018, The Illinois State Historical Society held their annual awards banquet at the historic state capitol building in downtown Springfield. Having been previously notified that I would be receiving an award for my book "Prairie Defender: The Murder Trials of Abraham Lincoln," I attended the banquet despite the fact that they told me I lived so far away they would not be offended if I chose not to go.

ISHS Award

My wife Lane's 50th anniversary class reunion was scheduled for the same night, so she stayed in Lake City to attend that event. We got our daughter Laura to go as her proxy, and the two of us did some sightseeing after the banquet. I met a lot of nice people, including some who had helped me with my research on the book. Most notable among those who helped with the book were two other gentlemen who received literary awards at the banquet: Guy Fraker, author of "Lincoln's Ladder to the Presidency: The Eighth Judicial Circuit," and Professor Brian Dirck, author of "Lincoln the Lawyer."

After the banquet and awards presentation John Alexander, owner of Books on the Square at 427 E. Washington Street just across the way from the capitol, hosted a roundtable and a book signing.  At the roundtable Guy Fraker, Brian Dirck, and I discussed common misconceptions about Lincoln's law practice and then fielded questions from an inquisitive audience. I thoroughly enjoyed the give-and-take of the discussion. At the conclusion of the roundtable, we signed books for patrons.

Signing Books at Books on the Square
Laura and I spent the next day at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum. Almost all the exhibits had been completely changed in the years since Lane and I visited back when I was researching "Abraham Lincoln's Most Famous Case: The Almanac Trial." While we were browsing in the ALPM bookstore, Laura called my attention to the display of books on sale at the museum. I was quite pleased to see that they had stocked a goodly supply of copies of "Prairie Defender."

"Prairie Defender" on Sale at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum

The next day we visited Lincoln's home. This time I was vigilant. I went directly to the book display in the gift shop to see if they were selling "Prairie Defender" there. They were.

"Prairie Defender" on Sale at Lincoln Home Gift Shop
We wanted to go to New Salem, where Lincoln first lived after leaving his father's home, but the park was closed that day, so we ended our tour of  Lincoln sights by visiting Lincoln's tomb at Oak Ridge Cemetery. An Egyptian Pharaoh would not be embarrassed to be buried in such a tomb.

The next morning we boarded the United flight to Chicago O'Hare to make our connections--Laura to Columbus and me back to Jacksonville. It was quite a nice trip. 

Sunday, April 15, 2018


Not long ago in my post entitled "Fearless Girl versus the One-Ton Bull: A Reality Check," I mentioned that I had once accidentally sat down on a 6'4" rattlesnake while taking down an old fence on the farm. My brother Bill killed the snake with 6'+ stick, and our father took pictures of us holding the dead snake as a sort of a trophy. I thought those photographs had disappeared beyond all recovery long ago, but I was wrong. Bill still has the photograph of him holding the snake. I borrowed it and scanned it, and here it is as evidence of how observant a person I was and still am.

It also serves as evidence that the fifty some odd years between my sitting on the snake and my telling the tale in the blog post added approximately 2" to the length of the snake.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018


In my continuing project of transcribing the entire trial of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, I have now reached the 20th prosecution witness. Numbers in brackets refer to the pages of the official transcript. A hyperlinked index of all transcribed witnesses can be accessed HERE.


January 9, 1935

[588] JOHN F. CONDON, sworn as a witness on behalf of the State.

Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. How old are you, Doctor? A. Seventy-four years of age on the 1st of last June. (Mr. Wilentz [589] puts a glass of water on the bench alongside of the witness.)

Q. That water is there for you any time you want it. A. I thank you. I don’t need it yet.

Q. And during those 74 years, where have you lived? A. In the most beautiful borough in the world.

Q. What place is it?

Mr. Fisher: I ask that be stricken out.

A. The Bronx.

The Court: I decline to strike it out.

Mr. Fisher: It is purely a matter of opinion whether the Bronx is the most beautiful borough in the world.

The Court: Well, I think it is, but I will let it stand.

Mr. Fisher: I think Flemington is.

Q. Well, the Bronx is a part of Greater New York, isn’t it, Doctor? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You mean then that you have lived your entire life in the City of New York? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And particularly in the Bronx? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Yesterday afternoon while we were discussing your title of “Doctor”—you are called Doctor, aren’t you? A. Righteously, yes, sir.

Q. All right now, will you tell us, please, the degrees that you have? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What are they? A. The first one is A.B., known as—

Q. That is Bachelor of Arts? A. Bachelor—may I—

Q. Yes, you may, sir. A. I was never on a stand [590] before in my life and I will be strained.

Q. That is all right. What is the second? A. Bachelor of Arts degree of the College of the City of New York, 1882.

Q. And the next, sir? A. Fordham University, the Master of Arts in course with an original thesis.

Q. And what is the next degree that you received? A. New York University, Doctor of Pedagogy, with an original thesis, scientific and un.

Q. All right, sir, so that the name with which you are known, Doctor, is not only that, but you also have the degree of Doctor, right? A. I have the title, the degree, and the diploma extant.

Q. After and during the time that you attended college and schools what did you follow as a means of livelihood? A. While I was at college—

Q. Well, you have been a teacher, haven’t you? A. Not all the time.

Mr. Fisher: I submit, your Honor that the witness is entitled to answer questions asked by counsel.

The Witness: I shall do so with pleasure.

Mr. Wilentz: All right.

The Witness: I was compelled—Did I make a mistake?

Mr. Wilentz: No.

The Witness: I was compelled to help my father.

[591] By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Go ahead, Doctor. A. Who had eight children, seven of whom became teachers in New York City. I saw early that the burden was too great upon my father and I applied to the Western Union Telegraph Company that I might learn telegraphy, which I learned, took a position with the Western Union Company while I was studying to become a teacher, the ambition of my life.

Q. And when you became a teacher you got a position, I take it. A. In November of 1883 after being with the Western Union Company under a Mr. Page for one year I went to the City Superintendent’s examination for teacher under the late honored and respected John Jasper.

Q. And how many years were you engaged as a teacher in the public school system of the City of New York? A. 46 years starting yesterday anniversary, January 8th, 1884; ending up in 1932. This would make it 50 years yesterday.

Q. When was it that you retired as a teacher? A. I retired—well, my application I put in on the day I was seventy years of age, which is a law. I didn’t want to take a penny from the City of New York that I wasn’t entitled to. I sent an application to the Superintendent and he asked me to please remain longer. Might I put a little praise in here?

Q. No. Well, whatever— A. Nothing? Very well, then.

Q. Well, at any rate, you did retire when, sir? A. I retired honorably with full credentials.

Q. When was that, Dr. Condon? A. That was, instead of June 1932—’30; I beg your pardon—1930. Correct that, will you, please.

Q. Yes, sir. A. I was kept until October 1932.

[592] Q. All right, sir. Now, since that time, Doctor, you haven’t been engaged particularly in any occupation, have you? A. Yes.

Q. What is it? A. Yes. I had some capital of my own, very little, but I put it in real estate.

Q. I see. A. So I thought it might be wise to learn how to protect it, to take care of it. I went down to their examination at the Federal Building, New York City, and passed the examination as a realtor.

Q. All right, sir. Now, in March, 1932, you, of course, lived in the Bronx. A. I did.

Q. And also in April, 1932. A. I did and do.

Q. On April 2nd, 1932, you saw Colonel Lindbergh, did you not, Doctor? A. I did.

Q. In company with Colonel Lindbergh, did you go some place? A. I did.

Q. In an automobile. A. In an automobile.

Q. Whose automobile was it. A. Alfred J. Reich, my friend and helper in real estate.

Q. Did you go in the morning, afternoon or evening? A. With the Colonel?

Q. Yes. A. With the Colonel, I went out as nearly as I can remember, about a quarter to eight or eight o’clock.

Q. That night—where did you go? A. With the Colonel?

Q. Yes. A. I went in the automobile and he took the wheel, followed directions given in a note to me at my front door after the bell rang—

Q. Where did you go, Doctor? A. I went across—I do not know how much you know about the Bronx, but I was born there—

Q. Tell us— A. I went across Pelham Parkway to what is called Westchester Square in an easterly direction. After going in that easterly direction, [593] we are compelled to turn over in a northerly or north easterly direction until we came by advice from the note to a florist, known as Bergen’s Floral Station or store. The directions—you want that?

Q. As a result of what you got there, where did you go? A. I went to Bergen’s store, and in the front of it where I was directed—shall I go on?

Q. Yes. A. To look under a table and I would find a stone there, and finding the stone there, that there would be a note under that stone.

Q. As a result of finding the stone and the note, where did you go? A. I went across the way as directed by the note, the original note gave as nearly as I can remember, I could tell in a moment if I saw it, to cross the street, to talk to nobody and to go down Whittemore Avenue.

Q. Now, Doctor, did you go down Whittemore Avenue that night? A. I did.

Q. Did you meet a man there? A. I did.

Q. Did you have with you some time or other that night, you and Colonel Lindbergh, a box of money? A. The Colonel had the box of money with an extra package besides.

Q. All right, sir. Did you give some money in a box that night? A. I did.

Q. And who did you give that money to? A. John.

Q. Who is John? A. John is Bruno Richard Hauptmann.

Q. All right, sir. Just wait a minute. Now let’s get back just about where we started, where we should start. In March, 1932, as the result of a letter or advertisement you inserted, did you receive a note?

Mr. Fisher: That is objected to as being [594] leading. The question should be what he received.

A. I will accept an answer. I don’t know the ways of your court. Excuse me, Judge.

Mr. Wilentz: That is all right.

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. As the result of an advertisement or letter or whatever it was that you caused to be published, did you receive any response? A. I did.

Q. What was it that you received? A. I received a letter with a peculiar signature upon it consisting—

Q. All right, just a minute. I will try to find the exhibit. A. I beg your pardon.

Q. I show you an envelope dated March the 9th, 1932, postmarked New York, N. Y., 12 noon, and ask you whether or not you recognize whether you received that note, referring to Exhibit S‑24 for Identification. I thought it was admitted in evidence.

The Reporter: No.

Q. All right. A. I received this letter about March the 9th, 1932. I recollect.

Q. No, no, that is all right, Doctor.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

The Court: Any objection? There is no objection. I would like to see that.

(The envelope referred to was received in evidence and marked as Exhibit S‑42.)

[595] Q. I notice that there is some coloring on that envelope, Doctor, that it isn’t altogether white. Was that coloring on when you received it or was it a white envelope? A. To the nearest of my recollection it was white.

Q. I see.

Mr. Wilentz: May I proceed while your Honor is looking at it?

The Court: Yes, you may proceed. I will hand that back to you, Attorney General.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir; thank you, sir.

Q. Now, in that envelope, I take it, referring to Exhibit S‑42, there were some enclosures? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you take a look at some of these papers, handing witness S‑25 for Identification and S‑26 for Identification. A. (After examining papers at length) I received this letter within that envelope with the directions on it, and the signature of the three holes.

Q. Referring to S‑25.

Mr. Wilentz: Which I now offer in evidence.

Mr. Reilly: I never saw it before.

Mr. Wilentz: All right.

The Court: If there is no objection it will be admitted.

[596] (State Exhibit S‑25 for Identification is now received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑43 in evidence.)

The Court: I would like to see it, unless you are going to read it to the jury.

Mr. Wilentz: In a moment I am going to read it, sir.

The Court: Very well.

(The witness-examines another note, S‑26 for Identification.)

(The witness holds note up to the light, and examines same.)

Mr. Fisher: What is the exhibit he is looking at now, Mr. Wilentz?

Mr. Wilentz: S‑26 for Identification.

A. That adhesive paper was not on it when I received it. That is the letter that I received in that envelope with the other one, giving the instructions, yes, sir.

Q. Except that it didn’t have the adhesive tape on it? A. It did not.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

The Reporter: Exhibit S‑44.

The Court: It seems not to be objected to; it is admitted.

(State Exhibit S‑26 for Identification is [597] now received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑44.)

Q. I show you an envelope, addressed to Colonel Lindbergh, and ask you if that was enclosed with these same notes and in the same envelope just referred to? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Pope: Will you give us the number, Mr. Wilentz?

Mr. Wilentz: The last one or the new one?

Mr. Fisher: The last one, the envelope. The Reporter: Exhibit S‑45.

(Envelope referred to was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑45.)

Mr. Wilentz: May I read these, please, if your Honor please?

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Wilentz (Reading to the jury): This envelope is addressed to Dr. John F. Condon, 2974 Decatur Avenue, New York. That is Exhibit S‑42, one note. “Dear Sir: If you are willing to act as go-between in Lindbergh case, follow strictly instructions. Handle enclosed letter personally to Mr. Lindbergh. It will explain everything. Don’t tell anyone about it. As soon we find out the press or police is notified, everyding are cansell—c-a-n-s-e-1-l, and it will be a further delay.

[598] “After you gets the money from Mr. Lindbergh put them words in the New York American: money is ready. After that we will give you further instructions. Don’t be afrait. We are not out for your thousand dollar (dollar sign after the thousand). Keep it only act strictly. Be at home every night between 6-12. By this time you will hear from us.”

Together with that Exhibit S‑43—you notice this exhibit has no symbol on it—inside the envelope S‑45 “Mr. Colonel Lindbergh Hopewell”: “Dear Sir: Mr. Condon may act as go-between. You may give him the seventy thousand $. Make one packet. The size will be about (here you will see the drawing of the size) 6 by 7 by 14 (the dimensions you see there). We have notifiet you already in what kind of bills. We warn you not use any trap in any way. If you or someone else will notify the police tere will be a further delay. After we have the money in hand we will tell you where to find your boy. You may have a air plane ready (redy). It is about 150 miles away, but before telling you the adr. a delay of 8 hours will be between.” Then the circles with the three holes and the red center.

Q. Now, when you received that envelope with the papers which have just been marked in evidence, what did you do, sir? A. I came home late that night. I usually lectured in four places. One of them was the Silesian Order; it is a Catholic order in New Rochelle; the other the College of New Rochelle; third, at Fordham University and, last, at the Woolworth Building in [599] the lower part of the city.

Q. Yes, Doctor. Well, at any rate, you came home— A. Late.

Q. Late, you say? A. Around ten, or between ten and eleven.

Q. And when you got home at ten o’clock—A. I found my letters, as I usually asked them to be placed, by a Tiffany clock that we happen by chance to have.

Q. All right. Now, having found—did you find that letter on that particular night? A. I found that letter on that particular night.

Q. And did you open it? A. I opened it.

Q. And what did you do then, sir? A. As soon as I read it, I thought it was strange, and I felt rather pleased to think that I was honored. So I took that over to 188th Street and Concourse in order that I might meet the man who had so kindly driven me so many miles in different places in our Borough, Alfred J. Reich.

Q. Well, all right, sir. Now, when you got to that place did you find Mr. Reich? A. Mr. Reich, I was advised by Mr. Rosenhain—

Q. Well, he wasn’t there, was he, Doctor? A. He was not there.

Q. All right. And then what did you do, sir? A. I went to Mr. Rosenhain and I said, “Look here, I think I have—”

Mr. Reilly: Objected to; objected to, the conversation.

A. Yes. I beg your pardon. I know; I know better than that.

Q. Just a minute. A. I know better than that.

Q. All right, sir. I know you do.

Q. When you got there? A. When I got there.

Q. As a result of what you said to Mr. Rosenhain [600] or anybody else what did you do, sir? A. I took the letter out of my pocket and telephoned its contents to a gentleman at the other end of the wire at a place called Hopewell.

Q. What time was that, about? A. As nearly as I could judge, well, I would say between eleven and twelve, I don’t know the minute, although I had a stop-watch with me. I didn’t take it out then.

Q. Of course, you had a telephone in your home, did you not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why did you not use your house telephone? A. I never used my house telephone with anything that will annoy my family.

Q. And so you went to Rosenhain? A. I went to get Alfred Reich. I didn’t go to telephone first.

Q. But you finally did telephone? A. I did telephone.

Q. As a result of the telephone conversation you had with somebody at the other end at Hopewell, did you go anywhere that night? A. I went from that telephone booth to Hopewell, New Jersey, the residence of Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. Who was with you? A. Milton Gaglio, a young—

Q. Who else? A. Maxie Rosenhain, the proprietor of the restaurant.

Q. In whose car was it? A. It was one owned or one at the disposal of Milton Gaglio, I didn’t know—

Q. You went to Hopewell, I take it? A. I went to Hopewell, New Jersey.

Q. Did you meet Colonel Lindbergh that night or early the next morning? A. I met Colonel Lindbergh that night, that is, in the morning, as you say, it was after 12 o’clock, yes, sir.

Q. Who else was there with you, sir? [601] A. Colonel Breckinridge and one or two officials of some kind, I didn’t pay attention to anybody but Colonel Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge. They were the two celebrities that I went to see.

Q. And did you return that morning or did you stay there that night? A. I stayed there all night at the suggestion of Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. Where did you sleep that night? A. I slept in the baby’s nursery.

Q. Who fixed up your sleeping quarters for you that night? A. Colonel Lindbergh apologized and said that he was sorry he could not—

Mr. Fisher: That is objected to.

The Witness: I beg your pardon, I don’t know those things—

Mr. Wilentz: Doctor, you and I will do this and when there is an objection, please address your remarks to the Court instead of to me.

Q. That is all right, Doctor. A. I beg your pardon, Judge, I didn’t know—

Q. Just you and I will do this, when there is an objection, you will please address your remarks to the Court. Who prepared your sleeping quarters that night? A. Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. All right. And you slept in the nursery that night? A. In the nursery that night.

Q. Now, did Mr. Gaglio and the other gentlemen stay or did they go home? A. They did not, they went home, I told them to go home.

Q. Yes, sir, at least they went home anyway? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, Doctor, that night and the next morning, I take it you and the family talked, Colonel [602] Breckinridge and all? A. We did, yes.

Q. And, as a result of that, did you cause an advertisement to be put in the New York American? A. I did, because in that letter—

Q. Just a minute, just a minute, please. And, through Colonel Breckinridge, did you cause an advertisement to be placed in that paper, and will you take a look and see if that is a true copy of the advertisement? A. May I?

Q. Yes, certainly you may. (Witness-examines paper, Mr. Wilentz hands him.) Just that little sheet, if you don’t mind. A. This?

Q. This here, just this little one, the other papers are not material. A. Oh, I beg your pardon—yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: And I will just offer the first sheet—do you mind if I tear it a little bit?

The Reporter: Exhibit S‑46 in evidence.

The Court: It will be admitted, there being no objection.

(Paper referred to was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑46.)

Q. The advertisement referred to in the Exhibit S‑46 in the New York American—“I accept. Money is ready. Jafsie.”

Mr. Pope: Is that S‑46 or 47?

The Reporter: S‑46.

Mr. Wilentz: S‑46 I have it here.

[603] Q. Now, as I understood it, in answer to the last question, you had caused this ad to be inserted at the instance and authorization of Colonel Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge? A. Colonel Breckinridge.

Q. I see. All right, sir. Now, then, when did you return to your home? A. Returned to my home—Returned to my home from Hopewell or the advertisement?

Q. From Hopewell. A. From Hopewell I was to be at a lecture at four o’clock, and went back to New York City with Colonel Breckinridge in the automobile.

Q. What happened to the note and the letter that you had gotten to Colonel Lindbergh and to yourself, that is, Exhibit S‑43, and the papers that came together with it in the envelope, S‑42? A. As soon as those letters ‘came to my home—

Q. That is,—pardon me—the first letter, I am talking about, with the enclosures. What did you do with them that night? Did you leave them with the Lindberghs? A. I left them with Colonel Lindbergh. I took no letters back with me at any time.

Q. All right, sir. Then you returned to a lecture or something in The Bronx? A. I went to a lecture in The Bronx.

Q. Did you get a response to your ad, “Money is ready, I accept,” or anything to that effect, S‑46? A. I did. I received another letter.

Q. The second letter which you received, was that delivered or mailed to you? A. Now, by first and second meant nothing to me.

Q. Well, I mean— A. Because I received both by mail and by messenger letters.

Q. All right. A. If you would show me I could tell you.

[604] Q. All right, sir. Will you take a look at these papers and see if you received them after your advertisement, as you said (showing papers to witness). A. I received this letter by messenger at my front door.

Q. After the advertisement? A. After the advertisement in the paper.

Q. About what date? Do you recall the day? If you do— A. Well, as near as—I assume—it was the Saturday after; I knew that, it was the Saturday after I had placed the advertisement in a local paper besides the American, The Bronx Home News.

Q. All right, sir. A. I learn all things by relation.

Q. All right, sir. Now, just one minute.

Mr. Fisher: Why can’t we have the answer fully?

Mr. Wilentz: Do you want the full answer?

Mr. Fisher: Yes. He was stopped right in the middle of a sentence.

The Court: Do you want the answer?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, please.

The Court: Let the Doctor answer.

Q. Then go ahead, Doctor. A. I remember all things according to my teaching by the relation of important things alongside of them. It is that way I teach, and I learn that way myself. Thank you.

[605] Q. So that the important thing, of course, was the advertisement you put in— A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the visit to the Colonel Lindbergh home? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And by relation to that, it was the following Saturday? A. Connection and relation; yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: We offer the note with the envelope in evidence.

The Court: If there is no objectiton they will be admitted.

The Reporter: The envelope is S‑47, the note S‑48.

Mr. Pope: We would like to have the exhibit numbers.

The Court: Yes. Let the reporter announce the number or numbers of the exhibits.

The Reporter: The envelope is S‑47 and and the note is S‑48 in evidence.

(Envelope and note referred to received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑47 and S‑48 respectively.)

Mr. Wilentz: May I read the note, sir? The Court: Yes.

Mr. Wilentz: The envelope has no postmarking on. Exhibit 47.

[606] “Mr. John Condon, 2974 Decatur Avenue.”

The letter:

“Mr. Condon: We trust you but we will not,” n-o-t-e “in your hous” h-o-u-s “It is too danger. Even you can not” n-o-t-e “know if police or secret service is watching you. Follow this instruction. Take a car and drive to the last subway station from Jerome Avenue Line. A hundred feet from the last station on the left side is a empty frankfurter stand with a big open porch around. You will find a notice in senter” s-e-n-t-e-r “of the porch underneath the stone. This notice will tell you where to find me. Act accordingly. After three-quarters of a hour” h-o-u-e-r “be on the place, bring the money with you.”

And the sign or symbol, as you see it there, with the holes.

Mr. Pope: Let me see that, Mr. Attorney General.

(The document referred to was handed to Mr. Pope.)

Mr. Wilentz: I take it, Mr. Stenographer, you have the identification marks of those matters I am now getting in evidence?

The Reporter: Yes, I am crossing them out as they are marked in evidence.

[607] Mr. Wilentz: Have you a record of what you cross out?

The Reporter: I don’t have a record of the identification marks of the last two.

Mr. Wilentz: Well, you will take them later.

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Now did you follow the instructions in that letter? A. I did.

Q. About what time of the day or night did you start to follow—by the way, what time of the night was it when you received, what number is it, Mr. Pope, please?

Mr. Pope: S‑47.

A. Between half past seven and eight o’clock.

Q. And how soon thereafter did you start? A. Fifteen minutes to a half an hour, as soon as we got ready.

Q. With whom? A. With Alfred J. Reich.

Q. Where was he? Where had he been? A. At my home.

Q. Did he drive his car? A. He drove his car following directions in the note.

Q. I see. Tell us just what you did do, where you went. A. I got into the automobile with him, went up through Mosholu Parkway which is just north west of my home, went along the Jerome Avenue elevated and went to the last elevated pillar as instructed, followed out instructions implicity until I came to the frankfurter stand [608] which was closed on account of it being cold and wintry, there was no business anywhere.

Q. Just one minute, Doctor, please. I show you a picture of some sort of building or shack and ask you whether you recognize that (handing witness a photograph?) A. I recognize that as the frankfurter stand on which platform I found the stone and a note.

Q. Is that a correct picture of the frankfurter stand as it was at that time? A. That was a correct picture at that time. It has since been removed.

Q. Is that the stand to which you refer? A. That is the stand to which I refer on Jerome Avenue beyond the last pillar.

Mr. Wilentz: After counsel looks at the photograph, I offer it in evidence.

Q. While counsel is inspecting it, you say you drove to the Frankfurter stand. A. That is Mr. Reich drove.

Q. You went with him? A. I don’t drive.

Mr. Reilly: May we know when this was taken?

Mr. Wilentz: I don’t know, we will find out for counsel. November of this year—last year.

Mr. Reilly: November of this year?

Mr. Wilentz: Last year.

Q. This picture having been taken recently, [609] what I would like to know before I offer it again is whether or not it truly depicts the frankfurter stand you refer to and the vicinity as it was the day or night you were there? A. It is an exact photograph of what I saw that night.

Mr. Wilentz: May I offer it then? Mr. Hauck: No objection?

The Court: No objection? It will be admitted.

The Reporter: Exhibit S‑49 in evidence.

(The photograph referred to was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑49.)

Mr. Wilentz: Do the jury want to see these pictures as I am introducing them, or see them later?

Mr. Peacock: As you introduce them.

Q. Well, when you got to the frankfurter stand, what did you do? A. I got out of the car, walked over into that little opening that you see in front of the frankfurter stand and saw a stone. Under that stone I noticed a paper sticking out.

Q. Did you pick up that paper? A. I lifted the stone and then picked up the paper.

Q. Will you take a look at this envelope, sir, and this other paper and tell us whether or not those were the papers or paper? A. This is the envelope in which the note was enclosed. The note that I have also—Mr. Doctor—(looking at [610] envelope)—yes, that is the note—envelope, beg your pardon.

Wilentz: I offer the envelope in evidence.

The Reporter: Exhibit S‑50.

(The envelope was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑50.)

A. That was the note that was enclosed in the envelope under that stone that I picked up.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir, referring to S‑29 for identification, which we now offer in evidence.

Mr. Reilly: All right.

The Reporter: Exhibit S‑51.

The Court: If there is no objection it will be admitted.

(Note referred to was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑51.)

The Court: If there is no objection it will be admitted.

Mr. Pope: S‑50 and 51?

The Reporter: Yes.

Mr. Wilentz: “Cross the street and follow [611] the fence from the cemetery. Direction to 233rd Street. I will meet you.”

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Now, having received this, referring to S‑51, and the envelope which is also in evidence, did you cross the street? A. Not yet.

Q. What did you do then? A. I took it under one of the arc lights and read that aloud, thinking since I didn’t see anybody I might attack the—

Mr. Fisher: I object to “what I think,” of course.

The Witness: Beg pardon?

Mr. Wilentz: Counsel wanted him to go through his answers. Just a minute, Doctor.

Mr. Fisher: I don’t want his thoughts here, your Honor.

The Court: Perhaps you had better be confined to what he did.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes. Just a minute, Doctor. Your Honor will recall a while ago that when the witness started to give his thoughts and impressions—

The Court: I do recall.

[612] Mr. Wilentz: —I tried to stop him. My adversary wanted the full answer; which am I to do? Am I to regulate it according to the rules?

Mr. Fisher: I assume you are to follow the Court at my suggestion.

The Court: We will get along the best we can, Mr. Attorney General. It is true that your adversary did complain that you weren’t allowing the witness to answer the question. Now you are doing that and now he complains that there is something or other illegal being said, and that we want to try to stop, if we can.

Mr. Wilentz: What was the last answer, please?

(Last answer read by the reporter.)

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Never mind what you were thinking. But you read it out loud? A. Read it out loudly?

Q. Then what did you do, ‘what happened? A. I said—

Q. No. A. I was going to tell you what I did.

Q. Tell us what you did; yes, sir. A. I took that letter and read it aloud.

Q. Yes, sir. A. And turned to Mr. Reich, who was in the car, stating,           “I do not see anybody here.”

Mr. Fisher: Objected to, of course.

[613] Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, this is a part of the transaction, because we will prove it was in response to that, if your Honor please, that the defendant answered. It isn’t a conversation out of the presence of the defendant, as I understand it.

The Court: Well—

Mr. Wilentz: If it is, I will consent—

The Court: It doesn’t appear to be a conversation in the presence of the defendant as yet, does it?

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Well, you said something to Mr. Reich, is that it? A. I said something to Mr. Reich.

Q. As a result of that what happened? A. I thought the defendant was present.

Q. No, never mind what you thought. As the result of what you said, what did happen? A. I went back to the automobile in which Mr. Reich was seated at the wheel.

Q. What was the condition of the weather that night, Doctor? A. The condition of the weather was chilly.

Q. Cold? A. Because I had a big overcoat on, yes, sir.

Q. It was cold. Then you sat there about how long? A. Five minutes.

Q. After you sat there five minutes what did you do, sir? A. Crossed the street in the automobile, I did not walk.

Q. You mean the automobile was turned around? A. The automobile had been turned [614] around and facing south toward the elevated pillars in order that we might be in strict accordance with the traffic rules. I insisted upon Mr. Reich doing that.

Q. Then you got out of the car again. A. No, I got in the car and stayed there in the car and rode slowly.

Q. You stayed in the car? A. I did.

Q. Then what did you do after being five minutes or so in the car, did you get out? A. No, I told Mr. Reich—

Q. Don’t tell what you told him. What did you do? A. I will have to tell—

Q. Did you finally get out of the car again? A. Not then, no.

Q. When did you get out? A. When we crossed the street in accordance with the letter that I read here, I said, “We better—”

Q. Not what you said. What did you do? A. We went across the street in the car and went slowly in a northerly direction along the cemetery fence. I refer this time to Woodlawn Cemetery, Woodlawn Cemetery fence.

Q. And after having gone slowly along this cemetery fence did you stop somewhere? A. We reached nearly 233rd Street. There is an indentation or a sort of a geometric shape, I will put it that way; it is neither a triangle—neither fish nor flesh.

Q. I want to show you a picture of what purports to be some cemetery gates and ask you whether or not that is a correct picture of the entrance to Woodlawn Cemetery as it was as you saw it that night? A. Assuming—

Q. In 1932. A. Assuming from this picture that that is a northerly direction to my left, I rode along here near the end of this post.

[615] Q. Well pardon me, sir. Is that a correct picture of the Woodlawn Cemetery fence as you see it, the gate rather? A. That is a correct picture of the Woodlawn Cemetery fence as it was that night.

Q. The entrance? A. The entrance to the Woodlawn Cemetery on the Jerome Avenue side.

Mr. Reilly: When was this taken?

Mr. Wilentz: I take it that all of these were taken recently, all these pictures.

Mr. Peacock: Yes.

Mr. Fisher: We should like for the moment, your Honor, to object to the admission of this because we have no way of knowing that it shows the conditions as they existed at the cemetery at the time of the visit of the witness. It seems to me the proper way to prove those would be by the photographer.

The Court: Well, that may also be proved, may it not, by anyone who knows?

The Witness: I know, Judge.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

The Court: The doctor was asked if that was a correct representation of the entrance to the Woodlawn Cemetery as he saw it that night.

Mr. Fisher: But it seems to me we ought to have the primary measure of proof, [616] your Honor, which is the production of the photographer and the conditions under which the picture was taken, the angle from which it was taken, and all those facts which will go to better identify the picture.

The Court: Let me see the picture, please.

(Mr. Hauck handed the photograph to the Court.)

Mr. Fisher: It is admitted that it was taken at least a year after the visit of the doctor.

The Court: Well, do you want to cross-examine the doctor about this picture then?

Mr. Fisher: May I see the picture, your Honor?

The Court: Yes. He has said, as I recollect it, that it is a correct picture of the scene as he saw it that night. Now if that is so, it would seem to justify the admission of the photograph.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, I should like to ask the Doctor a question as to it.

The Court: You may ask him a question.

By Mr. Fisher:

Q. Doctor, I see two figures on that photograph. [617] Were they there the night you saw the cemetery? A. What are the figures?

Q. The figure of a man there and I observe someone there (indicating). A. Those figures were not there.

Mr. Fisher: Then, your Honor, there is the very meat of my objection, the picture isn’t as it was,—

A. The two men—

Mr. Fisher: —the day he saw it there, that is the reason I should like to have it called to your attention, to prove that this isn’t the same.

Mr. Wilentz: We will call the photographer, if your Honor please, if there is any doubt about it. I thought it would be helpful to counsel as well as to everybody else.

Mr. Fisher: It would, if you would prove it, Mr. Wilentz.

Mr. Wilentz: It would be helpful now, but if you prefer to be technical in objecting to it.

Mr. Fisher: With the two men in there, if the Doctor says the two men were there, I am willing to have it in.

The Witness: No, tell the truth.

By Mr. Wilentz: [618] Q. Thank you, sir. At any rate, it was Woodlawn Cemetery? A. It was Woodlawn Cemetery.

Q. We will have to get along for a minute or two without the description, so you won’t be able to help with the description.

Mr. Fisher: I ask that that be stricken out, your Honor.

Mr. Wilentz: I consent, if my adversary wishes it.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, I think you should.

The Court: Now, gentlemen, let us get down to business.

Q. Do you remember 233rd Street? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That intersected Jerome Avenue, did it not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you, in your travel reach 233rd Street when you drove along slowly, as you have just stated a while ago in your talk? A. Might I, might I correct the statement there: the intersection, I refer, by the intersection, as something as crossing over, and so on, I don’t want to make a mistake if I can help it.

Q. Two streets. A. But, the one only reached there, it doesn’t go through—see what I mean?

Q. In other words— A. It reached, it reached.

Q. It is a dead end? A. Jerome avenue on that easterly side, yes, sir,—pardon me.

Q. That is all right. 233rd Street, you mean, runs into Jerome Avenue and then stops there. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Opposite where that road would be if it were extended as park, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir, Van Cortlandt Park.

[619] Q. Now, when you drove along, as I take it, you drove along Jerome Avenue? A. Right.

Q. And approaching 233rd Street, did you reach 233rd Street with your car before you stopped, or did you stop before you reached it? A. Stopped before we reached it.

Q. About how far away from the gates of Woodlawn Cemetery? A. It will only be a guess, 60 feet.

Q. 60 feet. Your best judgment is sufficient. Now, when you reached there, this point 60 feet away from 233rd Street— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —on Jerome Avenue, 60 feet away from the gates, I think, what did you do? A. I got out of the car with the letter that I had picked up at the frankfurter stand and went over to the middle of that space. It is like a little plaza or area in front of the gates, as you will see in the picture. Excuse me.

Q. That is all right, sir. You went into the middle of that little area in front of the. gates? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do? A. I took the letter out.

Q. Yes. A. And read it again, thinking I might attract someone’s—

Q. Not what you thought. A. I read it.

Q. Having read it, what happened, if anything? A. Nothing for a while except that one man from 233rd Street walked down in the direction of the automobile between me and the automobile, Mr. Reich was in the automobile and I saw this man come down there but I didn’t pay any attention of any account to him.

Q. Then what happened? A. I said—

Q. You said something? A. I did.

Q. As a result of what you said, what happened next? A. I saw a handkerchief inside from someone inside the gate being waved.

[620] Q. You saw a handkerchief being waved? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was the man who was holding that handkerchief, and waving it? A. Might I look at the picture?

Q. I cannot give you the picture. Was it inside the cemetery or on your side? A. The man was inside the cemetery gate.

Q. Where were you then? A. Right in the center of this plaza.

Q. On the opposite side of the gate? A. On the opposite side of the gate.

Q. What happened then when you saw that handkerchief waved;—white handkerchief, was it? A. A man put his arm through the bars, which are wide enough to admit a man’s arm, entering or retracing.

Q. The gates have bars vertically, iron bars? A. Iron or steel; I didn’t examine them.

Q. This hand, as I understand you to say, was through the bars and waving the handkerchief? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do then? A. I walked over there and said “I see you.”

Mr. Reilly: I object.

The Witness: All right.

Mr. Wilentz: We will connect it with this defendant now, if your Honor please, and we maintain it was in this defendant’s presence.

The Witness: Yes.

Mr. Reilly: Until you connect it—

[621] Mr. Wilentz: We are connecting it now.

The Court: You may proceed, Mr. Attorney General.

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. As a result of what you said, what then happened? Did you walk up? A. I walked to the gate on the outside.

Q. Yes. A. The man was standing about three feet away on the inside.

Q. Were the gates locked and closed? A. The gates were closed. About the locking I do not know.

Q. So that you were on the one side of the gate? A. Right.

Q. And this man that waved the handkerchief on the other? A. Right.

Q. Three feet apart? A. About.

Q. About three feet apart? A. Yes.

Q. How long did you stay there before that situation was changed? A. About three minutes, as nearly as I can judge.

Q. And what happened then? A. May I say what he said to me?

Q. Yes, certainly.

Mr. Reilly: And I object to it.

Mr. Fisher: First identify him.

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Who is the man as you found out later? What was his name?

[622] Mr. Reilly: No. Who was the man then, not what he found out later.

Q. Who was the man you spoke to then between the gates? A. John as given to me by himself.

Q. And who is “John”? A. John is Bruno Richard Hauptmann.

Q. All right. Now what did Mr. Hauptmann say to you there three feet away from you with the gates between you? A. He said, “Did you got it the money?”

Q. Yes, and what did you say, sir A. I said, “No, I couldn’t bring the money until I saw the package.”

Q. What then happened? What else happened there, please? A. About a minute or so I heard a rustle in the leaves. There is a little bit of a parkway on the inside of that gate and I heard a rustle in that direction and evidently—

Q. Not evidently. What happened then? A. He heard and said, “There is a cop.”

Q. Yes? A. He caught ahold of the bars and climbed, what I call “Turner” fashion, what I call “Turner” fashion.

Q. He climbed the bars? A. He did.

Q. And then what happened? A. Up to the top of that fence and jumped in front of me.

Q. About how many feet high was that fence that he climbed? A. I would have to judge it again.

Q. Give us your best judgment. A. Nine feet.

Q. So that he climbed the rungs, or whatever it is, and then jumped down? A. No rungs, they were vertical bars, either iron or steel I should judge.

Q. I see. A. And climbed up there—

[623] Q. And jumped down? A. Jumped down in front of me.

Q. Then what happened? A. ”Did you sended the cops?”

 “No, I gave you my word that I wouldn’t do that, and I kept my word.” He then said, “It is too dangerous” and started to run in a northerly direction. He reached 233rd Street, because we had a part of that plaza in front of the gate to go, he reached 233rd Street and kept on running, and I said,—is it all right for me to say that?

Q. Yes, go ahead. A. I said, “Hey, come back here. Don’t be cowardly.”

Q. Yes. A. “Here I am a poor school teacher up here in the cemetery and you leaving me here to be drilled.”

Q. Then what happened? A. ”You are my guest.” He kept on running.

Q. What did you do? A. I followed him.

Q. How far did you follow him? A. I followed him into a little clump of trees near a shack on the opposite side of the way from the cemetery, and I went over and got a hold of his arm and said, “Hey, you mustn’t do anything like that; you are my guest.”

Q. Then what did you do? A. I brought him back—

Q. All right. A. I didn’t bring him back, I led him back to the seat by the small shack.

Mr. Wilentz: Where is that picture?

Mr. Peacock: It was offered yesterday. The Reporter: S‑41.

Q. I show you a picture of a building or a shack on S‑41 and ask you whether that refreshes your [624] memory as to whether or not that is the shack that you refer to now. A. That is the shack as it was then.

Q. And a bench there, I see there is a bench there now, some sort of a bench. A. The bench was there, and I led him—I led him back to that bench and asked him to be seated, as my guest.

Q. Did he accept your invitation? A. He accepted the invitation. I put him on my right.

Q. Did you sit down with him? Excuse me. A. I beg your pardon.

Q. Did you sit down with him then? A. I put him to my right and sat down with him.

Q. And what happened then? Did you talk there? A. I talked to him then for more than one hour.

Q. Tell us as best you can remember what you said to him and what he said to you. A. I first reprimanded him for going across there again. I said, “Don’t ever do that again. I am square with you, and the truth to a kidnaper is the same as the truth to a”—all right.

Q. Well, just what you said; whatever you said and what he said. A. Yes. He said to me, “It is too dangerous. Might be twenty years or burn. Would I burn if the baby is dead?”

 “Not if you did not have some part in it.”

Q. That is what you said. That was your answer? A. Shall I put that in?

Q. Who said that? A. He answered, “I am only go-between.”

Q. Just a minute. Who said, “Would I burn if the baby is dead?” A. John. I told him—

Q. Yes, go ahead. A. I told him No—

Mr. Reilly: Now may we have that part read that he just answered, that the attorney interrupted; that part where the [625] witnesses said whoever the man was said, “I am only a go-between.”

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, you can read it.

Mr. Reilly: Read it back, please; I don’t think the jury got it, and I don’t think we got it all.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, I have no objection to having it read back.

(Record referred to read by the reporter.)

Q. All right, sir. Now, then, what else was said there? A. In order to find out whether he was the proper party or not, I said, “How am I to know that I am talking to the right man? Tell me.” I trust if this hurts anybody’s feelings—

Q. No. What did he say? A. I trust that I may be excused. “The baby was held in the crib by safety pins.”

Q. Who said that: John? A. John.

Q. Yes, sir. And what, did you have the pins with you? A. I had the pins with me, because I took them out of the baby’s crib on the night that I slept there.

Q. I see. A. They had been, as nearly as I could judge, to the right and left of where the baby’s neck was.

Q. Did you take them out with the consent and knowledge of Colonel Lindbergh? A. I took them out first and asked him afterwards—what they call French leave.

Q. I see. And then what else was talked about then? A. I asked him how he happened to get into such a scrape as that, a man like he was. I [626] praised him and I meant it, “a man like you. What would your mother say if she knew that you were engaged like this?” And he said—shall I—

Q. Yes, go ahead. A. And he said, “My mother wouldn’t like it; she would cry.” Just like that, as nearly as I can imitate it; I am not a good mimic.

Q. That is all right. Go ahead, Doctor.

Q. Go ahead, Doctor. A. Then I said, “Leave that, leave that stuff. Come with me.” I then used the words “I have a thousand dollars of my own available”—I didn’t say that was all I was worth. I said “I have a thousand available,” that is all I had at that time, “and you can have it.”

“We don’t want your money.”

“Well, leave them, I will give you that and I will go over to Jersey and collect the rest for you if it is within my power. There are a number of lawyers in my family and if it is within the law, I will get him to go with you to the last degree, but if you fail me, I would follow you to Australia.” I suppose I was a little vehement in the matter, but that is what I said to him. He said, “We won’t. You will get that baby and put it in its mother’s arms.” That was what I was out for.

Q. Then what happened? A. Then I said, “Leave them and come.”


“ Why?”

“The leader would smack me up.”

“Excuse me, are you a German?”

“No, Scandinavian.”


Q. Who said “Excuse me. Are you a German?” A. I did.

Q. Who answered, “No, I am a Scandinavian?” A. John.

[627] Q. Then what? A. “I am a Scandinavian.”

“Well, leave them. You will be caught.”

“Oh, no. We were prepared a year before we were prepared to do this.”

“What is that?”

“We were prepared a year before we were prepared to do this.”

Q. Who said that about “We were prepared a year,” John? A. John.

Q. You are the one that said, “What is this?” And that was the answer? A. Yes.

Q. Then what was said? A. Then we talked about himself. He had his coat —

Q. Go ahead, Doctor. A. Shall I? I don’t know what is right—

Q. Go ahead. A. He had his coat up this way (indicating drawing the lapels of his coat up to his face.)

Q. Indicating the lapels of the coat drawn up to his chin? A. Drawn up over his mouth. I said, “You have nothing to be afraid of. I have been square all my life and I am square now. You have nothing to fear from me. Take down that coat.”


“Well nothing. Your fabric is too thin. I have got two coats, I will give you one, if you are in want.” And then he coughed. It was what they call a hollow cough. I don’t want to imitate that.

Q. It was a cough? A. He coughed. I said, “The inroads of pulmonary disease—” shall I?

Q. Go ahead. A. “—seem to start. Let me go over and get you some medicine. I will do anything I can to straighten this matter out, anything. I will go as hostage to the man.” Shall I—

Q. Go ahead. You said you will go as hostage? A. “I will go as hostage to the man that has the [628] baby. Let me go.” He says, “Hostage? Oh.”

“What I mean, I will go and stay there until you get the money and won’t say—let me with the baby. I have three toys belonging to—” Shall I go on?

Q. Yes, whatever you said. A. ”I have three toys belonging to the baby and there are three words I know the baby knows,” because on the night that Colonel Lindbergh gave me the authorization to go on with this work, I felt confident that—

Mr. Reilly: I object to this. Is this a conversation?

Mr. Wilentz: No.

Mr. Reilly: This is an observation?

Mr. Wilentz: It is a slight—

Mr. Reilly: Deviation.

The Witness: It is a deviation; yes, sir.

Mr. Reilly: May we have it excluded?

The Court: Will you tell what happened between you and Hauptmann.

The Witness: Yes.

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Where did you get the toys you said you had there that night? A. I got the toys from Colonel Lindbergh, at my request. I asked him—

Q. You got the toys at your request, and they [629] were Baby Lindbergh’s toys? A. They were Baby Lindbergh’s toys.

Q. What did you say to Hauptmann about the toys, if you said anything? A. I said if he would take me to where the baby was, I would know if it was the real baby. “Please give me a chance. I promised Mr. Lindbergh, Colonel Lindbergh and Mrs. Lindbergh, to help them get their baby. That is what I am out for, nobody else.”

Q. Yes. What did he say? A. “Nobody else shall ever get the baby but you, and you can put that baby’s arms around Mrs. Lindbergh’s neck,” and I believed it.

Q. Who said that to you? A. John.

Q. All right, sir. Now, then, what happened? You kept on talking. What else did you say, if you remember? A. “How on earth could I get you if you wouldn’t take me to where the baby is?” Again he said, “They would smack you down. The leader wouldn’t stand for it. How could I tell you now? There is a point north—” He didn’t say north—”there is a point here, and on that point I will stand and signal to them. There is a boat. They will see my signal and Colonel Lindbergh can get his plane and go right up there.”

“Why not walk? Why not walk?”

“You couldn’t walk there.”

Q. This is a conversation? A. This is a conversation.

Q. Between you and John? A. Between John and myself on that bench.

Q. Now, when the conversation goes to that point, “It is about the place to go.”— A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who is making those statements: John? A. John, that I was—

Q. Is that with reference to the directions where [630] the baby was located? A. The directions to where the baby was located.

Q. All right, and you asked him then whether you could walk there? A. What is it? Yes, sir, and he said, I couldn’t get there any way but by plane, but Colonel Lindbergh would take his plane and get there, yes, sir.

Q. What finally happened that night then? A. Beg pardon?

Q. What finally happened, did you get to see the child? A. I did not get to see the child, he said they wouldn’t even propose it, that they would drill him. I said, “Well, you mustn’t be afraid of anything like that, do what you think is right, while you have got time, for your mother’s sake.” Then he seemed to feel—no.

Q. Never mind what he seemed to feel. A. No.

Q. Then, what was said about whether or not they were the right parties? A. Yes. “Maybe you think we are not the ride—” the “d” was accented on that more than his “t” in righteousness and right, and so on. He said that, “We are the ride parties.”

“I will send you the slipping suit of the baby. Tell Colonel Lindbergh and Mrs. Lindbergh not to worry, that the baby is all right.”

“Then, you will send to me the baby’s sleeping suit?”


“I vaited too long already.”

Q. Who said that? A. John.

Q. Yes. And then what? A. I said, “Well, it is so important, what are you going to do?”

“I will send you the sleeping suit, I must go.” That had been after we talked this way for one hour and—well, ten minutes, fifteen minutes, as nearly as I can remember, and we shook hands and parted. I did not go to catch him. I wanted the baby. I didn’t care about catching him.

[631] Mr. Reilly: I move to strike this all out.

Q. Well, at any rate, he left you then? A. He did.

Q. All right, now, you returned to your home, did you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. With Mr. Reich? A. With Mr. Reich in his automobile.

Q. And finally, after being home, how many days later did you get another communication, to your best judgment? A. About the following Wednesday from that Saturday.

Q. To the following Wednesday? A. It was, I know it was until the week, about that, yes.

Q. Now, will you take a look at this paper and see if that is a letter or note which came? A. Yes, sir.

Q. In an envelope, as the next communication? A. Yes, sir. (Witness-examines note carefully.) That is the letter I received.

A. Yes, sir; that is the letter.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

Mr. Hauck: It is in evidence, isn’t it?

Mr. Wilentz: S‑31 for Identification. I offer S‑31 for Identification in evidence.

The Court: If there is no objection it will be received.

The Reporter: S‑52.

(State Exhibit S‑31 for Identification is [632] now received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑52 in evidence.)

Q. Do you remember whether or not this is the envelope in which, referring to envelope S‑30 for Identification, whether this is the envelope in which that letter came, or note, just now introduced in evidence as S—what—

The Reporter: S‑52.

Q. —S‑52? A. It wasn’t discolored this way. That is the letter.

Q. Except for the discoloring is that the envelope? A. That is the letter.

Q. I notice that there are two names, one Mr. Condon, and Dr. John F. Condon. Were they both on there at that time? A. That I couldn’t remember. I think not. That looks like my writing.

Q. On the side here? A. Let me look again.

Q. Yes, take a look (handing to witness). A. That looks like mine. I am not sure. (Examines paper.) I couldn’t say.

Q. You don’t know about that? A. I don’t know about that, but I do know about this (indicating).

Q. And that is the envelope, except that you don’t know whether that— A. Whether that was on there or not; I couldn’t recollect that, no.

Q. Oh, the coloring. I notice that it is— A. It is soiled more than it was then.

Q. Soiled? A. Yes, soiled more than it was then.

Q. What was contained in the envelope together with this note and letter, S‑52? A. I do not know the letters by name.

[633] Q. No, the last one that you just had, in the brown envelope. What came with it? A. (No answer.)

Q. Well, it was a package, wasn’t it? A. The baby’s sleeping suit, with two letters.

Mr. Reilly: No objection to that.

The Reporter: Mr. Wilentz, do you care to make the offer for the record?

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, I offer the envelope.

The Court: If there is no objection it will be admitted.

The Reporter: S‑53 in evidence.

(Envelope referred to received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑53.)

Q. A baby’s sleeping suit: is that it (showing to witness)? A. Yes, sir.

G. Who was there when it arrived? A. That I couldn’t say; I don’t know.

Q. Do you remember whether Colonel Breckinridge was there? A. Colonel Breckinridge was one at the house, but I do not know the other people.

Mr. Wilentz: Counsel has suggested, if your Honor please, and I ask, whether we can’t have a little recess now, about five or ten minutes.

The Court: Yes, you may, yes. Let there be a recess for ten minutes. Then come in as promptly as you can.

[634] (A recess was taken at 11:40 a. m.)

(After a short recess.)

The Court: Let the Clerk poll the jury.

(The jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)

Mr. Wilentz: Will the stenographer read the last question, please?

(The reporter repeated the last questions and answers: “Q. Who was there when it arrived? A. That I couldn’t say, I don’t know.

“Q. Do you remember whether Colonel Breckinridge was there? A. Col. Breckinridge was one at the house, but I do not know the other people.”)

Q. Who opened the envelope marked in evidence as S‑53 and took from it the sleeping suit? A. May I see that?

Q. Yes, the brown envelope. A. Is this S‑53?

Q. Yes. A. That came by mail, I opened it in my parlor.

Q. Who was present when you opened it? A. Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. Anybody else? A. Colonel Breckinridge. Those are all that I remember.

Mr. Wilentz: Now, may I read the letter, which is in evidence, which we haven’t read yet? It is the only one we have omitted so far. It is S‑52. “Dear Sir: Our man —O-u-e-r—failed to collect the money— [635] m-o-n-y—. There are no more conference after the meeting from March 12th. Those arrangements too hazardous for us. We will not—n-o-t-e—allow our—o-u-e-r—man to confer that way like before.”

Circumstance will not (note) allow us to make a transfer like you wish. It is impossibly for us. Why should we move the baby and face danger to take another person to the place is entirely out of question. It seems you are afraid if we are the right (rights) party and if the boy is all right. Well you have our singnature (s-i-n-g-n-a-t-u-r-e) it is always the same as the first one, specially the three holes. (The other side.)

“Now we will send you the sleeping suit from the baby, besides it means three 20 dollars extra expenses (extra, e-x-t-r-e) because we have to pay another one. Please tell Mrs. Lindbergh not (n-o-t-e) to worry, the baby is well. We only have to give him more food as the diet says. You are willing to pay the 70,000 $ not (n-o-t-e) 50,000 $ without seeing the baby first or not (n-o-t-e). Let us know about that in the New York American. We can’t do it otherwise because we don’t like to give up our (o-u-e-r) safety place (s-a-f-t-y) place, (p-1-a-s-e) or to move the baby. If you are willing to accept this deal then put in the paper accept. Money is redy. (Underlined.) Our program is after eight hours we have the money received we will notify you where to find the baby. If there is any trap you will be responsible what will follow.

[636] By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Now, that note talks about the meeting you had on March 12th. Does that refresh your recollection as to the date? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it on March 12th that you met John in Woodlawn Cemetery? A. It was March 12th that I met John in Woodlawn Cemetery.

Q. After you received the note, just referred to as S‑53, in that envelope, the brown envelope with the sleeping suit—

Mr. Fisher: S‑52 is the letter, Mr. Wilentz.

Q. Did you after talking to Colonel Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge, did you cause an ad to be inserted as directed by that note? A. May I ask to have an explanation there?

Q. Yes. A. I immediately upon getting that suit brought Colonel Lindbergh into my parlor and, spreading the suit on the piano, I asked him to direct me and see if I was making any mistake.

Q. All right. A. Then in response to that I carried out the orders given in the letter, having handed him the sleeping suit.

Q. Did you then in pursuance of the orders you talk about cause an ad to be inserted in the New York American on or about March 20th? A. If you would give me any of the content or let me see it, I would tell you.

Q. Will you take a look at this paper and see if that is— A. Yes, I will—I mean shall.

Q. Take your time, Doctor. A. (After examining papers) After a conference with Colonel Breckinridge, I caused that content to be placed in a paper in New York City.

[637] (Mr. Wilentz hands paper referred to by the witness to Mr. Reilly.)

Mr. Reilly: All right.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer that portion of this paper which has the printed advertisement in evidence.

The Court: If there is no objection, it will be received.

(Portion of paper referred received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑54.)

Q. Now S‑54, as I understand it, says: “I accept. Money is ready. You know they won’t let me deliver without getting the package. Let’s make it some sort of c.o.d. transaction. Come. You know you can trust Jafsie.” A. Right.

Q. That is the ad? A. That is right.

Q. Now following that, did you then receive another letter or note? A. I did.

Q. Will you take a look, please, at the envelope and at the paper— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —being S‑32 for Identification and S‑33 for Identification and tell me whether or not this followed in the next order? A. (After examining papers) Yes, sir, that is a letter which I received by mail at my home.

Q. After you received the sleeping suit? A. After I received the sleeping suit and after the advertisement was placed in the paper.

Mr. Reilly: (After examining papers referred to by the witness.) All right.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer them in evidence; [638] the envelope, marked S‑32 for Identification, I now offer in evidence.

The Court: If there is no objection, they will be received.

The Reporter: S‑55.

Mr. Wilentz: And the note?

The Reporter: S‑56.

(Envelope and note referred to received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑55 and S‑56.)

Mr. Wilentz: On envelope S‑55 is an envelope, as you can see, postmarked New York, N. Y., March 19, 7:30 p. m., to Mr. John Condon, and so forth. And S‑56 reads as follows:

“Dear Sir:

“You and Mr. Lindbergh know our program” our, o-u-e-r. “If you don’t accept, den” d-e-n “we will wait until you agree with our deal. We know you have to come to us anyway, but why should Mr. and Mrs. Lindbergh suffer longer as necessary. We will not” n-o-t-e “communicate with you or Mr. Lindbergh until you will—so in the paper—until you will write in the paper, write so in the paper. We will tell you again. This kidnapping case was” w-h-a-s “prepared for a year already. So the police won’t have any luck” 1-o-o-k “to find us or the child. You only push everyding furder out. Did you send that little package to Mr. Lindbergh? It contains the [639] sleeping suit from the baby. The baby is well.”

On the opposite side of S‑56 “Mr. Lindbergh only wasting time with his search.”

Following that did you cause to have through Colonel Breckinridge inserted in the New York American this advertisement on or about the 22nd of March. A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: This I didn’t show you before, Mr. Reilly.

Mr. Reilly: All right.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer the advertisement just referred to in evidence.

(The above advertisement was received in evidence and marked Exhibit S‑57.)

The Court: If there is no objection it will be admitted.

Mr. Wilentz: And the one on March the 20th which I indicated to you and the one on April the 2nd.

(The above advertisements were received in evidence and marked Exhibits S‑58 and 59.)

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Following in order will you tell us whether somewhere around the first of April or at the end of March, rather, you received this envelope which is now marked S‑34 for Identification together [640] with a note, the envelope being post-dated March the 29th, New York? A. May I look at this envelope, please?

Q. Yes, certainly, I will help you with it. A. Those stains were not on it but I received that letter.

Q. That envelope? A. That envelope, right.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

(The envelope referred to was received in evidence and marked Exhibit S‑60.)

(Note S‑61.)

Q. I show you S‑75 for Identification and ask you whether or not you received this note in that envelope (handing to witness).

Mr. Wilentz: While the gentleman is reading that letter, will you please mark this in evidence, by consent, an advertisement in the New York American.

The Reporter: The advertisement of March 26th is marked S‑62 and the advertisement of March 31st is marked S‑63.

(The papers referred to were received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑62 and S‑63, respectively, as above noted.)

The Witness: (After lengthy examination) This staining on the back of the letter was not there, but that is the letter I received.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

[641] The Reporter: The note will be S‑61.

(Note referred to received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑61.)

Mr. Pope: If your Honor please, in relation to this letter which the State now tenders in evidence, we have no particular objection to the letter being admitted in evidence at this time, but with this reservation: the witness says that at the time he received the letter, the stains which appear on it were not there. If the State will assure us that they will later show how or why those stains came on to the letter, we have no objection at this time.

The Court: Well—

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, we will.

Mr. Hauck: We will explain it.

Mr. Wilentz: I think we will have no difficulty about that.

The Court: The letter will be received subject to such further examination as counsel see fit to make respecting this discoloration on the back of the letter, as I understand it.

Mr. Pope: And the front, too.

Mr. Wilentz (Reading to the jury): S‑61, just admitted to evidence, reads as follows: “Dear Sir: It is not—n-o-t-e—necessary to furnish any code. You and Mr. Lindbergh know our program—o-u-e-r— [642] program. Very well. We will keep the child on our—o-u-e-r—safe place—s-a-v-e—until we have the money in hand, but if the deal is not—note—closed until the 8th of April, we will ask for 30,000 more, and not—n-o-t-e—70,000, a hundred thousand. How can Mr. Lindbergh follow so many false clues? He knows we are the right party over singnature. Our singnature is still the same as on the ransom note, but if Mr. Lindbergh likes to fool around for another month, we can’t help it. Once he has to come to us anyway, but if he keeps on waiting, we will double our amount—o-u-e-r—There is absolute no fear about the child. It is well.”

Q. Now having received that note did you then receive another note? A. I did.

Q. Or letter. Will you take a look at this, dated April 1st, and tell us whether that envelope together with this note was received by you sometime around the first of April A. (The witness-examines the papers at length.) Pardon my delay. I want to be sure about this.

Q. That is all right, Doctor. You take your time. A. Yes, sir, I received that letter and envelope.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer the letter and the envelope.

Mr. Reilly: All right.

The (Court: If there is no objection it will be admitted.

[643] The Reporter: The envelope is S‑64 and the letter is S‑65 in evidence.

(The envelope and letter of April 1st, are received and marked in evidence State Exhibits S‑64 and S‑65.)

Mr. Wilentz: Envelope post-dated or dated April 1st. From Fordham Station, New York, 9:30 a. m., the letter reading as follows, S‑65:

“Dear Sir: Have the money ready by Saturday evening. We will inform you where and how to deliver it. Have the money in one bundle. We want you to put it in on a certain place. There is no fear that somebody else will take it. We watch everything closely. Please let us know if you are agreed and ready for action by Saturday evening. If yes, put in the paper ‘Yes, everything O.K.’ it is very simble” (s-i-m-b-l-e) “delivery but we find out very soon if there is any trap. After eight houers you get the adr. from the boy”—I suppose adr. is an abbreviation for address.

Mr. Fisher: I object to the comment. It speaks for itself.

The Court: Well, let the Attorney General read it.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir.

The Court: Read the fact.

Mr. Wilentz: “After eight houers” [644] (h-o-u-e-r-s) “you get the adr. from the boy on the place. You find two ladies. They are innocence. If it is too late to put it in the New York American for Saturday morning, put it in the New York Journal.”

That letter dated April 1st. And I show you an advertisement in Exhibit S‑46, as of April 2nd, 1932. No, that is Exhibit S‑59. I am afraid, Mr. Stenographer, that 46 must be for Identification. Just change that “for Identification.” S‑59 is the one in evidence.

Did you cause that ad to be inserted, “I accept. Money is ready” on the Saturday in question, April 2nd? A. I did.

Q. “I accept. Money is ready. Jafsie.” April 2nd, 1932.

Now, that Saturday, April 2nd, 1932, with reference to when the money was brought to your house, what have you to say as to that date? A. I had nothing to do with that, sir.

Q. I know. But what day was the money brought to your house? A. On April 2nd, in the afternoon.

Q. I see. That was the same day that ad appeared in the paper, about the money being ready? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is that the Saturday referred to in the note just read, about being ready on Saturday to deliver the money? A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. Now then on Saturday, in accordance with instructions, you say the money was ready at your home? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And who was in your home? A. Colonel Lindbergh, Colonel Breckinridge, Alfred J. Reich, Mrs. Condon, of course, and my children.

Q. Some time during that day, on Saturday, [645] did you receive a note which was delivered to your home, and if you did, is this the note (showing the witness-exhibit S‑38 for identification, the envelope not being marked?) A. This was delivered by some person at my home, not through the mail. Yes, sir.

Q. On what day of the week and month and year was that note delivered? A. It was on Saturday. I was following the instructions—

Q. Saturday what? A. —in the former letter. April 2, 1932.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer—

Mr. Large: Isn’t that in evidence?

Mr. Wilentz: There are two marks on it, one 28 and one 38. I take it that the 38 must be in evidence. Will you give it a number in evidence?

The Reporter: It will be S‑66 in evidence.

(The note was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑66.)

Mr. Wilentz: That is the note; the envelope, I take it, will be S‑67.

The Reporter: Yes, sir.

(The envelope referred to was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑67.)

Q. The note just referred to, S‑66, was delivered [646] to your home, you say? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know who delivered it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, this is the last note at your home on April 2nd? A. April 2nd.

Q. 1932? A. Yes, sir; the last note; yes, sir, I know who delivered it.

Q. By messenger, you mean? A. Messenger, that is what I mean; yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: I see. (Reading note to jury)

“Dear Sir:

“Take a car and follow Tremont Avenue to the east until you reach the number 3225 East Tremont Avenue. It is a nursery, Bergen Greenhouses, Florists. There is a table standing outside, right on the door, you find a letter. Underneath “u-n-d-e-r-n-e-a-d” you will find a letter underneath the table covered with a stone. Read and follow instructions.”

“Then the three holes and the circles and the red dot.”

“Don’t speak to anyone on the way. If there is a radio alarm for police car, we warn you we have the same equipment. Have the money in one bundle. We give you three-quarters of an hour to reach the place.”

Now, having received that note, as I recall it, Colonel Lindbergh was there, Colonel Breckinridge, Al Reich, and your family? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you then follow those instructions and leave? A. Yes, sir.

[647] Q. Within how many minutes after the note was delivered? A. Within about a half an hour. It took us a little time to prepare, but within a half an hour we started.

Q. Then it was, was it, that you and the Colonel left as you testified before? A. Colonel Lindbergh took the wheel of Al Reich’s coupe and I went in with the Colonel.

Q. And where did you go then? A. The Colonel took the box of money and we went across, it is called Pelham Driveway there, to Westchester Square. There is then a square which compels us to take the southerly route because you cannot go through a one way place there. And going around the southerly way we took an easterly direction—I am familiar with all those places—and we came to Bergen’s Flower Store. Shall I go on?

Q. Yes, go right on. A. There was a table out in front of the store. The place was closed up, and under that table was a stone, and under the stone a note which I picked up. I got out of the car—

Q. Pardon me just a minute. Will you take a look and see if this is the note you picked up from under that stone in front of the Bergen greenhouse? A. That is the note that I received.

Q. Was it in an envelope? A. It was.

Q. The note referred to is S‑39 for identification. I offer them both in evidence. Please mark them.

The Court: If there is no objection they will be received.

(The note referred to was received in evidence and marked Exhibit S‑68, the envelope S‑69.)

[648] The Court: Mr. Attorney General, it is out our usual recess time. Are you ready to adjourn?

Mr. Wilentz: I suggest, if your Honor please, that I just read this short note.

The Court: Very well.

Mr. Wilentz: “Cross the street and walk to the next corner and follow Whittemore Avenue to the south. Take the money with you. Come alone and walk. I will meet you.”

Circles, red dot, three holes.

Mr. Pope: We would like to see 66 and 68.

The Court: Now—were counsel speaking?

Mr. Pope: We want to see S‑66 and S‑68 just a minute.

The Court: Oh, yes.

Now the Court is particularly anxious to take this recess and all other adjournments that we take in an orderly fashion, and the Court would like to have the cooperation of all people in the courtroom to that end. The Court is going to ask the jury to retire and come in again at 1:45; and then, after the jury has retired, the Court is going to ask the people who are here in the alleyway to make room that the defendant can retire with the officers; and meanwhile, [649] until all of that has happened, the Court is quite anxious that people remain seated where they are. Now then, cooperate with the Court. The jury may retire.

(At 12:32 p. m. the jury retired.)

The Court: Now, let the people make way for the defendant to retire. The defendant may now retire with the officers.

(The defendant retires.)

The Court: Now, the court is adjourned until 1:45 p. m.

(At 12:34 p. m., court adjourned until 1:45 p. m.)


(1:47 p. m.)

The Court: The Clerk may poll the jury.

(The jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)

JOHN F. CONDON resumed the stand:

Direct Examination (continued) By Mr. Wilentz:

Mr. Wilentz: Have you the last note?

The Reporter: S‑68.

[650] Mr. Hauck: What is the last one?

The Reporter: S‑68 was the envelope, the note was S‑69.

Q. Now, the last note we referred to, which I think I read, Exhibit S‑66, which ended, “We give you three-quarters of an hour to reach the place,”—that, as I understand it, was on the night of April 2nd, 1932, and my recollection is that within 15 minutes or a half hour you and Colonel Lindbergh started out in a car? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you proceeded then where? A. In an easterly direction across the Pelham Parkway to Westchester Square, having to take the Williamsbridge Road in order to get to Westchester Square. There is a change in the road there, which takes us there. Then we went on the southeasterly side of Westchester Square, because of the traffic laws, taking East Tremont Avenue in front—over to as far as in front of Bergen’s store,—I think the number was 3225 East Tremont Avenue; I am not positive about that, but I think it was three thousand two hundred twenty-five East Tremont Avenue,—I have no notes or anything—as far as I can recollect.

Q. You are talking about the greenhouse now? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is Bergen’s greenhouse? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do when you got there? A. I went over to the table as directed in the note specified and picked up a stone, took a note from under it, and read it. I then went over to the automobile where Colonel Lindbergh was seated.

Q. Where was that with reference to the greenhouse? A. The greenhouse I would say is almost easterly from that, rough guess, 100 feet. That [651] would make Colonel Lindbergh west of the greenhouse about 100 feet.

Q. Now the greenhouse with reference to the cemetery, is it on the same side of the street or on the opposite side? A. It is on the opposite side of the street. It is on the northerly side of Tremont Avenue.

Q. And the cemetery— A. The cemetery borders on—

Q. That is all right. This is on Tremont Avenue is it not? A. Tremont Avenue.

Q. And the cemetery is on what side? A. South or southerly side; but it does not run in direct accord with the points of the compass.

Q. How close to the intersection of Whittemore Avenue and Tremont Avenue is the greenhouse? A. Forty feet, rough guess.

Q. Does Whittemore Avenue intersect it all the way through or is it a dead end stop? A. Not intersect; it reaches Tremont Avenue and then there is no street through on the northerly side of Tremont Avenue.

Q. On the northerly side is where the greenhouse is located? A. Correct; and Whittemore Avenue stops on the southerly side of Tremont Avenue, east Tremont Avenue.

Q. Now you say then you went from the greenhouse to Colonel Lindbergh’s car. A. To the car.

Q. The car. Did you talk to the Colonel there? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Exhibit the note to him? A. Showed him the note.

Q. Then what happened? A. I walked across the street, following the directions in the note. When I got across the other side, I went almost nearly at right angles in an easterly direction and came to a corner. Shall I go on?

Q. Go right on, Doctor. A. On that corner, [652] there was a man and a little girl respectively. The little girl seemed to be about 12 years of age and I said, “Could you tell me where Whittemore Avenue is?”

Q. What was the answer? A. The answer was “No, we are strangers here.”

Q. Then what did you do? A. I looked up at the avenue sign and saw “Whittemore Avenue.” The first time I knew that name pertaining to it. Then I walked along east Tremont Avenue on the southerly side.

Q. Is that the cemetery side? A. Cemetery side, southerly side of Tremont Avenue, and went along in an easterly direction past the entrance and gate.

Q. Entrance and gate of what, the cemetery? A. Of the cemetery.

Q. Go right on. What happened then? A. I went maybe 100 yards east of that gate. I saw no one and came back again to—not intersection —to the meeting, to the meeting of Whittemore Street or Avenue and Tremont Avenue, stood there and said, “There does not seem to be anybody here.”

Q. And then what happened? A. ”I will go over to see the Colonel.” Then I went to turn away; maybe about ten feet, fifteen feet, and someone said, in a very loud, clear tone, “Hey, Doctor, over here.”

Q. Then what did you do? A. I walked toward that voice. It came from the mound of St. Raymond’s Cemetery, about ten feet above the level where I was standing. I followed the voice and it repeated again in a lower tone, but I could hear it. It was a still night. I heard it plainly, “Over here.” I said, “All right.” And I followed down that street. From the light going down that [653] street, it was exceedingly dark, and I walked exceedingly cautiously.

Q. It was down grade there, wasn’t it? A. It was down grade and getting darker each time that I walked.

Q. That is down Whittemore Avenue, isn’t it, Doctor? A. Well, I call it down. Now, the word “down”—Pardon me.

Q. That is down Whittemore—take your time. A. In a southerly direction, the note stated to go down toward the sout— I took it as meaning sound.

Q. And, when you would come down south or sout whatever it is— A. Southeasterly.

Q. You are walking down Whittemore Avenue, are you not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, as you approached there from Tremont Avenue down Whittemore Avenue to the left of you was the cemetery? A. Right.

Q. Yes, to the left of you was the cemetery and to the right was, what was there? A. To the right was a frame building, I should judge three stories and overlooking where I was at that time.

Q. Except for that frame building that you talk about, were there any other buildings in that entire block? A. No other, no other signs of civilization.

Q. And you say it was dark there? A. It was dark—that is, I was in the light.

Q. Yes. A. And as one approached—well—

Q. Yes, you were in the light and in the distance it was dark, is that what you mean? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you approached down how far from that intersection or that joining there?’ A. It seems to me that intersection is within the cemetery, because there is a street within the cemetery, so-called [654] called, it is a passageway for wagons, and so forth.

Q. How far did you go down Whittemore Avenue until you reached a little intersection or a pathway leading from the cemetery into Whittemore Avenue? A. Well, from Whittemore Avenue it leads in an easterly direction toward the sound itself.

Q. How far from the corner was it before you reached— A. Which corner?

Q. From the corner of Tremont Avenue and Whittemore Avenue, before you reached that little intersection, that little path from the cemetery into Whittemore? A. Around four city lots, around four city lots, 25 each by 100.

Q. So then as I understand it you walked down Whittemore Avenue? A. I did.

Q. From Tremont for about 100 feet, and then it was that you met an intersecting or a connecting little lane from the cemetery? A. Entrance, entrance; yes, sir.

Q. Now beyond that little lane— A. Yes.

Q. —and further south— A. Yes.

Q. —what is there on the same side of the street? A. On the same side of the street there was, there is not now—

Q. There was then? A. Pardon me.

Q. Yes. A. There was a hedge fence about five feet tall. It was sparsely grown or sprouting, because it was the month of April.

Q. Is that a continuation of the cemetery? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is, the St. Raymond’s Cemetery there—A. Continued.

Q. Divided in at least two sections? A. Right.

Q. And this hedge that you speak of, does that begin at that little lane we talked about, which separates the first section and the other section [655] of the cemetery? A. It begins on the southerly side of that right at the corner where the lane or, I call it, entrance—

Q. Lane or entrance. A. —to the cemetery reaches Whittemore Avenue. That is, on the south side of the entrance to the cemetery, where the hedge starts, or started.

Q. Now how far from the point where the hedge started in the second section did you then continue, if you continued at all, along Whittemore Avenue? A. I was on the avenue in the middle, which is very important to me.

Q. Yes, sir. All right. In the middle. A. It was getting dark.

Q. But how wide was it? A. About, I should judge, two rods, rough guess, 33 feet.

Q. The street, you mean Whittemore Avenue? A. Whittemore Avenue; no more than 33 feet, in my opinion.

Q. You were walking along the center, you say? A. Right in the middle. I always do.

Q. How far down did you go? A. I went down ten feet beyond the intersection, and there again a person back of the hedge said “Here, Doctor.”

Q. Yes, sir; what did you do? A. May I interject something here? It is important. There was no wall there.

Q. At that time? A. There was no wall.

Q. At this time, there is a wall, is that what you mean, Doctor? A. No, no.

Q. Now, just please answer the questions and we will come back to it. A. No, there is no wall.

Q. There was a hedge there then? A. There was a hedge there then.

Q. Since that time you know the hedge has been taken away: is that it? A. Yes.

Q. Has it been taken away since that time? A. Yes, sir.

[656] Q. Well, now, let’s get back to that time, that night. You walked ten feet? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I take it that having walked already a hundred feet and then approximately an additional ten feet, is that it? A. Right.

Q. Did you stop there? A. And then the width of the entrance into the cemetery is important, because I had to cross that to get to the corner, and then in order to get ten feet more.

Q. Well, you finally got to a point near the hedge, did you not? A. I did.

Q. When you got over there what did you do and what happened? A. When I got there I heard the same voice.

Q. The same voice as what? A. As I heard when he was up on the corner as he yelled “Hey, doctor.”

Q. Yes, and then what? A. Then I said, “All right.”

Q. Then what happened? A. He says, “Have you got it, the money?” The same—

Q. That is all right, the same what? A. The same as he said on the night that I met him at Woodlawn Cemetery gate.

Q. Yes, sir. What did you say when he asked you whether you got it, the money? A. ”No, I didn’t bring any money.”

Q. That is what you said? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Yes, sir. And then what? A. “It is up in the car.”

“Who is up there?”

Q. Who asked who was up there, the defendant? A. John asked me who was up there.

Q. And what did you say then? A. I said, “Colonel Lindbergh.”

Q. What did he say? A. Then he said, “Is he armed?” And I said, “I don’t know.”

Q. Then what did you say, sir? A. I said, “No, he is not.”

[657] Q. Then what? A. Then he said, “Give me the money.”

“Not till you give me a receipt showing me where the baby is.” Referring to what I said are you?

Q. Yes. A. ”Not till you give me a receipt showing—” Beg pardon, not a receipt, note. —”showing me where to get the baby.”

Q. Now, with reference to the amount of money, did you discuss that there? A. At that place? I did.

Q. What was it? A. I said to him, “You want that money. Colonel Lindbergh is not—” Shall I go on?

Q. Yes, certainly. A. ”Colonel Lindbergh is not so rich. These are times of depression. Why don’t you be decent to him?” And he said, “Well, I suppose if we can’t get seventy we take fifty.”

Q. Then what happened? A. And I said, “ That will go, but tell me where is the note?”

“In ten minutes I come back again with the note and give you the note.”

“I will go up and get the money.”

Q. That is what you said? A. I did.

Q. And he said in ten minutes he will come back with the note? A. Get the note.

Q. Did you then return to Colonel Lindbergh? A. I returned up Whittemore Avenue in a northerly direction, went over to Colonel Lindbergh—no, to the car in which Colonel Lindbergh was seated —and said—

Mr. Reilly: I object.

Q. Well, whatever you said. A. I said—

Q. Just a minute, Doctor. Whatever it was, as the result of what you said to him did he give you a money box? What did he do? A. Not yet.

Q. All right. What did he do? A. He took—

Q. Go ahead. A. He took what I thought was [658] $20,000 from the top of the box. It could not fit in.

Q. All right. He took $20,000 from the top of the box. Tell us what he did with it, please. A. And placed it one side in the car.

Q. What did he do with the rest? A. I did not touch that.

Q. What did he do with the rest? A. He shut the lid of the box and handed it out the window to me. “Now,” he said—

Q. Now you took the box then. Did he take that out at your suggestion, the twenty thousand? A. He took it out himself. My answer to that is No, but I made the statement that John said—

Mr. Reilly: I object.

Q. Well, as a result of what you told him he took out twenty thousand, that it? A. Yes.

Q. And then you took the rest? A. Yes.

Q. How much was in the rest? A. $50,000.

Q. And you took that back with you down Whittemore Avenue? A. Back down Whittemore Avenue in a southerly direction until I came to the same spot, about ten feet south of the junction, that was the word I tried to get before.

Q. All right, sir. A. The junction of Whittemore Avenue and—

Q. And Cemetery Lane? A. Cemetery entrance.

Q. All right. And what happened then? A. He was—yes, he was crouching down under the hedge, and I said, “ Come on, stand up like a man. I have the money here.” I took the money and placed it on my forearm.

Q. You mean the box? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Yes, sir. A. The box full of money.

Q. Yes, sir. A. And then I said, “Give me the note.” He put his hand down his coat pocket and said, “I got the note.” All right—

[659] Q. Did he give you the note? A. Not yet, he said, “Don’t—”

Q. All right, go ahead. A. He said, “Don’t open it yet.” I said, “I have never betrayed a confidence. I have carried out every order of both parties the best I could, I won’t open it, I will take it up to Colonel Lindbergh.” All right. I then handed the money out with my left hand forward, and I could look down at him; he was crouched near the hedge. “Stand up and look at me, if you want to do that, and give me the note.”

Q. That is what you said to him? A. I said to him. And there was the box on my left arm, and I said, “Give me that note.” He gave me the note and I handed him the box; the box therefore went on his right hand, and I took the note from his left hand and put it in my pocket.

Q. Then what happened? A. Then he says, “Vait a minute,” with that “V,” “Vait a minute.” I said, “All right.” He got down there under the hedge, put his hand in the center of the pack, and picked out the money and said, “I want to see if it is all right.”


“If it is marked—” Can you hear me?

Q. That is what you said.

The Court: One moment. I think, Mr. Attorney General, that we ought to make an effort to stop this. (Disorder and noise in street.) Won’t one of the State Police go down there and see if they cannot stop that shouting?

The Court: Well, you might try again, Attorney General.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir.

[660] Q. Then, as I understand it, with your left hand and arm you held this money box and you gave him the note with the other? A. I gave him the money box in his right hand. He took the note out with his left hand from his pocket and handed it to me. I put that in my pocket and was about to turn away and he said, “Well, all of them said your work was perfect.”

“What is that?”

“All of them said that your work was perfect.” I said, “I know no other way”—all right?

Q. Yes, sure. A. ”I know no other way to act. The truth again to a kidnaper is the same as it is to a judge.” I hope the Judge will pardon me.

Q. Yes, go ahead, Doctor. Go ahead. (Laughter.) A. All right? All right, Judge?

The Court: Yes.

Q. Yes. A. Now he seemed pleased and reached his right hand then, having taken the package out of the box and putting it in his pocket, I wanted to see if it was marked all right. “If these bills are marked”—myself.

Q. That is what you were saying? A. ”If these bills are marked or serial, I know nothing about it, John. I had nothing to do with it and I didn’t see them.”
“Oh. The crowd thinks you’re fine.” I don’t know what he meant.

Q. He said that to you? A. He said that to me. “The crowd thinks you’re fine. Your work was perfect.” That was a repetition.

Q. That is his saying to you? A. That is his saying to me.

Q. Yes, sir. A. A repetition. I said, “Well, if you give me a chance to get that baby, it will be all right; but if you don’t, I will follow you to Australia.”

[661] Q. Now did he shake hands with you that night? A. He reached his hand over the hedge: “Your work was perfect. Good night.” I said, “Good night, John. Remember, don’t try to double cross me.”

Q. And the man that you handed ,that money to was John, you say? A. Is John.

Q. That is the man you are talking about in this conversation? A. That is the man I am talking about on that night.

Q. And John is who? A. John is Bruno Rudolph—or Bruno Richard Hauptmann.

Q. Now, when you got the paper there that night—I show you a piece of paper marked S‑40 for Identification—and ask you whether you recognized the paper you received on the night of March 2nd—or April 2nd, 1932, in St. Raymond’s Cemetery. A. That is the note that he handed to me over the hedge.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence. The Reporter: S‑70.

(Note received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑70.)

Q. Having received that note, did you then return to Colonel Lindbergh? A. I returned to the car in which Colonel Lindbergh was seated. That note was enclosed; I didn’t see the enclosure for it, but that note was originally enclosed.

Q. In an envelope, you mean? A. Yes, sir; because he told me not to open it for six hours—maybe eight—six or eight hours.

Q. I see. A. I said, “I have never betrayed a confidence; I will hand it to Colonel Lindbergh, which I did.

[662] Q. And then what happened? A. Colonel Lindbergh would not open the envelope. I said, “Colonel,”—may I talk?

Q. Yes. A. “Colonel, your baby—”

Mr. Reilly: I object to this.

Ql. Well, at any rate, you returned anyway, didn’t you, to your home? A. No.

Q. Was the envelope finally opened? A. It was.

Q. Who opened it? A. Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. Where was it when he opened it? A. At West—on the southerly side of Westchester Square, on a little house stoop—that I own—on the southeasterly side of Westchester Square, about a mile from where we got it.

Q. And then what did you do from there? A. After the Colonel—well, we started with the note opened; we both read it—I read it, I read it—

Q. All right. A. And went over to my house with that note, went inside and discussed that matter with those who were in there.

Q. Who were in there? A. Colonel—

Q. Breckinridge? A. Breckinridge, Al Reich, Alfred J. Reich—that is all I remember, because they were interested most.

Q. Yes. And then what happened? A. They held a little council, the two Colonels, and said we would go down to some place in the lower part of the City of New York.

Q. Well, as the result of their conference about the note, did you and others leave the house? A. We did.

Q. About what time of the night? A. Around midnight, as near as I can remember.

Q. All right. Before you relate about that—

[663] Mr. Wilentz: May I read the note found at the Cemetery?

The Court: Well, has it been admitted in evidence yet?

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, if your Honor please; it is S‑70.

“The boy is on the boad—‘b-o-a-d’ Nellie. It is a small boad ‘b-o-a-d’ 28 feet long. Two persons are on the boad. The—‘t-h-e’ are innocent. You will find the boad between Horseneck Beach and Gay Head near Elizabeth Island.”

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. When you left at midnight, who left in the party? A. Colonel Lindbergh, Colonel Breckinridge, Alfred Reich and then some men belonging to the United States, I think, I didn’t know him. I didn’t know him, Mr. Attorney General.

Q. Was it Mr. Irey of the United States Department of Internal Revenue? A. Either one of two, I wouldn’t be sure, either Mr. Irey or Mr. Frank Wilson, either one of those two.

Q. Did you leave in an automobile? A. Yes, sir.

Q. The four of you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And where did you go? A. Down to around Seventy—the street near Central Park West, I couldn’t tell you the number of the house now.

Q. Then where did you go? A. We stayed there and had consultation.

Q. Whose house was it? A. Oh, it was the late Senator Morrow’s. I don’t know the number.

Q. In New York’ A. Yes, sir.

Q. From Senator Morrow’s home where did [664] you go? A. We went in an automobile to Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Q. Who drove the car? A. Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. All the way from New York to Bridgeport? A. No. That I couldn’t say as to when they changed wheels, I don’t know.

Q. Traveling through the night? A. Yes, sir.

Q. About what time would you say you arrived at Bridgeport? A. Around five o’clock in the morning or a little earlier, it was very dark.

Q. Having arrived there at five o’clock in the morning, the four of you men, what did you do? A. The men who were with me advised waiting a little while, inasmuch as it would not be practicable to go farther east at that time until light would assist them.

Q. And did you wait then? A. I did.

Q. What time finally did you leave Bridgeport? A. I’d say when it was light, when it was light.

Q. And what did you do then What did your party do? A. Went in an airplane from Bridgeport to within the vicinity of Gay Head.

Q. Who piloted the airplane? A. Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh.

Q. Colonel Lindbergh piloted it and who were the passengers besides the Colonel? A. Colonel Breckenridge, this gentleman from the United States Service Department and myself.

Q. And how long were you in the air? A. I did not take time to know, but we stopped at Gay Head or very near it up there. It was then light.

Q. Did you return that day to your home? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you stay with Colonel Lindbergh? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Until when? A. Until he had finished the flight. I was in the airplane with him.

[665] Q. Did you accompany him on both flights that he made or only on one? A. I did.

Q. Did the Colonel find his baby? A. He did not.

Q. Did you find the boat Nellie? A. I did not.

Q. Did the Colonel find it? A. He did not.

Q. In addition to the airplane and aviation trips, do you know whether or not there were any Federal coast guard cutters that made the trip? If you know? A. Yes. As soon as we got there the Colonel took a little bayou there as his landing place and came right down into that little bayou and stayed there; and then I went up to the Cuttyhunk Hotel. I had a sandwich and a cup of coffee, something like that, and at that dock there was a United States boat; now just at this particular time, whether it was a revenue cutter or a United States gun boat I could not say, but it wasn’t a man of war. The reason I—

Q. At any rate it was a Government boat, was it? A. It was a Government boat.

Q. And as the result of a conversation there do you know whether or not the ‘Government boat left? A. No, the boat stayed there while I was there and out beyond that there was a United States Revenue cutter.

Q. Yes, sir. A. And—

Q. Go ahead. A. And beyond that again there was a man of war.

Q. Yes. A. I should judge at a distance of maybe four miles, three miles., I could see it.

Q. And did you go up on both occasions in the same plane, or was one different than the other? A. That part I do not recollect for this reason. I heard the conversation—

Q. Well, as long as you don’t recollect it, Doctor, it is all right. A. Oh, all right.

Q. Did you land on the water at any time in [666] one of the planes? A. I did not.

Q. Did the plane land on the water at any time. A. Not—

Q. While you were with it? A. No, except in the little bayou.

Q. Yes, except there, A. Yes, in the little bayou there at Cuttyhunk.

Q. At any rate, your flight with Colonel Lindbergh took several hours, didn’t it, from time to time , A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you abandoned with the Colonel—the party abandoned the search, did it not, A. Yes, because it was getting toward dark.

Q. And then where did you go, A. Came back to that bayou and then personally I got on the revenue cutter or Government boat and waited there for a while and the Colonel said—

Mr. Reilly: I object.

A. I beg your pardon. Then I got on the airplane again with Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. And where did you go? A. I went—I was in the plane and the Colonel directed the plane along Long Island, past the local towns there, from Greenport and Eaton’s Neck and down along that section until we came to a flying field, and landed on that flying field, in Long Island, convenient to Astoria, or a little south of that.

Q. And from there where did you go? A. Got in an automobile and went back to Third Avenue, and then the Colonel offered to take—no, I took the elevated with a Mr. Alfred Reich, who was with me at the time. The elevated up to my home.

Q. Where did you meet Mr. Reich? A. Mr. Reich had been asked if he would take the automobile belonging to, I think, the Colonel, I am not sure, from Bridgeport back home, that is to [667] the flying field, he called that home, at that time.

Q. Did you meet him at the flying field? A. Mr. Reich took that automobile back to the flying field and we met him there.

Q. Colonel Lindbergh took the car? A. Colonel Lindbergh then took a car; whether it was that one or not; there were a great many cars there, I couldn’t tell you, but he took the car and offered to see that we would get home. I thought he was tired enough—I won’t say that—I see it now.

Q. At any rate, you did not accept the invitation and you got on the elevated? A. I got on the elevated and went up with Alfred Reich.

Q. Now remembering that April the 2nd, Saturday night, April the 2nd, 1932, was the date and the time of this meeting at St. Raymond’s Cemetery— A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then having gone on these airplane trips—A. Yes.

Q. And having returned, what next did you do with reference to communicating with John? A. I felt hurt naturally. Oh—

Q. That is all right, Doctor. What did you do? A. And I wrote a note through the press. Whether it was broadcast or not I do not know, but I wrote the following statement: “John, what is the trouble?” Or, “ What is the matter?” or something like that, “Have you double-crossed me? Jafsie.” That is in content what I wrote. I haven’t seen that note in a long time.

Q. Did you get any response to that? A. May I look at it?

Q. On April 6, 1932— A. Yes, that is about right. (Witness-examined note.) Yes, sir. I am the author of that advertisement.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

[668] (The advertisement referred to received in evidence and marked Exhibit S‑71.)

The Court: There being no objection, that will be admitted.

Mr. Wilentz: The ad reads:

“What is wrong? Have you crossed me? Please, better directions. Jafsie.”

Q. You say you received no response to that? A. I received no response to it.

Q. That note continued for several days at your direction, did it not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that, Doctor, when the $50,000 or $70,000 was brought to your home that day, or that Saturday, by Colonel Lindbergh or Colonel Breckinridge— A. And Alfred Reich.

Q. Yes, that was the day that you were awaiting word, was it not? A. Yes, sir; Saturday.

Q. Now, following your meeting with John in Woodlawn Cemetery and then following your meeting with him at St. Raymond’s Cemetery, did you see him again and, if so, when? A. Do you mean after that, sir?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir; I saw him about the latter part of October, in Centre Street.

Q. New York, you mean, Centre Street? A. Police Headquarters—I didn’t want to say prison. A. Yes.

The Court: That was in 1934, Doctor?

The Witness: That was in 1934, yes, sir.

By Mr. Wilentz: [669] Q. And then after that, did you see him again and if so, where, before you came to court? A. Yes, sir, I did. One evening at the corner of Williamsbridge Road and Pelham Parkway, I saw him walk over in the direction of what I found to be his home after. I was in a bus going in the opposite direction, but I did not pursue him, owing to the fact that he got into the woods which is there. You have to see that to understand what I mean.

Q. When was that, Doctor? A. In August, some part of August, 1934, nearly three months before I saw him—

Q. In New York? A. In New York.

Q. In the New York Police Station? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see him again in the jail here at Flemington? A. Yes. Shall I explain?

Q. Just answer that you did or did not? A. Oh, yes.

Q. Now, in all these talks, whenever you refer to “John,” as I understand it, you are referring to the defendant Hauptmann? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where do you get the name “John?” A. On the night that I asked him what his nationality was, is, where he came from, I said, “Please tell me your name. You know mine all right; tell me your name.” He said, “Call me John.”

Q. When the last note was received at your home, that is to say, April 2nd, 1932— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —and you went to the door, do you remember who accompanied you to the door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was it? A. Milton Gaglio.

Q. Anybody else? A. He is the only one that I remember.

Q. When the note came was your daughter there? A. In the house?

[670] Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember whether she accompanied you to the door? A. I couldn’t. If she accompanied me she was behind me; I didn’t see her.

Q. You don’t recall? A. No, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: All right. Thank you. Take the witness.

Mr. Reilly: May we have a minute to arrange the exhibits?

Mr. Wilentz: Oh, if you will pardon me. Will your Honor bear with me for a second.

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Dr. Condon, after you had dealt with John and, of course, the child hadn’t been returned? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And eventually the body was found, I take it, you were questioned by police? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you give a description of the John? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell me, please, give me the description of John as you saw him at Woodlawn Cemetery and St. Raymond’s Cemetery about his size and everything else. A. He was about 5 feet 9 and a half, what we term in boxing circles, a middle weight, that is, or a little heavier than a middle weight—middle weight is 158, that is what it is—

Q. Yes, sir. A. —to 165. Five feet 10 and a half, very well built and exceedingly active and athletic, were my description.

Q. I think you said five nine and a half and then you said five ten, or something like that. A. Well, I had a little doubt as to whether it was [671] five nine, five nine and a half or five ten—I did not measure him except by my eye.

Q. Now, from his appearance, what did you have to say then and what was his complexion? A. I would say that his complexion would be what I would call light, that his hair was of—well, shall I use the term I used?

Q. Whatever term you used. A. A muddy blond.

Q. A muddy blond? A. Yes.

Q. And about—now you have given us the weight, your judgment of the weight, your judgment of the height and your judgment of the complexion? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you talked about his being muscular or otherwise, how did you arrive at that observation? A. I have trained about 10,000 athletes in my life, and they couldn’t deceive me upon those inner muscles.

Q. Well, you felt his muscles, is that it? A. I did.

Q. Where? A. I felt his muscles on that bench when I said, “Your coat is rather of light fabric. I have two coats; let me give you one.” But I was studying him.

Q. So that that is where you felt his muscles? A. That is where I felt his muscles.

Q. In his arms? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that description that you have just given, five foot nine or five foot nine and a half — A. Five foot nine or five foot nine and a half.

Q. Whatever it is, did you tell him—was your observation that he was of Scandinavian origin or what? A. No, I didn’t draw that deduction. I took that on face value. I had faith in him.

Q. Well, what was your observation?

[672] Mr. Reilly: I object as calling for a conclusion.

Mr. Wilentz: I will withdraw the question.

Q. So that this description that you give us now was the observation that you made of him at the time, is that right? A. Right.

Q. And did you give that description and observations to the authorities long and long before Hauptmann was ever arrested? A. Nearly two years, yes, sir.

Q. Thank you. That’s all. A. About two years.

Mr. Fisher: We would like the time fixed, if your Honor please, as closely as possible by day and date.

Q. Did you give it to the Federal authorities? A. I did.

Q. Did you give it to the New York authorities? A. I did.

Q. Did you give it to the New Jersey authorities? A. I did.

Q. Five foot nine or five foot nine and a half? A. Five foot nine or five foot nine and a half.

Q. Muddy blond? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of German or Teutonic extraction? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or Scandinavian? A. Yes, sir, about 168-158, muscular.

Q. Muscular? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And about how much weight? A. About 158, middleweight, to 165—at that time.

Q. Yes, sir, at that time. A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fisher: May I ask that the witness [673] be allowed to give his own idea of the height and not the idea of the Attorney General?

Mr. Wilentz: You may have the witness and get the idea.

The Court: I think he has repeatedly said that it was, well, five nine, five nine and a half, and five ten.

Mr. Fisher: And the Attorney General always forgets the ten.

The Court: I didn’t observe that. At any rate, the record will speak.

Mr. Wilentz: You may inquire, sir.

Cross-examination By Mr. Reilly: Q. Doctor, how long have you been in this business of training athletes? A. Fifty years.

Q. What is a lightweight? A. A lightweight, the numbers given to me were 135 pounds from the time of Jack Farrell.

Q. Quite a ways back, is it not, Doctor? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what is a welterweight? A. Welterweight originally was 142 pounds, and went from 142 pounds to 148, where the different rules belonging to that line were changed by the Committees on boxing.

Q. The rules— A. 142 —

Q. You mean the Marquis of Queensbury rules? A. They had nothing to do with the Marquis of [674] Queensbury rules. The Marquis of Queensbury rules represented four rounds under the late John L. Sullivan, who was a marvelous boxer.

Q. What am I, a heavy weight? A. You a heavy weight? May I look? (Witness stepped down from stand and examined Mr. Reilly.) This don’t hurt you, does it?

Q. No, not a particle. A. Undoubtedly a heavyweight. (Laughter.)

Q. And I take it you yourself are a heavy weight? A. Now.

Q. Yes. A. Yes.

Q. So we start even. A. Right,—that is, physically. (Laughter.)

The Court: Let us proceed quietly.

Q. You are not angry at me, are you, doctor? A. Not a particle.

Q. Now in the course of your many activities did you ever study acting? A. I never did.

Q. Never appeared in any amateur dramatics or coached any? A. Never to my recollection did I appear in any amateur dramatics and only coached where my position as principal of a school required it.

Q. And did that require teaching dramatics? A. Yes, sir.

Q. For how many years, A. Oh, dramatics, or teaching,

Q. No, dramatics, A. It did not go over a term of years. There are two little receptions in all schools where there are two terms, from September to January and January to July, not inclusive, and during those two terms I would be called upon twice to help in English expression, accentuation, so on,—yes, sir,—just helped.

[675] Q. Now, Doctor, did you ever teach theosophy? A. No, sir.

Q. You did teach at Fordham? A. I did.

Q. And what course? A. You mean Fordham University?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, I did.

Q. What course? A. What course? Many.

Q. Well, were you in any particular branch of it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What branch? A. The branch of education, referring mostly to teachers.

Q. Teachers? A. Teachers throughout the United States.

Q. Did you ever have any experience or knowledge of signs, particular signs? A. Knowledge of signs?

Q. Yes. A. Nothing, except what I would pick up, that might come incidentally in the course of my lectures.

Q. Did you ever read any books on signs? A. I never read a book on signs, except the Encyclopedia and dictionary as a book of reference.

Q. Then, you are not the John Condon who signed in the public library of New York, are you? A. I never took—

Q. —two weeks before the kidnaping for the German Koch’s Book of Signs, are you?

Mr. Wilentz: Just one minute, please, Doctor. There is nothing in the record, if your Honor please, that any such thing ever happened.

Mr. Reilly: Now, there is—

Mr. Wilentz: All right, I will withdraw the objection. Let him answer. He wants to answer the question.

[676] The Witness: Yes, sir, I do, I want to answer it.

The Court: Let the witness answer the question.

A. I have never taken a book from the New York Library, neither have I ever signed my name for any book, and I never took a book on Theosophy or signs of any kind there, sir.

Q. Have you heard that a John Condon, two weeks before the kidnaping—now just wait until I frame my question, Doctor. A. I will be pleased—

Q. If you will, please. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you heard that a John Condon two weeks before the kidnaping signed for Koch’s book on signs in the public library?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, please, Doctor.

The Witness: All right, you are the doctor, but I would answer him.

Mr. Wilentz: That, if your Honor please, whether he heard something, is not material to this cause, if your Honor please.

The Court: I am inclined to think that is so, Mr. Reilly.

Mr. Wilentz: And, therefore, I object to it.

Mr. Reilly: May I take an exception?

[677] The Court: You may.

(Exception allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly. THOMAS W. TRENCHARD {L.S.} Judge.)

Mr. Reilly: I now ask the Attorney General of this State to produce the slip from the public library in New York signed by a Dr. John Condon, which I understand is in his possession.

Mr. Wilentz: I do not know as it is in my possession, I will get it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and when it is offered, I shall object to it.

Mr. Reilly: Now, I object to his voluntary statement as to what it has to do with this cause.

The Court: Well, the Attorney General has told you that he will furnish it.

Mr. Reilly: That is all I want.

The Court: Proceed.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Now, Dr. Condon, will you take a pencil or ink and a pad and write, please.

Mr. Reilly: May I have that pen, Judge? It is the nearest thing here.

[678] Q. Have you a pen, Doctor? A. I have.

Mr.Wilentz: You may be seated, Doctor, if you will, please. Just wait one minute now.

The Witness: Yes.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, Doctor. You will wait until you are asked a question, please.

The Witness: I will, I will.

Q. Now, Doctor, will you write “John Condon,” please. A. As my name?

Q. Just those words, “John Condon.” A. No, it is not my name.

Q. What is your name? A. John Francis Condon, or John F. Condon.

Q. Well, will you write “John,” please? A. Yes.

Mr. Wilentz: Is it comfortable for you, there, Doctor?

The Witness: Well, I will stand. (Rising.) It is a little—that doesn’t make any difference; never mind my comfort.

A. “John”?

Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir (writes.)

Q. All right. Now, will you continue. Put under it, please, “Francis.” A. Yes, sir. (Writes.)

Q. Now, will you write the “Condon” underneath that, please. A. With pleasure. (Writes.)

Q. And then will you give me, please, a copy [679] of your signature. A. Yes, sir. (Writes.) That is my bank signature.

Q. Perfectly safe with me, Doctor. A. I hope so. (Laughter.)

Mr. Reilly: I offer this sheet for identification.

The Court: It may be marked for Identification.

(The sheet of handwriting by Dr. Condon was marked Defendant’s Exhibit D-7 for Identification.)

Mr. Wilentz: You may be seated, Doctor, please.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. You have told us, Doctor, that you were born in the Bronx, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you at any time live in any other borough of the City of New York? A. Never.

Q. Have you always lived close to where you are now living in the Bronx? A. How close?

Q. Well, within five or six blocks or ten blocks? A. No, I didn’t. In the vicinity where I was born, McKinley Square.

Q. Where is that? A. McKinley Square in the Bronx?

Q. Where is that in the Bronx? A. 169th Street and Boston Avenue.

Q. That is the east side of the Bronx, is it not? A. East side of the Bronx? You will have to give me some definite line to tell from. What do you mean, east side of the Bronx?

[680] Q. I will withdraw it. We seem to be getting all over the Bronx. A. Thank you.

By the Court: Q. This Boston Avenue that you refer to, Doctor, is what some of us call the Boston Post Road? A. Yes, sir. It changed names twice in my life.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. I would like to know, Doctor, when it was that you first started teaching. Am I correct in 1882? A. No, sir.

Q. When? A. I was graduated in 1882 and was appointed as teacher in the City of New York under the late honored John Jasper on January 8th, yesterday was the anniversary, 1884, not ‘82.

Q. Fifty years ago yesterday, was it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you went from the public schools to Fordham? A. No.

Q. I mean in teaching. A. No.

Q. When did you teach in Fordham? A. I taught in Fordham from 1929 to 1932.

Q. 1932. Then you stopped teaching? A. I did.

Q. You retired? A. I did.

Q. Since then you have been more or less of a gentleman of leisure? A. No, sir; never had a day’s leisure in my life.

Q. Well, you have been traveling a lot around the country, haven’t you, Doctor? A. That wasn’t leisure.

Q. Just came back from a trip, didn’t you? A. Trip? Came back from a little mission, yes.

[681] Q. Well, the little mission ended in Trenton two days ago, didn’t it? A. Trenton?

Q. Yes. A. No.

Q. When did you arrive in Trenton, the day before yesterday? A. Yes.

Q. And where had you come from? A. From Brockton, Mass., and Rockland, where I lectured.

Q. Did you lecture in Brockton? A. No, sir; Rockland. I mentioned Rockland last, and in English we take the last noun which brings on that relationship, sir.

Q. Well, now, irrespective of the lecture on English, will you please tell me the City you were last in before you arrived in Trenton. A. Well, the City that I was last in?

Q. That you were last in. A. I stopped at every single city between Brockton and this place.

Q. Were you traveling by automobile? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Remember being in Taunton? A. Beg pardon?

Q. Do you remember being in a town called Taunton? A. Yes.

Q. Did you drop in a drug store there? A. I did.

Q. Did you have a conversation with the druggist? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you at that time tell him that you had not yet discovered “John”? A. No, sir.

Q. And didn’t you say to the druggist at that time, “They haven’t caught John yet; I’d give ten thousand dollars to find him”? A. Finished?

Q. Yes. A. No such thing. (Laughter.)

Q. You make sometimes extravagant remarks, don’t you? A. No, sir.

Q. You are always cautious about what you say? A. I am.

[682] Mr. Wilentz: Objection. All right—withdrawn.

The Witness: Pardon me?

Mr. Wilentz: That is all right, Doctor.

The Witness: I have the situation, if you don’t mind; don’t worry.

Mr. Wilentz: That is all right. (Laughter.)

Q. You are enjoying your day in the sun, Doctor, aren’t you?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

A. I don’t know what he means. He will have to speak English if he speaks to me. What is it? What does it mean?

Q. You are enjoying your day here before these people, your first day in court that you ever testified; you are enjoying it, aren’t you? A. No, sir, I feel sad over it.

Q. Why, haven’t you been preparing for weeks for this day in court by giving out statements to the press about what you were going to do— A. I will tell you—

Q. (continuing)—to the cross-examiner? A. I will tell you, because I found insidious snares in every single place that I went, in order to trap me and make fun of me and ridicule me, and they haven’t succeeded.

Q. Did the druggist up in Taunton ridicule you? A. He did not.

Q. What was his name? A. I don’t know.

[683] Q. Well, would you know it if you heard it? A. I would.

Q. Donegan? A. That is the name.

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. I have a letter from that gentleman which I would like to exhibit to Mr. Reilly. Maybe it will help him in his examination.

The Witness: Will you let me see it, please?

Mr. Reilly: I don’t want any assistance, Mr. Attorney General.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes. Well, I have the letter here.

Mr. Reilly: I don’t want to act as a nursemaid toward this witness.

The Witness: Just a minute. Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. The Witness: All right.

Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, I present to the Court an unsolicited letter from Mr. Donegan.

Mr. Reilly: Now I object to this. I object to it. If it keeps on, I will make a motion for the withdrawal of a juror.

Mr. Wilentz: I will withdraw the offer.

[684] Mr. Fisher: Do it anyway. Make the motion anyway.

Mr. Reilly: I move now for the withdrawal of a juror for this production of this paper and the statement of the Attorney General, and the declaration, and that we may have a mistrial, I will ask Mr. Pope to argue the question of law.

Mr. Pope: I don’t think it needs any argument, your Honor. I think the question of the announcement of the Attorney General was so manifestly out of order, unfair and prejudicial to the rights of this defendant that it requires no argument.

The Court: Have you finished? Mr. Pope: Yes, sir.

The Court: I will deny the motion for a mistrial or the withdrawal of a juror; and in connection with that I wish to caution the jury most emphatically to disregard everything that has been said in their hearing respecting what was said to be a letter from this—what is the name?

Mr. Fisher: Mr. Donegan.

Mr. Reilly: Mr. Donegan.

The Court: Donegan, the druggist up in—what place?

Mr. Reilly: Taunton.

[685] The Court: Taunton—Massachusetts?

Mr. Reilly: That is right.

The Court: Massachusetts. I ask you to disregard that completely.

Q. Dr. Condon, so there will be no mistake and so that the record will have it, I ask you again did you not recently in Mr. Donegan’s drug store in Taunton, Massachusetts, in the course of conversation with him concerning this case say that Hauptmann was not the John and that you would give $10,000 to find the John? A. I never said any such thing, sir.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Do you recall where you were two weeks ago last Sunday night? A. Two weeks ago last Sunday night? Well, not just at this particular time, no.

Q. Do you recall whether or not you were in New York City? A. I do not.

Q. Were you in New York City, the Borough of Manhattan within the last two weeks? A. (The witness nodded his head.)

Q. Do you recall a Sunday evening, to be exact, two weeks ago last Sunday evening, taking dinner at a restaurant known as the Oyster Bay on 8th Avenue and West 43rd Street? A. 8th Avenue and West 43rd Street?

Q. A sea food house. A. I ate there, yes.

Q. Did you eat there that Sunday evening? A. I think so.

Q. Did you there in conversation with a waiter in connection with this case say that Hauptmann [686] was not the John? A. I did not.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. May I have the name? However the question is answered, I suppose.

Mr. Reilly: I will give you the address and give you the card.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. But you were there? A. I was at such a restaurant, I didn’t know the name.

Q. You talked? A. I always talk, yes.

Q. And you talked to a waiter, didn’t you? A. I did.

Q. Did you talk? A. I didn’t know him.

Q. Did you talk about this case? A. That I don’t recollect at present.

Q. Well, you have tried to recollect here some conversations of two years ago with people, and this, I am only asking you about a conversation two weeks ago; can’t you remember it? A. If you tell me the conversation I shall, but I can’t indefinitely, I can’t answer anything indefinitely that way.

Q. Now, let’s go back again, Doctor, if we will. A. Yes.

Q. In all of these towns you rode through in your last trip— A. Yes.

Q. —the trip, which wound up in Trenton, may I ask you why that trip began? A. I take objection to your roundup in Trenton: it is not true.

Q. Well— A. It wound up at my home, sir.

Q. Then eventually you came to Trenton? A. That was after; it has nothing to do with this case.

[687] Q. Well, then, we will go back and take your objection. The trip that wound up at your home in The Bronx. A. Right.

Q. Will you tell me where that trip started from? A. At my home in The Bronx.

Q. Now, will you tell me how long a time it took to make that trip and the different cities you passed through. A. Yes, sir; about three days, and the cities I passed through, I can tell you that by a route. If you show me the map I will tell you everything.

Q. Well, if you will just tell me the important ones— A. Yes.

Q. That is, the ones—just give me the outlines. A. Bridgeport—Bridgeport, Rockland, Taunton—I am mentioning those where I stopped chiefly; yes, sir.

Q. Did you—Are you familiar with a camp in any place called Beckett? A. Beckett?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where is that? A. By direction or distance in miles, or what?

Q. No, in what state? A. Massachusetts; yes.

Q. Massachusetts? A. Center Lake, Beckett, yes, I am—

Q. Center Lake, isn’t it? A. Center Lake is the lake.

Q. Is the lake? A. And the little town of Beckett, which you recollect was washed away, the remnant is still there, yes, sir; right. Were you there in the early Spring of 1932? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when did you go there? A. Within a few days of Decoration, or, rather, Memorial Day.

Q. Was that after the ransom proceedings had finished? A. Yes, sir.

[688] Q. And who did you go there with? A. With a young man named Walter Goodwin.

Q. And how long did you stay, Doctor? A. Four days, or five.

Q. Would you mind telling us what Walter Goodwin’s business is? A. Walter Goodwin’s business as far as I knew was to take me up there to that lake where he owns the little camp.

Q. Wasn’t it owned by a man named Broadhurst. A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know Broadhurst? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know the name of Goodwin’s father-in-law? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know whether he has a father-in-law? A. I do not. Never saw him. Don’t know anything about him.

Q. Within the past month, Doctor, did you go to Miami. A. Yes.

Q. How many days did you spend there? A. Well, the days, the days—maybe four.

Q. Did you see any newspaper men while you were there? A. Plenty.

Q. Did you tell them at that time that Hauptmann was not the John? A. No, sir.

Q. How many newspaper men did you see? A. Oh, I couldn’t count them, they were flocking in there in such droves that I couldn’t count them.

Q. How many interviews did you give? A. I couldn’t state that they were interviews, but I had conversations with anybody that came to my room or to my table.

Q. They asked you about this case, didn’t they? A. They did.

Q. Yes. You never once told any newspaper man that this defendant was John, did you? A. Which defendant?

Q. This defendant here. A. Oh. I never did. [689] I never told or mentioned his name to them or in public, never,—note the words Colonel—not affirmation or denial. I make a distinction between “identification” and “declaration of identification.”

Q. In other words, I am to understand that split hairs in words? A. No hairs at all. A man’s life is at stake and I want to be honest about it.

Q. There was nothing preventing you from telling the press, was there, that this was the right man? A. Yes, there was; yes, there was.

Q. If you wanted to be honest about it, why did you not blazon forth that fact to the world when they asked you? A. Because I didn’t wish to do it and perhaps interfere with this case itself.

Q. If you were honest and telling the truth, do you not know that nothing could interfere with the truth, no matter how many times you said it was the man? A. It didn’t. It didn’t. It didn’t interfere because I didn’t say.

Q. In Greenwich Street, New York police station, you said it was not the man, did you not? A. No, sir. Get all the people that were there, I did not.

Q. You never said it was the man? A. I never said it was or was not.

Q. Because you know you are not sure? A. Because I made the distinction between declaration and identification. The identification meant what I knew mentally, the declaration meant what I said to others. There isn’t a man who breathes has ever heard me say that that was the man but one.

Q. You were brought there for the purpose [690] of identifying Hauptmann, were you not? A. I was, yes, sir.

Q. And you didn’t identify him, did you? A. No, sir. Beg pardon, there is the word “identification” again. I take exception to your language. It would make a mistake and when you begin to divide the identification and declaration and denial, you would make it appear as though I were dishonest and I am not. I won’t—is that too severe, Judge?

The Court: No.

Q. Come on, I can take it. A. That is good. I want you to know, Counselor, that the identification is purely a mental process after the senses have known, after the senses have distinguished, and unless that is taken that way to answer quickly, fast, I don’t know but what it might be a kind of trap that you were getting me. The declaration is where I tell it to others. Identification is what I know myself.

Q. And that is what you think is the common definition of identification, is it? A. No, I don’t think that at all.

Q. Now you are talking down here to a lot of plain people. Do you understand that? A. I do perfectly.

Q. Yes, plain people, and identification means only one thing, the picking out of a person. A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever announce the identification of this defendant? A. I did.

Q. In any court of law before today? A. I did not.

[691] Q. And nobody had any muzzle on you, did they? A. Nobody. But, if you will allow me—

Q. Please answer my question.

Mr. Wilentz: Go ahead, Please. Answer the question.

The Witness: I did. Thank you.

Mr. Wilentz: All right.

The Witness: Yes.

Q. And how many times in the past two years— A. What?

Q. —have you been asked concerning “John?” A. I don’t—

Q. How many times in the past two years have you been asked by anybody about “John?” A. I didn’t count how many times, but—

Q. Numerous, weren’t they, thousands? A. Right; right; curiosity seekers.

Q. You wouldn’t call Inspector Sullivan of the Police Department of New York a curiosity seeker, would you? A. I didn’t tell him pro nor con.

Q. No. A. Or con.

Q. You wouldn’t call a judge that sat in the extradition proceedings up in The Bronx a curiosity seeker, would you? A. What do you mean?

Q. Judge Hadding, is that the name? A. I don’t know anything about that.

The Reporter: Hammer.

Q. Judge Hammer. Do you know Judge [692] Hammer of The Bronx? A. Very well, but I wasn’t before him.

Q. Well, the State didn’t call you, did they? A. (No answer.)

Q. Neither New York State nor Jersey called you, did they? A. You will have to specify when.

Q. When Bruno Richard Hauptmann was on trial for extradition only two or three months ago, in October, in The Bronx, and you, with the secret locked in your heart—you were not called, were you? A. Only by the Jury—under—under—

Q. I am talking about that proceeding—were you called? A. No.

Q. And that proceeding was after you saw Bruno Richard Hauptmann in; Greenwich Street and Centre Street? A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Q. Now, when you decided after the kidnaping that you would like to do something in the way of aiding the Colonel in the recovery of his child, as you have told us— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —that was how many days after the kidnaping? A. That what?

Q. That you decided you would like to aid the Colonel? A. As I recollect it the first of March the baby was taken away; by the 7th of March I had determined to do something to help him and Mrs. Lindbergh to get the baby back, yes.

Q. That was six days after? A. Yes.

Q. During those six days you had never seen the note left in the crib, had you? A. I had not.

Q. During those six days the note, as far as you know with the symbols left in the crib was in the possession of the authorities, right? A. Colonel Lindbergh, I thought, in the possession [693] of Colonel Lindbergh, was my impression, I had not seen it.

Q. All the notes that were printed in the newspapers were very careful to leave the signature off, weren’t they? A. I don’t know that.

Q. You didn’t see it? A. I didn’t notice that.

Q. You had no knowledge of any signature up to the 7th of March? A. I had not.

Q. The little Bronx News— A. The what?

Q. The little Bronx News. A. You mean The Bronx Home News? Yes. 150,000 circulation and over is a pretty good paper.

Q. Are you a stockholder? A. Am I what?

Q. A stockholder? A. No, sir.

Q. Not a part owner? A. No, sir.

Q. But still you have the circulation right at your fingers’ tips? A. No, sir. It was the question such as you gave that had been brought out since that made me recollect that I might have made a mistake in sending it to a little Bronx paper; but it wasn’t a little Bronx paper. I resent that— Oh—

Q. Well, whether you resent it or not, it is a fact that you knew there was such an association in the United States as the Associated Press, did you not? A. I did.

Q. That reached every town and hamlet in the world, practically? A. I did.

Q. You knew also in the United States there was the United Press? A. I did.

Q. You knew there were other press— A. I did.

Q. —agencies? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You knew that for six days the newspapers of the world had printed the fact and the unfortunate fact that Colonel Lindbergh’s child had [694] been taken? A. I did.

Q. Yes. And you decided that you thought you might be able to get in contact with the kidnapers? A. I did.

Q. Was that because of your former contact with ex-convicts and people of the underworld? A. Had nothing to do with it, and I had no associations with ex-convicts. Those stories in the paper were lies.

Q. Then why did you pick out a local Bronx Borough paper, with a circulation of 150,000 with all of New York’s six million people to insert your ad? A. Because those papers all led toward one poor miserable fellow that I thought was innocent. His name was Arthur Johnson.

Q. Arthur Johnson never lived in The Bronx? A. He lived at City Island.

Q. On Lamont’s yacht. A. On a boat, correct.

Q. Which went sailing up and down? A. Yes, sometimes.

Q. Did you know Red Johnson? A. I did not.

Q. Then why should you, a Doctor of Philosophy, an A.B., a Professor of Fordham, suddenly decide that you would protect Red Johnson, a sailor on a yacht, unless you knew him? A. I’ll tell you why: because I always hated to see an underdog, and always gave him a chance throughout my life, and I had heard that Arthur Johnson had nothing to do with it, from many people. I was at that time going in among them and questioning them concerning the probabilities of the case.

Q. What people told you Red Johnson had nothing to do with it? A. A number of sailors. I visited every single shipyard there; went to every sailor that I could find and found out that Arthur Johnson was not that kind of a fellow.

Q. And what would the sailors on City Island, [695] sailing up and down the Sound, know about the kidnaping in Hopewell? A. They weren’t sailors sailing up and down the Sound. They were men in the shipyard, and at the shipyard in City Island, those repairers to the yachts.

Q. And how would they know this inconspicuous Danish deckhand on Lamont’s yacht? A. If you will allow me, I will take away the nationality. I never say anything against a nationality.

Q. Well, I will put the nationality in and ask you the question. A. Say it again.

Q. How would they know this inconspicuous Danish deckhand on Lamont’s yacht? A. I don’t know that he is Danish. I didn’t know that he was inconspicuous, judging from the way—judging from his treatment.

Q. Did you learn that he phoned Betty Gow at half past eight the night of the kidnaping? A. I knew that the night of the kidnaping.

Q. How did you know it if you were not in contact with him? A. I will tell you how I knew it. I knew it because it was spread around all through that—

Q. The night of the kidnaping? A. Now your English again—

Q. The night of the kidnaping? Answer the question. That is what you said, the night of the kidnaping. A. Ask your question.

Q. You said you knew that the night of the kidnaping. A. That occurred the night of the kidnaping.

Q. No. You said you knew it the night of the kidnaping. A. Did I say that?

Q. Yes, you did. A. I said that—when you spoke that he, Arthur Johnson, had telephoned to Betty Gow on the night of the kidnaping, but I had never seen, I add it again, I had never seen [696] Red Johnson, as called, I mean Mr. Arthur Johnson.

Q. Are you in the habit of calling deck hands “Mr. Arthur Johnson” with a bow? A. I am. This was my father’s teaching. I never heard of a man 21 years of age that shouldn’t be called Mr. in the United States. We have no lords or dukes or earls here.

Q. What about Whateley? A. I don’t know what you mean.

Q. You never heard of Whateley, the butler? A. You mean where?

Q. In the Lindbergh home. A. Oh, you must be specific because it is a long time. I heard of a man named Mr. Whateley in Colonel Lindbergh’s home.

Q. When did you hear of that? A. Where?

Q. When? A. I heard of that about the 8th of March, 1932.

Q. Now, again, Dr. Jafsie— A. No, no.

Q. I will leave that out. I will come to that in a minute, don’t worry. It is in my mind and I am coming around to it. Why do they call you “Jafsie”? A. I will tell you, it is the simplest thing in the world. I was told by men in the secret service, men who in the Department of Justice knew the work, that the word “Jafsie”, might carry me through it and the name “Condon” wouldn’t. I wasn’t ashamed of Condon, but my initials are J. F. C., and if you will repeat them pretty quickly you will find they form the word “Jafsie”. Will you do that?

Q. Yes, Jafsie. A. That is right.

Q. Now, let me repeat the other names that come to my mind. You say the kidnaper was known as John? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is your name too, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir.

[697] Q. You are a Doctor of Philosophy and other degrees? A. I have some degrees; I explained that.

Q. And they have been calling you Doc, is that right? A. No. Only some people who could not understand the nature of the degrees.

Q. But they do call you that, those who do not understand? A. Right.

Q. Now, let’s go back again, please. A. Yes.

Q. So you decided that because somebody was accusing somebody that you didn’t know, never heard of before, a deckhand on the Lamont yacht, by the name of Red Johnson— A. No, Arthur Johnson.

Q. Arthur Johnson? A. Yes.

Q. You ought to come and spring to his assistance by inserting an ad in a local paper in The Bronx: right? A. I didn’t say; no, sir—

Q. Isn’t that what you said? A. I didn’t say that was the chief reason; no, sir. I had some reasons for putting the letter—not an ad then—the ad didn’t come first.

Q. All right, a letter in The Bronx News? A. Right; Bronx Home News.

Q. Bronx Home News? A. Right.

Q. Now, of all the big Metropolitan dailies, you didn’t bother with them, did you? A. No, sir.

Q. But you put your letter, or your appeal, in The Bronx Home News? A. I did.

Q. Correct? A. Right.

Q. Yes. And didn’t you do that because you knew at that time that the kidnaping band were waiting for your letter in that paper? A. No, sir.

Q. Yet within 24 hours after it was published in that little paper, a letter came to you, did it not, from Williamsburgh, Brooklyn, dated March 8th? A. I would like to see that; I didn’t recollect [698] that it came from Williamsburgh. May I see that exhibit, please?

Q. I think we will get to it. A. All right.

Mr. Reilly: It is in an envelope there, the second letter. No, you will have to take time out to get these exhibits.

Mr. Large: The jury want to recess.

The Court: What is that? Want to go out?

Mr. Peacock: The jury.

The Court: Would the members of the jury like to retire for a moment: is that your idea?

(The jurors signified affirmation.)

The Court: You may retire in the custody of the officers. Come back just as quickly as you can.

(At 3:11 p. m. a recess was taken.) (After a short recess.) 3:25 p. m.

The Court: The Clerk may poll the jury.

Be seated, Doctor.

JOHN F. CONDON, resumed the stand.

The Court: The Clerk may poll the jury.

[699] (The Clerk polled the jury and all answered present.)

The Court: The defendant is here. We may now proceed, I think. Is the Attorney General here? The Attorney General is here.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes.

The Court: You may proceed, Mr. Reilly.

Cross-examination (Continued) By Mr. Reilly: Q. Doctor, we have been arranging the exhibits. I will go back again. When do you say Johnson’s name was first mentioned in the public press in connection with this case? A. As nearly as I can recollect, the first search that was made, when the paper announced that he went through the Holland Tunnel with a milk bottle in his car.

Q. When was that in the paper? A. I don’t know, but I saw it in the paper.

Q. Now isn’t it a fact that that was in the paper on March 5th? A. I couldn’t say that, sir.

Q. You wouldn’t say that you read it March 2nd in the paper, would you? A. No, sir.

Q. You wouldn’t say you read it March 3rd? A. I don’t remember the date, sir.

Q. Well, when did you first develop this keen interest in Johnson? A. Oh—

Q. What date? A. Yes, sir. Around the 7th of March. It may have been the 6th or 7th. I could tell by the calendar of 1932, because it was Sunday night.

[700] Q. I take it that you appreciated that everybody in the house with the exclusion of Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh were under suspicion? A. No.

Q. You didn’t gather that at all from reading the papers? A. I never had the slightest suspicion of anything in their home.

Q. You didn’t gather anything at all? A. I gathered nothing of the kind, nor would I entertain it.

Q. Of course, you had never read in all of your vast experience of English butlers not being honest, you?

Mr. Wilentz: I object to that, if your Honor please.

Mr. Reilly: He said he had never entertained any suspicion. I have a right to ask that question.

Mr. Wilentz: Let me make my objection, please. I object to the question, if your Honor please, because it is not material in this cause, and in the second place, because it is not the fact.

Mr. Reilly: It is very material at this point to follow up this question.

Mr. Wilentz: I think it is an improper reflection anyway.

The Court: I am minded to allow the Doctor to answer this single question.

The Witness: Yes. Thank you.

The Court: Repeat the question, please.

[701] (The reporter read the question as follows: “Of course you had never read in all of your vast experience of English butlers not being honest, had you?”)

The Witness: I have never heard that honesty applied to any nationality.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Will you answer my question? A. I did.

Q. Had you ever heard or read in all your vast experience— A. I did not.

Q. —of English butlers who were not honest? A. I did not.

Q. I do not suppose you ever read in all the time that you lived in the Bronx of the jewel robberies on Long Island of the homes in which English butlers were hired?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. You see, your Honor please, that is the reason for my original objection. It opens up to a field of asking about robberies all over this world, and of course that is far afield and I object.

The Court: I sustain the objection.

Mr. Reilly: I ask for an exception.

The Court: Granted.

(Exception allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly. THOMAS W. TRENCHARD {L.S.} Judge.)

[702] Q. Well now, were you in New Rochelle in 1932, Doctor? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you give a lecture there in the summer of 1932? A. I gave many. Do you mean the College of New Rochelle?

Q. No, I mean New Rochelle village or township, whatever it is? A. Village, I had a special place to go to give any of my lectures, and inasmuch as I lectured in different places, I would like to know which one of those you mean.

Q. Well, you would pass New Rochelle, wouldn’t you, to go to St. Elizabeth’s College, where you would go, is that where you lectured? A. I don’t recollect ever having heard of St. Elizabeth’s College.

Q. Well, did you lecture in the New Rochelle College? A. At the College of New Rochelle, yes, sir.

Q. And you were there during the summer of 1932? A. I assume.

Q. Were you there in the spring of 1932? A. Yes, I know that.

Q. Were you there in March, 1932, is that right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. In one of your visits to New Rochelle in the spring of 1932, did you meet a young lady there? A. Well, I had a woman’s class, so I had to meet the young ladies, whether I wished to or not.

Q. This young lady did not belong to the women’s class. A. Then, if I met her, if you shall specify, I will tell you.

Q. I will. Do you recognize this picture, Doctor (showing photograph)? A. At the College of New Rochelle? Oh, oh.

Q. I asked you do you recognize the picture. A. No, I do not recognize the picture.

[703] Mr. Reilly: Referring to—

A. (continuing) Never having seen that person in my life.

Mr. Wilentz: Referring to Exhibit D-3 for Identification.

The Witness: No, I never met her. You don’t mind my turning it over, do you?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, please. Now you have answered the question, please, Doctor.

The Witness: All right.

Q. You have no recollection of meeting— A. I never met her in my life.

Q. —the young lady whose picture that is? A. I never met her in my life.

Q. In New Rochelle? A. I never met her in my life.

Q. You meet a great many people in the course of a year, don’t you? A. Many.

Q. Now, about March 5th you say you first heard of Johnson’s connection with this case, in the newspapers? A. About that time. It might have been the same date, yes, sir.

Q. And what date did you write your letter to the Home News? A. I wrote it on the Sunday nearest to March 5th. Well, it was between March 5th and 6th.

Q. And it was because you— A. Or 6th or 7th.

Q. And it was because you wanted to assist Johnson, is that it? A. No, sir. That was only one of the reasons.

[704] Q. Well, that is one of the reasons you have given, is that right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, without any other reason, was there any other person concerned in your reasons that you wanted to help, who had been falsely, as you claim it, accused? A. Not falsely accused. I wanted to help two more people. That is the answer, yes, sir.

Q. Had they been accused? A. No.

Q. Was there any other person—and again I repeat the question—who had been accused either falsely or unfalsely up to March the 7th that you desired to aid by the writing of your letter? A. No, sir,—except Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. Now, I said— A. Well—

Q. You understand English, professor? A. Very well.

Q. Yes. Well, get this: I said accused justly or unjustly. A. If they were what?

Q. Then you rip out “Except Colonel Lindbergh”. You know he was never accused. You understand—

Mr. Wilentz: Now, excuse me. I object to the lecture and the scolding of the witness.

Mr. Reilly: I am not scolding him. Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, please.

The Court: Yes. I think we had better proceed in a more even way and let the question be reframed, Mr. Reilly and we will have Dr. Condon answer it.

The Witness: Please, sir.

[705] Q. Was there any other person except Johnson that you desired to aid by your letter which person had either been accused justly or unjustly before March the 7th? A. No, sir.

Q. Now, we understand each other on that. A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that on March 7th you did write a letter to your local paper, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And your local paper is published somewhere in the Bronx? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I don’t know where it is. It that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You sent no copies of your appeal to any other agency at that time? A. No, nobody except—

Q. Nobody else? A. —the editor of the Home News.

Q. All right. How soon after that did you receive a reply to your personal appeal in the Bronx News? A. About three days, the 7th to the 10th or 11th, as nearly as I can recollect.

Q. Have you any recollection, Doctor, of the date it appeared in the Bronx News? A. If you give me a calendar of 1932, I will make it sure.

Mr. Reilly: I will do this, Doctor, I will ask the Attorney General if the publisher is here. I saw him the other day. He may have a copy in his pocket. We can get it right here.

Mr. Wilentz: What date was it, Mr. Coleman? May I ask him?

Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: Mr. Coleman, what date was it?

[706] Mr. Coleman: The date of the letter was March 7th, 1932.

Mr. Wilentz: Do you want the date of the letter or publication?

The Court: Well, the Attorney General is trying to find something with the consent of the adversary, and if there is no objection to it, he may bring it out.

Mr. Wilentz: Do you want the date of it?

Mr. Reilly: Yes, and let’s get the publication of it.

Mr. Coleman: (From the courtroom) Published on March 8th.

Mr. Reilly: Have you a copy of it?

Mr. Coleman: No. I think the New Jersey State Police has it.

Mr. Wilentz: I will get you a copy of it. Written March 7th and published March 8th?

Mr. Coleman: That is right.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Is that a weekly paper, Doctor? A. The Home News?

Q. Yes. A. It is a daily paper.

Q. Daily paper? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I asked you before, Doctor, whether or not [707] you didn’t get a reply to your appeal. A. That is it.

Q. In an envelope marked Williamsburg, Brooklyn. A. I do not recollect the mark upon the envelope now. But I could tell you if I saw it.

Q. Did you turn over to the authorities every letter that you received during the ransom negotiations? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And have you seen here in court every letter that you received? A. That I couldn’t say, because I received—well, I couldn’t say that; I don’t know.

Q. Did you keep any record, independent record of the letters that you received and then turned over? A. I never kept any record at all and sometimes I didn’t read them.

Q. Well, do you remember getting two letters —A. I could tell you if you showed me them.

Q. I haven’t them unfortunately. I am going to ask you about them. A. Excuse me.

Q. Do you remember receiving two letters in the same kind of handwriting as the letters in evidence with the same kind of symbols on them which you did not turn over to the authorities? A. There was no such thing. Every letter that I got without exception with the symbol on was turned over either to Colonel Schwarzkopf, who was working with me, to Captain Oliver of the City of New York, or Inspector Brockman of The Bronx. Everyone to the authorities.

Q. In your appeal, Doctor, to the— A. Do you mean the letter?

Q. No. In your appeal to the— A. Well, what appeal do you mean? The letter to the Home News?

Q. Yes, to the Bronx Home News. A. I didn’t make it as that; it was an offer.

Q. All right, as an offer. A. As an offer.

[708] Q. Now did you, because I haven’t a copy of it here— A. No, I will tell you.

Q. You see, I am at a little disadvantage. A. I will tell you.

Q. How did you indicate they should communicate with you? A. I will tell you.

Q. By a box number or your name and address? A. No. My name and address, 2974 Decatur Avenue, the Bronx where I lived, and do now.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, Doctor. You have answered the question.

A. All right.

Q. So that, that address being in the appeal printed in the Bronx Home News— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —called naturally for the reply to your home. A. Right.

Q. It that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And now I come down to Exhibit 5, or rather, S‑42, and I will ask you again, Doctor to identify that so we can go along in the natural sequence of the letters. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And ask you whether or not—

Mr. Reilly: I think I will have to have your assistance, Mr. Attorney General.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir.

Q. They both came in here, did they? A. The same—

Q. Referring now to— A. The two letters.

Q. S‑43— A. Well, I don’t know them by the numbers.

Q. That was directed to you and it had inside [709] a letter, S‑44, contained in envelope S‑45, which asked that it be delivered to Colonel Lindbergh. A. Right.

Q. And of course you read it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you received this—do you recall what day it was? A. Received that?

Q. Yes. A. It was I thought three days after the 7th or very near that, anyway.

Q. Well, your appeal went to the newspaper office on the 7th, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Published on the 8th? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And according to this stamp it appears that it was mailed at midnight in New York station March the 9th, is that correct? A. Well, that would make it the 10th; seven and three are ten. I said three days, yes. That is right.

Q. And it is fair to assume from that you received it in the morning mail of the 10th? A. Yes.

Q. The 7th the appeal, the 8th the publication, the 9th the writing, and the 10th the reception? A. Right.

Q. If the kidnaping band were not anticipating something from the Bronx News, didn’t you think it strange that the appeal should not be published in the metropolitan dailies? A. No, sir.

Q. And you gave no indication to any agency or metropolitan daily that you. had sent the appeal to the Bronx News? A. I did not.

Q. And of course you did not know the kidnapers? A. I did not.

Q. They might just as well have been in Massachusetts— A. Anything.

Q. (continuing) Texas, Mexico or any place? A. Yes.

Q. And yet if they were you expected them to see the Bronx News, did you? A. Yes, sir.

[710] Q. Why? Were they waiting for something from the Bronx News? A. No.

Q. You recall no doubt, Doctor, you will recall as I read this letter, its contents? A. I hope so.

Q. (Reading) “Dear Sir: Mr. Condon may act—” that is the Colonel’s, I think. A. No.

Q. I think this is it. A. That isn’t the Colonel’s.

Mr. Reilly: Is this the Colonel’s letter?

Mr. Wilentz: The one with the symbol on is the Colonel’s and the one without is to him.

Mr. Reilly: That is it?

Mr. Wilentz: That is it.

Q. This letter which you received in reply to your appeal bears no symbol? A. Let me see it, will you? Thank you, counselor. I remember the letter, that is correct.

Q. It bears no symbol? A. It bears no symbol.

Q. Up to the time you received this letter, Doctor, the symbols had not been printed in the newspaper? A. No, sir.

Q. Nobody in the outside world knew what was on the kidnap note? A. Yes.

Q. Except Colonel Lindbergh? A. And his household.

Q. And his household, and there remained—? A. Right.

Q. And when you received this letter without the symbols— A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which read “Dear Sir: If you are willing to act as go-between in Lindbergh case, please follow strictly instruction. Handle enclosed letter personally to Mr. Lindbergh. It will explain [711] everything. Don’t tell anyone about it. As soon we find out the press or police is notified, everything are—”

Mr. Wilentz: “Cancel.”

Q. “—everybody and ourselves—”

Mr. Wilentz: “Everything are cancel.”

A. ”Cancelled.”

Q. “—everything are cancel and it will be a further delay. After you get the money from Mr. Lindbergh—”

Mr. Wilentz: “Put in three words.”

Mr. Reilly: No, it isn’t “put.”

Mr. Wilentz: Do you mind my helping you?

Mr. Reilly: Yes, it isn’t “put.”

Mr. Wileutz: But these two words—

Q. “—But printer put three words in the New York American, ‘Money is ready.’”


Mr. Wilentz: “After,”— Oh.

Mr. Reilly: What is it?

Mr. Wilentz: “After that.”

Q. “After that we will give you further instructions what—”

[712] Mr. Wilentz: “Don’t be afraid.”

Q. “—Don’t be afraid; we are not out for your thousand dollars, and keep it. Only act strictly, be at home every night between six and twelve by themselves. You will hear from us.”


Mr. Wilentz: “Six to twelve by this time.” A. One moment.

Mr. Wilentz: “Six and twelve; by this time you will hear from us.”

Q. Oh, “By this time you will hear from us.”

The Witness: One moment. That was enclosed with another letter. Will you let me see whether the other letter had the symbols or not?

Mr. Reilly: We will come to that.

The Witness: Please.

Mr. Wilentz: Will counsel please show the letter as the witness asks, whether there is a question or not?

The Witness: There are two letters involved and it is very important.

The Court: Let him see both.

The Witness: Yes, not halfway.

Mr. Reilly: All right.

[713] (Counsel handed the witness another letter.)

The Witness: Yes, sir, whenever I got that signal, I paid attention to it at once as I was directed.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. But when you got this letter, the first letter— A. That was inside with that, in my opinion.

Q. Was the Colonel’s letter open or closed? A. Closed.

Q. Sealed? A. Sealed.

Q. You did not know anything about any symbols in the Colonel’s letter, did you? A. I did.

Q. From this letter? A. From the letter I received at the Colonel’s.

Q. I don’t think you understand me, Doctor. A. I guess I don’t.

Q. This letter came in response to the ad, correct? A. Yes.

Q. It is conceded that it did. A. Yes, but if you will read the contents of it, you will see that it has close connection with the letter with the symbols on it.

Q. I am not interested in that just yet. A. All right, excuse me.

Q. I am only interested in this, in answer to your ad you received this letter directed to you without any symbols. A. I don’t say that—

Q. Here they are. A. Let me see the envelope. Q. There is the envelope, too. A. That writing would make me take notice of it, yes, sir.

Q. Now there are no symbols on that letter, correct? A. Right.

[714] Q. Colonel Lindbergh’s letter was sealed? A. Right.

Q. You didn’t open it? A. No, sir.

Q. You did go to the telephone? A. That, that—

Q. That night. A. The first letter?

Q. The first letter. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you called up the Colonel? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you had a conversation with him? A. That is, I was told it was the Colonel, yes.

Q. And didn’t you tell the Colonel then that you had a letter which bore the same symbols as the note left in the nursery? A. I did not know anything—no, sir, I did not know anything about any note left in the nursery until I got the symbols specified. In taking those two points—

Q. Who specified the symbols? A. The man in the letter, whoever wrote it to me, and that had the symbol on the night I telephoned, and I telephoned from that letter in my hand to Colonel Lindbergh.

Q. And you told him you had a letter that had the symbol? A. With the symbols I did.

Q. Right? A. Right.

Q. And the only letter that you had in your hand with the symbols the night you telephoned the Colonel— A. Yes.

Q. —was the letter that came in answer to your ad.? A. If it had the symbols, yes, sir.

Q. Not if it had the symbols. A. That is the only—

Q. You said it had the symbols. A. If it had the symbol, it had it—I wouldn’t say so unless it had.

Q. And it was only when you told, wasn’t it, Colonel Lindbergh — withdrawn. You didn’t [715] know Colonel Lindbergh before this time? A. I did not.

Q. No. He didn’t know you? A. He did not. That is, to my knowledge.

Q. He was being pestered to death, no doubt, by all kinds of cranks? A. He was, yes.

Q. And bugs? A. Sorry to say.

Q. Right? Right? A. Right.

Q. And at first he refused to come to the phone, didn’t he? A. No.

Q. At first, didn’t somebody else answer the phone? A. Someone else answered the phone but I insisted that the Colonel come to the phone.

Q. And when the Colonel came to the phone didn’t you tell the Colonel, “I have a letter with the same symbols on it as the note left in the nursery, and didn’t the Colonel say, “If you have come out?” A. No, sir. This is what I said. 1 said, “Colonel, I do not know whether this is important or not, but there are what I might call a secantal circle, that is, one circle cutting, in the other, the same as a secant cuts through a circle, and I said, “Is it important? Shall I bring it down to you?” And he said to me, “I will get the automobile and come up to you. Where are you?”

“I am in The Bronx, but you don’t have to. You have enough to do and I will come down to you, to Hopewell.” That was my exact answer by telephone. I hope you can verify it.

Q. And when you got down there did you see the ransom note? A. When I got down there I did not see the ransom note.

Q. When did you first see the ransom note? A. I first saw the ransom note when it was sent to me by mail.

Q. I mean the original nursery ransom note. [716] A. I didn’t see that at all until recently, maybe a couple of months ago.

Q. It was never exhibited to you at all? A. Never exhibited to me at all, only spoken of by the Colonel who sits—

Q. Even when you brought this down? A. When I brought that down I did not compare it. No, I didn’t compare it.

Q. I show you now what is popularly known as the nursery note, Exhibit S—doesn’t appear to be marked. A. No.

Mr. Wilentz: It is in evidence, S‑18.

Mr. Reilly: S‑18.

Q. And I show you S‑43. I will ask you to look at the symbols on the bottom of each. A. Yes. (Examines notes.) Yes, sir.

Q. They are practically the same, aren’t they? A. No, sir.

Q. The symbols? A. No, sir, they are not. If the circles were concentric circles and placed there, the red dot wouldn’t be outside the first circle that is made on the right side. It is entirely out there. They are not the same symbols, sir.

Q. One is an imitation of the other, isn’t it? A. Well, a very poor imitation.

Q. A very poor imitation? A. I think so.

Q. Very poor imitation? A. Yes.

Q. That is your opinion? A. That is all.

Q. As a man of the world? A. You ask that?

Q. Yes. A. Yes.

Q. And I am asking whether or not it is your opinion as a man of the world, of the years you are and experience you have had and school and college— A. Yes.

[717] Q. —that they are not alike, the symbols are not alike? A. Well—

Q. One is a poor imitation of the other? A. One is a poor imitation of the other. I do—

Mr. Wilentz: That is what I object to, sir.

Mr. Reilly: Repeatedly throughout that letter they say, “We this” and “us” and so forth.

The Court: I suppose, Mr. Reilly, the letter speaks for itself.

Mr. Reilly: I am asking the impression he gathered.

The Witness: My impression—

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. I think, your Honor please, if we are going to be permitted, not that this particular question has any significance, but the difficulty about these questions about impressions and convictions and conclusions is that once the door is opened, it is very difficult to tell when to stop. I object to it for that reason, if your Honor please, that it calls for a conclusion and therefore is not admissible.

Mr. Reilly: I think it is proper cross-examination. We are here charged solely and individually as the prime mover and the only mover, and now here come letters, we and us, and, conversations with John in which he says that “The Chief will slap me down” or something like that, “I couldn’t [718] do this and I couldn’t do that.” I want to show by continuity of witnesses that it was always their impression and always their belief that many people were interested in this kidnaping and I believe I have a right to bring it out by cross-examination.

Mr. Wilentz: May I suggest at this time, your Honor please, that we are not concerned about the impression whether there were more than one, but actually what the fact was. Our charge is that he did this killing. Whether he was assisted by others or whether he was not is not material to this cause except to the evidence that comes here. The question before the Court, however, is, what this man’s impression is from a letter which speaks for itself, his impression from that letter as your Honor can readily see, may be different from somebody’s else.

If we were to permit impressions and we felt that his impression was different from ours, why, we might then start calling a flock of witnesses to tell each impression. I think, if your Honor please, it is going far afield. It opens the door to what I believe to be admissible evidence, and therefore I object to it.

Mr. Reilly: The doctor on direct examination was allowed to testify freely as to everything that was in his mind without any objection from us. We allowed him to do that so we would be in a position to cross-examine him—we believe in cross-examination— [719] and we feel quite sure it will not be limited by your Honor.

The Court: I think I will sustain the objection, Mr. Reilly.

The Court: You may have an exception.

(Exception allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly. THOMAS W. TRENCHARD {L.S.} Judge.)

Q. Now, you will notice from the letter, Doctor, you hold in your hand, and which you are reading, that they used the word “we.” A. They did.

Q. How many times? A. I will count it (Witness-examines paper) As I glance over it quickly, I make “we” four times.

Q. That is referring to Exhibit S‑44. A. Yes.

Q. Did Colonel Lindbergh, after he opened this letter, allow you to read it, the letter you took down to Hopewell that night, Exhibit S‑43, in this envelope, Exhibit S‑45? A. Let me see it (Witness is given envelope by Mr. Reilly and examines it). Did he let me read this?

Q. Yes, in Hopewell. A. This is the part that was written to me. I opened this and read this. You have Colonel Lindbergh’s envelope and my letter. I would like to have it congruous at least.

Mr. Reilly: Now, will the Attorney General stipulate that I have handed this witness the letter contained in the envelope addressed to Colonel Lindbergh?

[720] Mr. Wilentz: My understanding is that this letter, with the other letter—

The Witness: Right.

Mr. Wilentz: —that counsel, just had, together with this envelope—

The Witness: Right.

Mr. Wilentz: —altogether came at one time as the first communication in Exhibit S‑42. In other words, two notes and a little envelope enclosed in S‑42, the envelope dated March 9th; as to which one of those pieces came in the envelope here, S‑45, I do not know; I imagine it was this (indicating).

Mr. Reilly: Well, I want you to look, Colonel—or General—right while you are here. The testimony is—

Mr. Wilentz: I don’t know whether I am being demoted or not, if your Honor please.

Mr. Reilly: Did I make a Colonel out of you then?

Mr. Wilentz: You made a Colonel out of me (Laughter.)

Mr. Reilly: The letter which I hold in my hand, Exhibit S‑43, is address “Dear Sir.” The testimony has been, if the Court please, that that was contained in this envelope, addressed to “Mr. Colonel Lindbergh, Hopewell, New Jersey,” that [721] this witness, after receiving this letter, which says “Dear Sir, if you are willing to act as go-between,” all of which was enclosed in the large envelope—

Mr. Wilentz: Here it is; here it is (producing).

Mr. Reilly: —that when this large envelope was opened by Dr. Condon, he found this letter addressed to himself, that he found an envelope sealed, which contained a letter addressed to Colonel Lindbergh, which bore upon it the ransom signature; that he took that letter, sealed, to Colonel Lindbergh’s home that night, where the Colonel opened it in his own library.

The Witness: Not in the library.

By Mr. Reilly:

Q. In some part of the house? A. In the bedroom.

Q. All right, in the bedroom? A. Yes.

Q. And then when I show you the letter that was sealed in the envelope, addressed to the Colonel, you accuse me of giving you and handing you the wrong letter, don’t you? A. No.

Q. You didn’t a minute ago? A. No.

Mr. Reilly: Will you consent—

The Witness: I accused you of handing me an envelope addressed to Colonel Lindbergh and a note addressed to me. You will find my name on one of those notes.

[722] Q. But the letter I handed you— A. Yes.

Q. —at that time, in answer to the question you made— A. Yes.

Q. —was Exhibit S‑43. A. That is the one.

Q. In envelope S‑45. A. Yes.

Q. And it has nothing to do with you at all; it was a letter— A. I beg your pardon.

Q. Look at it again then.

Mr. Wilentz: Why don’t you show him the whole communication.

A. That is right. Here is my name upon this letter, “Mr. Condon.”

Q. Quite true. Now, is this the letter you delivered to Colonel Lindbergh in Hopewell? A. I couldn’t say that just now.

Q. Don’t you remember? A. No.

Q. All right. Let me take that away from you. A. Yes. (Handing paper to examining counsel.)

Q. With the General standing right here. A. With my name on?

Mr. Wilentz: Would you rather have me stand back?

Mr. Reilly: No, I want you right here.

Q. Now, is that the letter—Colonel, those titles! —Is that the letter you showed Colonel Lindbergh in his bedroom? A. No, sir.

Q. Now, once more I must ask you— A. The letter I showed him had the sign.

Q. To have the record correct— A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: What was the answer?

“The letter I showed him,” what?

[723] The Reporter: “The letter I showed him had the sign.”

The Witness: The letter I showed him had the symbol.

Q. I hand you now the envelope. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the way, without its opening, is that the way you received it in the mail? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And are those the enclosures that were in it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you look, please? A. Yes, sir, I will see.

Mr. Reilly: And I think the gentlemen will concede that those are the two.

Mr. Wilentz: May I at this point suggest that after all the witness is just a little older than Mr. Reilly and myself, and if he is tired, may I ask if the Court would like to take a little recess?

The Witness: Not for me. Let them go right on. All night.

Mr. Wilentz: Very well, sir.

The Witness: I don’t recollect having shown to Colonel Lindbergh or read to Colonel Lindbergh this letter. The letter that I telephoned had the sign on it—

Mr. Wilentz: Referring to S‑44.

The Witness: —the symbol. The letter I read to him at the telephone or from the telephone, had the symbol on it.

[724] By Mr. Reilly: Q. Well Doctor, I am only showing you the letter that was offered this morning in evidence by the Attorney General of this State. A. Yes, sir.

Q. As coming from this envelope which had been addressed to you. A. Yes, sir.

Q. I know nothing about these. You say now. do you, that your recollection is that the letter you showed to the Colonel was the letter with the signature, is that correct, A. Yes, sir.

Q. I asked you before—possibly you didn’t understand me—if in addition to this letter which you showed the Colonel in Hopewell— A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was contained in this envelope—was it not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And sealed? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you handed to the Colonel? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you receive— A. Excuse me.

Q. Yes. A. That I couldn’t state for this reason: I did not telephone to Colonel Lindbergh until I saw the symbol. Now I could not see the symbol on that letter, so I couldn’t telephone the symbol to him.

Q. Yes. A. I described the symbol over the telephone to the Colonel and asked him if it was important and he said, “Yes, it is important.” This I think is relevant. And he said, “If you wish, I will come up to see you. Where are you?”
“At the Bronx. No, Colonel, you have enough to do. I will come down there.”

“ When?”

“Now.” And I started within a reasonable time after that with a letter with the symbol on it.

Q. Well, then, that is just what I asked you ten minutes ago. A. That is what I wanted to—

[725] Q. Whether or not when you phoned Colonel Lindbergh you did not tell him over the telephone you had a letter that had a symbol on it? A. I did.

Q. And up to that time there had been no publication of the symbol, had there? A. I think not.

Q. And, when the Colonel heard that you had what corresponded to his nursery note— A. That part I didn’t know.

Q. All right. —he asked you to come down or else he said he would meet you? A. That is right.

Q. He said it was important? A. Right.

Q. When you asked him about the signature? A. Right.

Q. Correct? A. Right.

Q. So that it was the signature on the letter that made it important enough for the Colonel to see you that night? A. I believe so.

Q. Well, now, then you again agree that this is the envelope that you received through the mails (Handing witness an envelope.) That this is the letter that was addressed to you (Handing witness a paper.) That this is the letter that has the signature (Handing witness another paper.) And that is the envelope that it was in (Handing witness an envelope.) A. I do.

Q. So that up to that time, up to the time you phoned the Colonel that you had a letter with the symbol on it, as far as you know, you were the only person, after the Colonel answered you, in the general public that knew anything about the symbol? A. No, that is not true.

Q. Who else? A. Rosenhain, the proprietor of the restaurant at 188th Street and Concourse, and Milton Gaglio.

Q. Had you shown them the symbol? A. I had [726] shown Mr. Rosenhain the symbols and Mr. Gaglio offered his car.

Q. All right. A. Thinking it was important to come— Pardon me.

Q. But, they had not been out of the store from the time that you showed them the symbol until you had all started for Hopewell? A. Yes, they had to get the car.

Q. They didn’t communicate with anybody, so far as you know? A. Not that I know, that I know of, no.

Q. Now, when you went down with this note, with the symbol on it— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —to the Colonel’s home— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —you remained overnight? A. I did.

Q. And you came back some time the next day, am I correct? A. In the afternoon of that date to deliver a lecture.

Q. Yes? A. Yes.

Q. And, do you recall now the date of the next letter? A. No, not exactly the date, but I could tell you if I received it if you show it to me. Dates mean nothing to me as such.

Q. Can you tell us, Doctor, who it was received the first reply when the mail was delivered at your home? A. What do you mean, at my own house?

Q. At your own house. A. I can’t, because we have a letterbox and the letterman puts a letter in the box. No, I couldn’t tell you that.

Q. Then it is emptied by the family and placed by the Tiffany clock? A. It was emptied by me and this first letter was by the Tiffany clock, yes.

Q. When you came home about half past ten in the evening? A. A little after ten o’clock, yes.

Q. It does not appear, Doctor, by anything that is indicated upon the envelope of Exhibit S‑48—S‑47 is the envelope and S‑48 is the letter—just when you received that letter, and I ask you if [727] you will search your recollection after reading the letter and see if you can tell me about when you received it. A. (The witness-examines letter.) I received that letter as nearly March 12th as I can possibly remember, yes, March the—yes; March the 12th. That did not come by mail.

Q. No, that came to your house, didn’t it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. By messenger? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, between the receipt of the letter—A. This one?

Q. No. The letter that you took to Hopewell. A. Oh, yes.

Q. And this particular letter which I have shown you— A. Yes.

Q. —delivered March 12th— A. Yes.

Q. —did you do anything in connection with the instructions contained in the first two letters, the first letter to you and the first letter to Colonel Lindbergh that you delivered to him? A. Yes. When I went down to the Colonel’s house I went upstairs and the Colonel and Colonel Breckinridge were there at Hopewell.

Q. Well, I mean after you left Hopewell; after you left Hopewell. A. Well, that is—

Q. When you came back the next day? A. I went over the instructions and then Colonel Breckinridge asked if he might carry on the work that he thought I had started by means of the letter. I said, “Here is the house. Came on np and take it; it is yours.”

Q. In your house? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Colonel Breckinridge lived up at your house about a month, didn’t he? A. Not then. He hadn’t started to live there then.

Q. Well, when you told him, “Come on, the house is yours” A. Yes.

Q. When was that? A. That was at the time [728] that I received this letter, about. I had gone down to Hopewell first, had never seen him before, that I recollect, nor had I seen the Colonel. But after that we struck up a sort of an acquaintance, and perhaps a friendship, a lasting friendship.

Q. And I have it, it is fair to assume, that between the receipt of the letter you took to Hopewell— A. Yes.

Q. —and the receipt of the letter of March 12th— A. Yes.

Q. —you didn’t do anything? A. Oh, yes.

Q. What did you do? A. Oh, yes.

Q. What did you do A. I planned every single thing that I could in order to get Colonel Lindbergh’s baby back to its mother.

Q. Did you do anything? Did you go any place? A. Yes.

Q. Where did you go? A. Every place that I got any kind of a lead, and among them was up to City Island.

Q. You had a boat house there once, didn’t you A. A shack, if you would allow me to tell you; I had a shack.

Q. That is more or less of an Irish term, isn’t it, a “shack”? A. No, that is a United States of America, fine term—the shack in the woods, the shack of the miner. Oh, that is a common term.

Q. Isn’t there a shack in the County Athlone? A. Right. You turn it over to the Irish part, with which I am familiar.

Q. I thought that is where you got the word shack from? A. No, sir, I was born in this country the same as you.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, Doctor.

Q. We are not asking you about your country of birth. I am asking you about the shack. Was it big enough to live in or was it a boathouse or [729] what? A. No, sir. It was just one room and a partial attic pointed as I heard one Irishman say, “The roof took in half the room.”

Q. When did you have it? A. Oh, since—I have it still. It is mine for the time being. 1916 to the nearest recollection.

Q. You went back to City Island? A. What do you mean went back.

Q. Between the receipt of the first and second letters. A. Every summer for 35 years.

Q. I am talking about those days between March 8th or 9th—I take it your trip down to Hopewell was when, the 9th or 10th? A. It was at least the 9th. That is near it, the 9th or 10th.

Q. Would you say you received the letter in the morning? A. What morning?

Q. Of the 9th? A. And what letter?

Q. The first letter, the big one we have been looking at. A. I didn’t get it until after ten o’clock that night because I wasn’t home; if you mean the one with the symbols on that I took down to the Colonel.

Q. That is what I mean; that is what I am talking about. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you came back when? The 10th? A. Back where?

Q. To your home. A. To my home—

Q. For that lecture. A. I came back the next day at about half past one, in order to be at my lecture at four o’clock in the city.

Q. Can you give me the date of that? A. The date?

Q. The date. A. The 10th or 11th, about.

Q. Now you said between the receipt and delivery of the Colonel’s letter to Hopewell and the receipt of the letter by messenger on the 12th of March to your home, you had gone to City Island. A. I had gone to City Island?

[730] Q. Yes. A. You say between the receipt of that letter and—?

Q. That is what I asked you. A. Did you?

Q. And that was your answer.

Mr. Wilentz: I don’t recollect it.

A. No, I didn’t answer that. Read the record. I don’t think so, because I don’t remember now.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

The Court: The witness was saying that he was busying himself trying to help Colonel Lindbergh bring his baby back.

The Witness: That is right.

Mr. Reilly: That is right.

The Court: You then put a question to him as to what was the nature of this work that he was doing.

Mr. Reilly: That is right.

The Court: And he then said that amongst other things he went to City Island.

Mr. Reilly: Yes, but—Pardon me.

The Court: And then the examination broke off if I recollect it; and why not take it up from that point?

Mr. Reilly: All right.

[731] Q. Did you go to City Island between the time you came back from Colonel Lindbergh’s home about March 10th and the receipt of the second letter at your house March 12th? A. As I feel now, I am not sure.

Q. Well, can you recall any place you did go? A. Up to March 12th?

Q. Yes, between the 8th and 9th of March and March 12th? A. Only to my lectures, that is all.

Q. Now, when you received State’s Exhibits 47 and 48, the letter that was delivered at your house, which letter I will hand to you, where did you go? (Handing letter to witness.) A. What date was this, sir?

Q. March 12th. A. Oh, yes. (Witness-examines letter and envelope.) That was March 12th delivered to me by messenger, to my front door.

Q. The question, Doctor, was after you received it, where did you go? A. After I received it, I went to a frankfurter stand at the end of the elevated structure on Jerome Avenue, west side, frankfurter stand north of that station.

Q. Now, will you be good enough to take the same letter and count the “we’s” in that. A. Yes, sir. I only make two out so far, as I read quickly over it. Do you want me to go over it again? I see two at a glance, the word “we” twice. Do you see any more?

Q. And this letter, Doctor, said, “We trust you.” A. Yes.

Q. “But we will not come in your house. It is too danger.” A. Too dangerous.

Q. “Even you cannot know if police or secret service is watching you. Follow this instruction. Take your car and drive to the last subway station from Jerome Avenue line. Correct? A. Right.

Q. When you took the car to drive to the last [732] station of the Jerome Avenue line, were you accompanied by any police? A. No, sir.

Q. No secret service men? A. No, sir.

Q. No officials? A. No, sir.

Q. When you got to 100 feet from the last station on the left hand side, the empty frankfurter stand— A. If you will just as leave put it north of that station.

Q. What? A. Put it 100 feet north of that station. The last elevated pillar, I think it was.

Q. Do you think the 100 feet north from the last station should be in this letter? A. Not in the letter, no.

Q. Well, I am reading the letter. A. Go on. Read that again, please, and I will show you what I am after.

Q. “Take a car, drive to the last subway station from Jerome Avenue line 100 feet from the last station on the left side is an empty frankfurter stand—” A. That is right.

Q. “—with a big open porch around—” A. That is right.

Q. “ —you will find a notice in the center of the porch—” A. A notice? No.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, please. Let counsel reading the letter.

The Witness: Yes, sure.

Q. “ —you will find a notice in the center of the porch underneath the stone. This notice will tell you where to find us.” Is that correct? A. Right.

Q. Now, who did you go to that frankfurter stand with? A. With Alfred J. Reich who was at my house at the time.

Q. And when you arrived at the frankfurter [733] stand did you get out of the car? A. I did.

Q. And Reich remained inside? A. He did.

Q. What time of the night was that? A. A rough guess quarter past eight, a little later.

Q. Had you ever seen that frankfurter stand before? A. Never noticed it before. I might have seen it, glanced at it passing by.

Q. Were you familiar at that time with that neighborhood? A. I am familiar with all the neighborhoods in the Bronx.

Q. Well, I am asking about— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —this particular neighborhood. A. Yes, sir.

Q. You knew there was a frankfurter stand there? A. I did not.

Q. You knew there was a Jerome Avenue station? A. I did.

Q. You knew it was the last station on the line? A. I did.

Q. How far away from the frankfurter stand did Reich stop his car? A. Right in front of it.

Q. And when you went into the space in front of the frankfurter stand, was it where the shelves are? A. No shelves.

Q. Well, what was there? A. Nothing at all, except a little railing in front of it, something about that height (indicating rail in front of jury). And then an opening without any gate. I walked right in that entrance.

Q. You walked right into that opening? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is what they called the big open porch around, is that right? A. I suppose. It had an open porch.

Q. How large a stone was there? A. Well, I didn’t measure it. I took it off and—

Q. Was it a paving stone? A. No. If you know what the Irish call a paver, that is what it is. The Irish have the word paver in two sections; [734] one is the nails in an Irishman’s boots on which he slides, and the other is the same as we have our pavement or—

Q. That is the rock he throws when he goes to a party? A. Right, right, on a pleasant party; right.

Q. That would be about as large as your fist, Doctor? A. Larger.

Q. Larger than that? A. Yes, sir; it couldn’t fit in my fist.

Q. Did you take the rock away with you? A. No, sir; I took it off the note only.

Q. Did you take the rock and show it to Reich? A. I did not.

Q. Did you pick the note up very carefully so as to preserve any fingerprints that might be on it? A. I did not.

Q. Weren’t you ever instructed that was the way to handle these notes? A. I was not; I didn’t think anything of the kind, fingerprints or anything else.

Q. Was it in an envelope, the note? A. Yes.

Q. It was not only in an envelope, but it was in an envelope addressed to you ready for mailing, wasn’t it? A. No, no stamp on it as I see it.

Q. No stamp? A. No, right. If you will let me see it, I will tell you.

Q. Everything on it but the stamp: correct? A. I think so. I received that envelope. May I look at it?

Q. Surely. A. I don’t know what my rights here are yet.

Q. You have all the rights in the world. A. Will you pardon my finger marks on it? That is the letter that I received on that night, picked it up on the frankfurter stand underneath that stone.

[735] Q. Now, of course on March 12th— A. That was the night.

Q. It is indicated on this letter that was delivered by messenger. A. Right.

Q. Which says, “After three-quarters of an hour be on the place and bring the money with you.” You were not able to bring the money that night, were you? A. I was not.

Q. You did not have the money that night? A. I didn’t.

Mr. Reilly: Now, before going into this next letter, may we adjourn?

The Witness: Let them go on.

The Court: I remind the people in the audience of what I said at the noon recess. I want everybody to remain just as they are for just a minute or two. It won’t be long. The jury may now retire.

(The jury retired.)

The Court: Let the jury pass out as quickly as they can reasonably.

The jury is to be returned here tomorrow morning at ten o’clock.

Now, then, I will ask the people who are crowding in upon the aisles here to make way so that the defendant and the officers accompanying them may retire. Just make a little room here. The defendant is now remanded to the custody of the Sheriff.

[736] Now, the Court will take a recess until ten o’clock tomorrow morning.

The Witness: Do you want me, Judge?

The Court: Ten o’clock.

The Witness: All right.

(At 4:31 p. m. an adjournment was taken until tomorrow morning, Thursday, January 10, 1935, at ten o’clock.)




Flemington, N. J., January 10, 1935

Before: Hon. Thomas W. Trenchard.

Appearances: Mr. Wilentz, Mr. Lanigan, Mr. Hauck, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Large, For the State.

Mr. Reilly, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Pope, Mr. Rosecrans, For the Defendant.

[737] The Court: You may open the court.

(The jury is polled and all jurors answer present.)

The Court: Counsel may proceed.

Mr. Wilentz: Dr. Condon, will you please take the stand.

JOHN F. CONDON resumed the stand.

[738] Mr. Wilentz: Is there any objection to having the lights on this morning, if your Honor please?

The Court: Not at all. Will the officers turn the lights on.

Cross-Examination (continued) By Mr. Reilly: Q. I think, Doctor, when we adjourned yesterday we were discussing a note found under a rock. A. Where?

Q. I am handing you, Doctor, Exhibit S‑47 and S‑48, the envelope and the letter delivered at your house, I believe you testified yesterday, March 12th. A. May I open it?

Q. Yes. A. I received that note on March 12th.

Q. And in response to the contents of this note, I think you testified yesterday that you did go to a hundred feet from the last station on the left side beyond Jerome Avenue, where there was an empty frankfurter stand with a big open porch? A. Right.

Q. And found this note, Exhibit S‑51, enclosed in this envelope (indicating)? A. I received that letter at that frankfurter stand on that night. May I look at the envelope?

Q. Certainly. Anything, Doctor. A. Thank you. Thank you. (Examines envelope.) Yes, sir. I received that. I picked that note up.

Q. From under the rock. Now Doctor, you notice that the note picked up from under the rock bears no symbols, is that correct? A. Right, merely stamps; right.

Q. And it also was enclosed in an envelope addressed as though ready for mailing—that is, your name and your address in the Bronx? A. Well, yes, sir.

Q. Now will you describe again, Doctor, your trip from your house to the Jerome Avenue subway [739] station? A. After the original note about which you spoke—may I see that again?

Q. Yes. A. —came to the house I asked Mr. Alfred J. Reich if he would go with me to carry out the directions as being placed—Oh, excuse me; right. This one had the symbols on before I moved. Pardon me for that. I will try not to bother you today.

Q. That is all right, Doctor. Now, when you arrived in the neighborhood of Jerome Avenue subway station, Doctor— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —where was the first place you stopped? A. In front of the frankfurter stand described in that letter with the symbols.

Q. And that is shown on Exhibit—

Mr. Wilentz: What is the number of the exhibit? The photograph you mean?

Mr. Reilly: Yes, the photograph of the frankfurter stand.

Q. Doctor, could you tell us about how far the frankfurter stand was from the entrance to the subway? A. One hundred to 150 feet, about.

Q. What time of night was that? A. Between a quarter of eight and half past eight, as nearly as I can recollect; between a quarter of eight and half past eight.

Q. Doctor, would the subway station be in the direction to the left or to the right? A. No, it couldn’t be to the left. (Referring to photograph.)

Q. Was it to the right, then? A. That is Van Cortlandt Park.

Q. Yes. A. It could be to the south. Will you stick to the points of the compass, please. I know better that way than by left and right, on account of the perspective of that photograph.

[740] Q. It would not be behind this? A. It could not.

Q. It would be the other side? A. What is the statement?

Q. The other side across the street from the subway station? A. No. This is the entrance to the frankfurter stand.

Q. Correct. A. Now, as I am facing that, I am facing west or in a westerly direction, the surveyors make that difference. In going to what you call the left or in a southerly direction is the last elevated station spoken of in the letter, which bears those symbols.

Q. To the left of the frankfurter stand? A. Not to the left, it couldn’t be, sir.

Q. As you faced the frankfurter stand? A. I faced the frankfurter stand?

Q. As I am facing this photograph now? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would the subway station be to my left or to my right? A. Neither, because there is an angle there in that park which has since been fenced up with an iron fence.

Q. Would it be in the left direction? A. Now will you face that way and I will—

Q. Yes (Mr. Reilly faces with his back to Dr. Condon). A. Now, if that is west that you are facing now, it may be to your left or not, but it is in a southerly direction. If you point with your left hand to south (Mr. Reilly holds out his left hand at right angles)— not quite, no, it is over this way farther. (Mr. Reilly swings his hand in front of him.)

Q. That way? A. No, that is the park over this way; to the left.

Q. The other way—stop me when I swing. (Mr. Reilly slowly swings his arm back to the right angle position.) A. More, more, there, whoa. There, there is the elevated structure.

[741] Q. One hundred feet, Doctor? A. Maybe 150, I didn’t measure it.

Q. Well, that is all right, your best recollection. How long were you standing in front of the frankfurter stand before anything happened? A. I didn’t stand in front of the frankfurter stand before something did happen. I walked from the car over to the frankfurter stand. I didn’t stand in front of it at all.

Q. Did you see anybody around there? A. I, yes, I saw in this southerly direction that I speak to you about, and about south, southwest— do you know the points of the compass?

Q. (Mr. Reilly bows his head.) A. All right.

Q. We are both sailors, I take it. A. Now I saw an automobile and it seemed to me that somebody was in that automobile. Does that answer your question?

Q. How far away was that? A. Maybe, rough guess, forty feet.

Q. Was there anything to indicate to you that anybody in that automobile wanted to attract your attention? A. Nothing whatever.

Q. How many people in the automobile would you say? A. I only saw one sticking out, his head out, in the front.

Q. Now, was there anything else, or was there any other person in that neighborhood at that time that attracted your attention? A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Tell us about that? A. There was another automobile which seemed to be a country automobile. It had a canvass covering. I was exceedingly careful while I was investigating and I noticed that that was a sort of country automobile; that is, it was not one of these polished automobiles that we see in the City of New York, for instance, and in Flemington.

Q. How far away was that from you? [742] A. Across the way. I should judge the road is at least a hundred feet road, but I saw the automobile.

Q. Was the lighting good there that night? A. Splendid.

Q. Did you take the number of the automobile? A. I did not, because I was sideways or cater-cornered to it. I couldn’t see any number there.

Q. But you didn’t stroll over in that direction and take the number of either automobile, did you? A. No, sir; I got into the automobile from the frankfurter stand and went on riding.

Q. But you were investigating carefully, weren’t you? A. I was, very.

Q. Well, why didn’t you take the number of these two machines? A. It didn’t affect me at all. I had what I went after, which was the note.

Q. That was all you cared about, the note? A. That is all. Following instructions.

Q. Then the note said, “Across the street and follow the fence—” A. Say that again. I think it said “Cross.”

Q. “Cross the street.” A. Yes, that is right. Q. “And follow the fence from the cemetery—” A. Right.

Q. “—direction to 233rd Street.” A. Right. Q. What cemetery was that: Woodlawn? A. Woodlawn Cemetery.

Q. And was Woodlawn Cemetery directly across the street from the frankfurter stand? A. It is and was.

Q. Now, in crossing, did you cross the street then? A. I did not. I got into the automobile there because I didn’t know what I’d see or notice and went with Mr. Reich in that automobile, that is, I accompanied him. He was at the wheel.

Q. Yes. Did you pass the two cars? A. No, sir; because the one car, the first to which I referred, [743] was in a southerly direction from me. I did not have to pass that.

Q. And when you arrived at Woodlawn Cemetery gate—is that correct—you did get there? A. You mean near 233rd Street?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir. Because there are many gates.

Q. Now, this plaza that you spoke of yesterday. A. Yes, a little park or plaza.

Q. Woodlawn Cemetery runs about how many city blocks on that side? A. Well, I will just have to map those out now, I never measured it or surveyed it.

Q. Approximately? A. Approximately?

Q. Yes. A. I should suggest, it is pretty hard—close on to half a mile-880 feet, close on to that. Eight hundred and eighty yards. Eight hundred and eighty yards.

Q. Half a mile? A. Four hundred and forty is a quarter and 220 an eighth. Yes.

Q. The 880 feet you are referring to— A. Eight hundred and eighty yards, a half a mile, I think, yes.

Q. On what street is that? A. It is on what is called Jerome Avenue. There is no street. The cemetery occupies it. It doesn’t run, it occupies that space.

Q. There is a large fence around the cemetery, is that correct? A. Large?

Q. High. A. Right. Metallic, I don’t know whether it is iron or steel.

Q. About nine feet high? A. That is a little high, I think, but near it.

Q. Between eight and nine feet? A. So people cannot get over.

Q. The top of the cemetery fence is iron prongs, is that correct? A. It is pretty dangerous climbing.

Q. It is spikes? A. Right.

[744] Q. And in the cemetery there are guards? A. Are what?

Q. Guards. A. Guard, but I didn’t think there were guards.

Q. Did you ever see any guards? A. I did.

Q. How many? A. One.

Q. Where? A. Near 233rd Street, maybe so or 60 feet south of 233rd Street inside the iron gate.

Q. That night? A. On that night.

Q. At that time? A. No, a little after.

Q. While you were talking to the man through the gate? A. While I was talking, I was on the outside and he was on the inside of the gate, and while I was talking to him, I was attracted by a noise—there was a little foliage or set of bushes there which have since been changed.

Q. Did you see the guard? A. I did.

Q. Describe him, please? A. Describe him? It was rather dark there and all that I could tell about him would be that he was Riehl. That is his name. Excuse me, that is his name, and of German extraction because I spoke to him; and a rather stout man —I would call it portly—a heavyweight.

Q. Did you talk to him that night? A. I did.

Q. Before or after you talked to this other man? A. After I talked to that man. He addressed me first.

Q. The guard came up to the inside of the gate, did he? A. He came to the inside of the gate, yes, sir.

Q. Was that after you say this man had climbed over this nine-foot gate? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now the gates at the place which lead into the cemetery are much higher, are they not, than the gates on the side of the cemetery, or the fence on the side of the cemetery? A. In my opinion they are graded, that is, they go in a triangular direction— no, in an angular direction. I should judge [745] the angle formed from the horizontal bar on top of the fence would be about 30 degrees, or 40 degrees. That is, from the actual height of the fence along Jerome Avenue that we drove by to this spot in front of the gate at 233rd Street, or near it, there is an angle there reaching to two high pillars— have I made that plain?

Q. (Mr. Reilly nods.) A. Thank you.

Q. And this man eventually, you say, climbed up the inside? A. In turner fashion— do you know what I mean “in turner fashion”?— people climb in two ways, one of them is by drawing the body up— and people in here know— and then alternating. They do not take their two hands and draw up. You can tell a palooka— I think the word is they call them—

Q. What? A. I think they call them, I think they call them in the press, the word “palooka.” I don’t know the meaning of that word, they call it a “palooka” if he does not act with grace.

Q. I suppose you mean, Doctor, hand over hand, is that what you mean? A. No, because the bars are so placed that he could hardly climb hand over hand. The rope climbing you refer to— I don’t refer to that, sir.

Q. Well, did he come up on one bar or two bars? A. He came up on two bars.

Q. Two bars? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Gripping one, then gripping the other, coming up? A. Right; alternating.

Q. What did he do when he got to the top of this fence with the iron spikes? A. There is between the top of that fence and the lower part of that fence a row of those spikes again to keep the bars first firm, because they need to have those firm on those gates.

Q. Where was the guard when this man was coming [746]  up turner fashion? A. As nearly as I can judge, 30 feet back near a tree. I thought it was an elm—I didn’t examine that.

Q. Thirty feet? A. Thirty feet.

Q. Point out something in the courtroom, please? A. Beg pardon?

Q. Will you point out something in the courtroom. A. Yes.

Q. The distance between the man coming up over the fence and the guard behind him. A. Point out—you have given too many things which are incongruous to me.

Q. All right; all right. Assuming this is the gate, only it is much higher (indicating gate to jury box)— A. Yes; yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. And assuming that standing in here is this man— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —who now begins to come up turner fashion. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or, I will put him this way (illustrating); point out something in this courtroom behind him. A. Yes. If you will face me. He didn’t have his back to me.

Q. You were here, Doctor, weren’t you? A. Oh, you have reversed the place.

Q. Yes, I reversed it so as to get the distance. A. I see.

Q. You are here. (Indicating.) A. All right. That is outside of the fence.

Q. On the outside? A. Right.

Q. The man is here— A. All right.

Q. —that is going to do the climbing. A. I see it. I see it.

Q. Now, will you point out in this direction, if you can, indicating where the guard stood, as to the distance? A. I see it now, yes. About as far, from this rail, from this rail—

[747] Q. From that rail, yes. A. And it is merely measurements.

Q. To the best of your recollection? A. That is right. And by a tree that was there at that time which I thought was an elm tree—it is a kind of umbrella appearance, about a stately elm spoken of in so many writers—and about as far as the second row there. I think if you will measure it you will come nearly thirty feet.

Q. Second row? A. That is right.

Mr. Wilentz: Pardon me, just a minute. Do you happen to have the measurements of the courtroom? It isn’t necessary, but I thought maybe—

Mr. Reilly: You and I can gauge that. What do you say, 25 feet.

Mr. Wilentz: About 30 feet. It is agreed by counsel that it is approximately 30 feet.

The Witness: Yes.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. And, of course, there was nothing between the guard and this man climbing? A. There was.

Q. What? A. There were some bushes which have since been removed. There is now there, that is, there was shortly— I pass there a good deal—maybe like Immortelle, Ivy, maybe Rosemary. I do not know the nature of the plant. I didn’t analyze it.

Q. Were they low? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did the guard do anything? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he shout? A. No.

Q. Did he fire a shot? A. No.

Q. Did he blow a whistle? A. No.

[748] Q. Summon help? A. No.

Q. Rather unusual, wasn’t it, for a man to be climbing out of a graveyard at night? A. I don’t think so.

Q. Did you ever climb out of one at night? A. I never went in one at night (laughter).

The Court: That must not be repeated. We are here to conduct this trial under as favorable conditions as possible. Don’t you see ladies and gentlemen that we must have quiet here? Please observe that.

Q. Doctor, if you have never been in one and you never saw anyone climbing out of a graveyard before—did you at night?—didn’t you think it was unusual? A. Did I think it was?

Q. Yes. A. I knew why it was.

Q. But the guard didn’t? A. No, he did not.

Q. He was not in your confidence? A. I didn’t know it.

Q. I said, “He was not in your confidence?” A. Never saw him before.

Q. He didn’t expect you there? A. He didn’t expect me there.

Q. And when he saw two men, one looking through a fence and one going over the fence, he gave no alarm? A. He gave no alarm.

Q. When the man jumped over the fence, you say he began to run, is that correct? A. He did.

Q. Did he run fast? A. Oh—yes. I would call it the step of a distance runner. Do you distinguish the sprinter from the distance runner?

Q. Yes, but I don’t know whether the jury can or not. A. All right.

Q. The point is this, Doctor: You were then [749] under a brilliantly lighted—am I correct—entrance to a cemetery? A. No, sir.

Q. It wasn’t well lighted? A. No, sir; but—

Q. And a man ran away? A. He did.

Q. And he ran in what direction? A. In a northerly direction.

Q. There was no subway station near there? A. Nothing near it.

Q. Nobody that you could see around at that particular time, was there? A. Not at that particular time.

Q. No automobiles parked from the country or anywhere else? A. No automobiles parked, nothing, just clear.

Q. Just Al Reich in the car? A. In the automobile.

Q. About how far away from the front gate or from where you were standing? A. Of course, you realize I did not measure it.

Q. I know that, Doctor. I want your best recollection. A. There is a plaza there and I should judge from the gate to the gutter where he was would be 60, 70 feet.

Q. Was the car pointing in the direction the man was running in? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he start after the man? A. He couldn’t.

Q. Was the car locked—what do you mean he couldn’t—? A. No, he couldn’t—do you mean to run?

Q. No, start his car after him? A. Oh, no, he was under my orders.

Q. What orders? A. That he would stay where he was. You know—well, excuse me—that he would stay where he was till I returned.

Q. I see. And you didn’t call to him “Follow him, Al?” A. No, sir; I followed him myself.

Q. How far did the man run before you caught [750] him? A. I am measuring the street. Pardon me, I am measuring the street.

Q. The distance? A. And visualizing until I come to the shack, and then, maybe 60 feet beyond that—well, I think there were five trees that were there—100 yards.

Q. Then, you caught up with him, did you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Caught hold of him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he was running fast? A. Not then.

Q. Did he slow down? A. He stopped.

Q. He stopped? A. When I—

Q. Then, you caught up to him, is that correct? A. What is that again?

Q. I say, when he stopped, you caught up to him, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And where did you and he then go to talk? A. I took him by the left arm, that is, by the coat sleeve—

Q. Into this— A. —and escorted him back to the, to a little shack that is up there in the park, used for—well, I saw a man sleeping in it, and I saw some boys dressing in it for the athletic sports up there—only one room.

Q. You had seen it before that night? A. No, sir. That is, I did not take any particular notice of it.

Q. Did you know it was there before that night? A. Oh, yes.

Q. It was quite a distance in off the road. Is that correct? I am showing you now Exhibit 41. A. Yes.

Q. Is it still there? As far as you know, is the shack still there? A. Well, it was last week; yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: What is the answer?

[751] The Witness: It was last week.

Q. You notice, Doctor, that this shack appears to be in on some kind of park or parkway. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir; public park.

Q. Is the bench outside of this shack—was that bench there that night and in that position? A. There was a bench there.

Q. Was there a bench there in that position? I will put it that way. A. There was a bench there that night and I adjusted that bench in order that I might go around and see if anybody was there, and I said that to him on that night: “I better see if anybody is around the shack.”

Q. And where was Al Reich then? A. In the car in front—

Q. Back in the same spot? A. In the car in front of the cemetery, outside that little plaza.

Q. And as you sat there talking to this man, I believe you said that he had his coat collar up part of the time. A. Yes.

Q. And that he had a cough that indicated to you that he was suffering from consumption? A. No, sir.

Q. Or pulmonary trouble? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it a hard cough? A. No.

Q. Was it a soft cough? A. No.

Q. Was it a cough that appeared to you to come from his lungs? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many times did he cough? A. Once.

Q. And you suggested that he take something for the cough? A. No, I didn’t.

Q. Well, what did you suggest? A. I suggested that I go to a drug store and get some medicine, I said.

Q. And how far away was the nearest drug store? A. Oh, I couldn’t tell you that now, but I could find it; I know all the places there.

[752] Q. You wanted him to sit on the bench there while you went away to a drug store? A. No, I didn’t. I would take him with me if he would come.

Q. Suppose he wouldn’t come? A. If he wouldn’t come, I would stay there, as I did.

Q. What were you going to get him for this pulmonary cough? A. Well, it might have been Ayres’ Extract. Do you know it? Well, that is one. Then there is Schenck’s Cough Medicine. I have taken care of a good many athletes, and I know what to get.

Q. How long were you sitting there? A. From the time I place him there until I went away? A rough guess, an hour and ten minutes.

Q. And he only coughed once? A. That is all.

Q. Now, I want you to show, if you will, please, Doctor, the way he had his coat up around his face. A. Yes, sir. This was a top coat (illustrating).

Q. Indicating, for the purpose of the record, the coat coming up around the ears? A. Around the ears.

Q. And around in front of the mouth? A. Around in front of the mouth.

Q. Covering the chin and throat? A. Covering the chin and throat—at that time.

Q. And the hat, what kind of a hat did he have on? A. It is one that I call a fedora. Will you get me a couple of specimens?

Mr. Wilentz: You can put your collar down.

The Witness: May I? May I?

Mr. Wilentz: You are through with that part, aren’t you?

Mr. Reilly: That part, yes.

[753] The Witness: I didn’t think. I was interested in the case so much.

Q. Will this hat fit you well enough to give an illustration? A. I wouldn’t put it on, I wouldn’t put it on, but I can tell you how. All right, all right.

Mr. Wilentz: What is the question?

A. What is the question?

Q. Can you give an illustration with this hat? You said you could tell me. Have you a soft hat here with you this morning? A. I wear a derby.

Q. Well, was the hat pointed down in front like this (indicating)? A. It was not.

Q. It was rolled up? A. It was.

Q. With a bevel edge? Do you know what a bevel edge is? A. What do you mean, bevel edge on a hat?

Q. I mean an edge that turns up slightly, like this (indicating). A. You mean taped? You mean taped?

Q. In comparison to a hat that is pulled down like that (indicating). A. Turned up.

Q. Turned up. A. Turned up.

Q. A turned up brim? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever say to anyone that the man who sat on the bench and talked to you was a Scandinavian? A. May I change—

Q. Will you answer that yes or no? A. May I ask you to change the question yes or no. Did I ever—Will you please call it again?

Q. Did you ever tell anyone that the man who sat on the bench with you in the park that night was a Scandinavian? A. I said that he said was a Scandinavian—many times.

Q. He said many times he was a Scandinavian?

[754] A. No, I said many times—The verb there refers to the many times.

Q. All right; how many times did he say that night he was Scandinavian? A. Once.

Q. And you repeated it many times after that? A. That is away from the bench.

Q. You repeated to other people many times? A. Yes.

Q. After that? A. Yes.

Q. That the man was a Scandinavian? A. I said he said so—I didn’t say so. I said he said so.

Q. Did you ever say after talking to the man on the bench that the man you talked to had a scar on his face? A. No, sir; never—

Q. Sure about it? A. Never said it in my life. I didn’t see any.

Q. You had no flashlight with you? A. I did not.

Q. After this conversation finished— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —who left the park first? A. I did.

Q. Where did you go? A. Right back to the automobile in which Mr. Alfred J. Reich was at the wheel waiting for me, where I left him.

Q. That would be again how many feet away from the park bench where the conversation took place? A. Which do you mean; myself or the automobile?

Q. Reich. A. In the automobile. I have your question now. Yes, sir. Reich was a short distance below 233rd Street, maybe 60 feet. The parkway itself must be—two sidewalks and a road, I don’t know whether it is a two-rod road or not, but across the road there, and then up a little bank, roughly 60 or 70 feet away from 233rd Street, is the shack. Now, that makes a total—do you want me to calculate it?

Q. Roughly, not in inches. A. Well, now, taking 70 feet to the bank, 70 feet to take me to the [755] bank, that is from the shack in a southerly direction, 70 feet there and 33 and 20- and 70 more for the two sidewalks and the roadway; 233rd Street, would make 140 feet say, and he was down between 20 and 30—I would say on a rough guess 175 feet from the shack to the place where Alfred J. Reich was sitting in the automobile. That is in a southerly direction from the shack.

Q. While you were sitting on the bench, could see Reich in the car? A. Not Reich.

Q. Could you see the car? A. I could.

Q. Through the bushes? A. There were no bushes there; you have the wrong place.

Q. Well, how were you looking? A. I was facing almost in a southerly direction, but turned around at an angle—while speaking to a gentleman, I was always told to look at a gentleman when I was talking to him.

Q. You could see the car, is that it, Doctor? A. I could see the car, no bushes, no shrubbery—if you will show me the picture, I will demonstrate to you.

(Mr. Reilly hands witness a picture.)

A. (Continued) This angle again in this corner is very deceptive in a photograph—

Mr. Reilly: I move to strike it out as not responsive.

The Witness: That way—

Mr. Reilly: Wait a minute, Doctor, that is your opinion. I move to strike it out.

The Witness: Yes, right.

The Court: Strike it out.

[756] The Witness: In a southerly—beg pardon?

The Court: I said strike it out.

The Witness: Yes, yes, I will forget I said it. In a southerly direction. There is the sidewalk and there the gutter to which I refer. Those are on the northerly side of 233rd Street, the gutter and the sidewalk, 233rd Street. Now, the width of the road in a southerly direction from that, and the distance of maybe 60 feet, that may be, Mr. Reich was in the automobile.

Q. All right. You got back in the automobile? A. Yes, sir.

A. Sat in the automobile pardon. I know now. I I know better now.

Q. Where did you go? A. I sat in the automobile and told Mr. Reich—beg pardon. I know now. I know your rule better now. I know better now. if he’d go down Jerome Park to my home, where

Q. Where did you go? A. I sat in the automobile and asked  Mr. Reich if he’d go down Jerome Avenue through Moshu Park to my home, where I started from.

Q. When you arrived home what did you do? A. When I arrived home—I will have to think a little about that.

Q. Anything in connection with this case, that is all. A. That is all, yes. I spoke of it—is that permissible?

Q. Who did you speak to? A. Colonel Breckinridge, who was waiting at my house.

Q. Did you do anything the next day about this case? A. The next day was Sunday. I went to church.

Q. I asked you about the case, Doctor. A. About the case? To me that has a great deal of—all right. Now, the next day—

Q. Sunday. A. Did I do anything about the case? I can answer that truthfully; yes, sir, I did.

[757] Q. Did you receive any notes on Sunday? A. Not to my recollection now. If you will show me any, I can tell you.

Q. I show you Exhibit 53 and I ask when you received this. A. This appears to me to be the envelope in the package in which the sleeping suit came. I didn’t examine the sleeping suit here, but I only saw it. No, I didn’t; just looked at it in recess. You know I didn’t examine the sleeping suit. Yes, sir. I received such a note and, as nearly as I can judge, that was around—let me see now, my relation—around the 16th or 17th of March. I always go to see a parade—

Mr. Wilentz: All right, you have answered the question, Doctor.

The Witness: Yes.

Mr. Wilentz: You have answered the question.

The Witness: Yes.

Q. Around the 17th of March? A. A little after, maybe.

Q. Who actually received that package, if you know, in your house? A. I did.

Q. At what time? A. The morning mail, at about half past ten. We had three mails there. Half past ten, as nearly as I can recollect. It was about that time.

Q. Was that the first— A. Beg pardon?

Q. Was that the first letter you received personally? A. First letter?

Q. By mail? A. Do you mean in my life?

Q. No, no. In connection with this case. A. Oh. About the case. No. You mean from the letter carrier?

[758] Q. From the letter carrier, yes, in this case. A. Well, I didn’t get it from the letter carrier.

Q. Who did you get this from? A. It was put on top of the box, the mail box.

Q. And you found it there? A. I don’t say that. I couldn’t recollect that, sir, but I know that I got it.

Q. Can you tell from the stamp, cancellation mark, what station— A. Pardon me?

Q. —is on the envelope? A. What station? I will take a look at that. I see New Jersey, first.

Mr. Wilentz: You mean the cancelled stamps?

A. You mean the cancelled stamps? Well, just a minute. (Examines paper.) As it stands, as it stands, on account of it being blurred, I could not tell you at present.

Mr. Reilly: Have you a magnifying glass?

Q. And this note, I believe, referring now to Exhibit S‑52, you received at the same time. A. There were two notes which I received and this is one of them, with a signature on, and the two notes were wrapped inside of the sleeping suit, if this is the one; I couldn’t quite tell you yet.

Mr. Reilly: May I have the other note, wrapped inside the sleeping suit?

A. (Continuing.) There was a wrapper, a brown wrapper around—

Q. (Paper handed to the witness.) A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is the wrapper? A. Inside of the sleeping suit, which was again bound with—I always call it brown paper; it isn’t quite brown, it is almost manila paper in color.

[759] Q. Was there one note inside that wrapper? A. No, sir.

Q. Or two? A. Two, two.

Q. What did you do with the two notes? A. I will have to give you a preliminary statement. Will that be all right?

Q. No, just answer the question. What did you do with the two notes? A. The two notes? I took them out of the sleeping suit and read them.

Q. Have you any independent recollection now of what was contained in the two notes? A. What do you mean, independent recollection?

Q. Well, I have shown you note No. 1. A. You did.

Q. Where is note No. 2? A. I do not know, sir. One was addressed to Colonel Lindbergh and one was addressed to me. Would you allow me to see which one that is now? I didn’t pay specific attention to that. There were two notes there and—There were two notes there.

Q. (Handing the witness a paper.) A. This was the one addressed to me, one was addressed to Colonel Lindbergh within the package in which the sleeping suit was folded.

Q. How do you know it was addressed to Colonel Lindbergh? A. Because I opened the package and it was inside the package with the sleeping suit.

Q. How was it addressed to the Colonel? A. As nearly as I can recollect, “Colonel Lindbergh,” I could tell it if you showed it to me. I don’t carry those things in my mind.

Q. I am trying to find it. A. Trying to find the letter? I will tell you about that. I sent for Colonel Lindbergh. May I go on?

Q. You may. A. I sent for Colonel Lindbergh to come up and see if the article which I had received was his baby’s sleeping suit.

[760] Q. He came up and you showed him the note, did you? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you give him the note? A. No, sir.

Q. You didn’t destroy the note? A. I did not.

Q. What did you do with it? A. I left it right there in the sleeping suit open on my piano until he would see it.

Q. Have you ever seen it since? A. I have never seen it since.

Mr. Reilly: May we have it, Mr. Attorney General?

Mr. Wilentz: It is one of those notes; I don’t know which it is, as I understand it.

Mr. Reilly: Well, let’s have it; we are asking for that particular note.

The Witness: Well, I haven’t it. Could I assist you, counselor?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, Doctor; you have answered the question—please.

The Witness: Excuse me.

By the Court: Q. Doctor— A. Yes, sir, Judge.

Q. —was it March 17th, 1932, that you received this package done up in a manila covering? A. Within a day or two, it might have been a little after, but I remember that by relation—

Q. Yes. A. —on that particular day, because it was a great day in my life.

Q. But you think it was along about March 17th? A. Yes, Judge.

[761] Q. When you opened that manila package you discovered in it, did you, a sleeping suit? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you opened this package with the sleeping suit— A. Yes.

Q. —you discovered a letter or two? A. Two. Q. Two? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And those you placed with the sleeping suit? A. Yes, sir.

Q. On your— A. On my piano.

Q. —on your piano? A. I don’t what to make it as a sort of—

Q. I want to make sure that I understand you. A. Yes, sir; and sent for Colonel Lindbergh to come to my house and see whether it was his baby’s suit or not.

Q. So I understand. A. Yes, Judge.

Mr. Reilly: Now, have we that second note?

Mr. Wilentz: They are all there.

Mr. Reilly: While I continue, Mr. Fisher, will you look over these and see if there are any notes addressed to Colonel Lindbergh.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, sir.

Mr. Reilly: Going on beyond this particular exhibit number.

Mr. Fisher: What is the present exhibit number on this letter?

Mr. Reilly: We have it right there, this letter—

[762] Mr. Fisher: That is Exhibit S‑52; we want one later than that.

Q. Now you recall, Doctor, do you, that the letter to you said, “Now we will send you the sleeping suit from the baby—” A. Will you kindly read the first line on the opposite side of that letter? Is there anything on it?

Q. “Dear Sir: Our man failed—” A. That is correct. That is the letter.

Q. Now page 2: “Now we will send you the sleeping suit‑‑” A. Yes, sir.

Q. “—from the baby. Besides it means three dollars extra expenses—” A. Yes, sir.

Q. “—because we have to buy another one.” A. Yes.

Q. Is that right? A. May I look?

Q. Surely. A. Yes. (Examining letter.) That letter with the signature on was in with the baby’s suit.

Q. Did you ever buy any of these suits, Doctor? A. Never. Didn’t need them.

Q. At no time, you never bought any or made any presents? A. Never bought any in my life. Never made any presents. No, sir.

Q. When your children were growing up you didn’t buy any? A. When my children were growing up I never had that part of the household. That is the woman’s work.

Q. In addition to the wrapper you have shown us here— A. Yes.

Q. And in addition to the note— A. May I see that, please?

Q. What? What? A. I haven’t looked at this.

Q. Certainly. (Handing sleeping garment to the witness.) A. May I—(lifting tag on garment.)

Q. Yes. A. (The witness-examines garment at length.)

[763] Mr. Wilentz: May I inquire what the question is?

Mr. Reilly: The Doctor asked to examine the suit. There is no question yet. He wanted to examine the suit.

A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t put any mark on this suit, Doctor? A. None, none whatever.

Q. No mark of identification? A. None whatever.

Q. So that you would be able to recognize it the next time you saw it. A. None whatever.

Q. And you haven’t seen it now in close on to three years. A. Right.

Q. Have you ever seen babies dressed in these sleeping suits? A. What do you mean dressed? Did I ever see the dress put on them or after it was accomplished?

Q. Have you ever gone into a person’s house where they had little children and you were taken in to see little Andrew or little Michael in the crib and did he have one of these things on? That is what I mean? A. I don’t remember.

Q. You don’t remember? A. No, sir.

Q. Can you tell me where the wrapping paper is that this suit came in, the inside wrapping paper? A. I cannot.

Q. Was it tied up with any particular kind of cord? A. You mean this?

Q. Yes. I am now referring to the sleeping suit. A. I do not recollect that part of it.

Q. You left it on the piano; Colonel Lindbergh came and looked at it. Who was the first person after that that took this suit away, if you know? A. The Colonel more than looked at it. He what I call examined it, yes.

[764] Q. Did he take it away with him? A. He did.

Q. Did he take the wrapping paper away with him? A. He took everything away with him.

Q. Did he take the note away with him? A. He took the letters away with him.

Q. Both of them? A. Yes, sir.

Q. After obtaining the suit and the two letters? A. After what?

Q. Obtaining the suit and the letters? A. I beg pardon; I didn’t quite understand you.

Q. You received another letter, did you not, which is known as State Exhibit 56—S‑55 the envelope and S‑56 the letter (presenting same to the witness)? A. Yes, sir. May I see that one? (Counsel handed letter to witness.) Yes, sir. May I look at it?

Q. Certainly. A. (Witness-examines letter at length.) I received that letter with the signature on it.

Q. The postmark bears the date on or about March the 19th? A. Yes.

Q. And I assume that this letter was received after the sleeping suit? A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that your testimony that the sleeping suit was received about March the 17th then is about correct? A. I believe so.

Q. After receiving this letter, what did you do? A. I consulted with Colonel Breckinridge in my home.

Q. Did you go any place? A. Do you mean on that day? I couldn’t remember.

Q. On or about the next day in connection with this case? A. Couldn’t remember that unless you specify some errand or some motive for going. I don’t know.

Q. Now, showing you Exhibit S‑64 and S‑65, which bears the postmark “April 1st”— A. April 1st? May I?

Q. Yes. (Handing witness the exhibits.) Did [765] you receive it that day or the next day, the first or second, if you can recall? A. (Witness-examines exhibit at length.) I received that on or about April 1st, 1932, with a signature on the letter.

Q. Did you acquaint Colonel Lindbergh with the contents of the letter? A. Appoint what?

Q. Colonel Lindbergh with the contents of the letter. A. Did you say appoint? I couldn’t get you.

Q. No. Did you acquaint? A. Oh, I beg your pardon—yes, sir, acquainted Colonel Lindbergh—no, at that particular time we were—not we, I was exceedingly busy and I asked Colonel Breckinridge if he would kindly help in that matter.

Q. Was he living at your house then? A. He was—staying.

Q. Do you recall what day of the week you received this letter? A. The nearest recollection was Friday. I am not sure, around that time.

Q. Well, you know the letter said, “Have the money ready by Saturday evening—” A. Right.

Q. “—we will inform you where and how to deliver it.” A. Yes, sir.

Q. “We want you to put it in a certain place.” A. Yes, sir.

Q. “There is no fear that somebody else will take it. We watch everything closely. Please let us know if you are ready.” If you are—“agree and ready for action by Saturday evening. If yes, put in the paper, ‘Yes, everything O. K.’” Correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you put “Yes, everything O. K.”? A. I turned that over to Colonel Breckinridge, and together we talked over some ads; the particular one I couldn’t tell you now.

Q. Well, then on Saturday the money was brought to your house; is that correct? A. What date?

Q. Following this letter. A. April 2nd, yes, sir.

Q. Brought up in the afternoon; correct? A. As [766] nearly as I can recollect, yes.

Q. Now, how many people in your group— A. What do you mean, group?

Q. Colonel Breckinridge— A. Oh, go on.

Q. Colonel Lindbergh. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And yourself—knew the contents of this letter? All three? A. Yes, sir.

Q. It was not divulged to the press? A. Not—

Q. As far as you know? A. Yes; not by me.

Q. And, as far as you know, nobody outside of that little group, the Doctor and the two Colonels, knew anything about it? A. Since I received it from others I know nothing about that.

Q. But I am talking about— A. The group.

Q. Your group. A. The three knew it.

Q. Yes. A. And that is as far as I care to state.

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Reich didn’t know the contents of this letter, did he? A. I don’t know. You would have to ask him that.

Q. Well, you didn’t tell him, did you? A. I never tell anybody anything really about official business while it is being conducted.

Q. And who made the box? A. Now, “make” and “plan”—would you pardon me?

Q. Apparently it was planned in a letter. Who made it? A. No, it wasn’t planned in a letter I planned the making of the box.

Q. Did you plan that in a letter? A. I did not. I planned it from a letter that had been sent with the signature on a previous occasion. That letter—if you will tell me that I can go on with that. I don’t care about remembering—

Mr. Wilentz: You have answered the question, Doctor.

Q. The directions for the making of the box were [767] contained in a letter, were they not? A. The original request by the kidnappers or the intermediaries.

Q. Yes, the size and everything else was in a letter? A. Yes.

Q. So they planned it, not you? A. The box. That was only a diagram of what they wanted.

Q. Who made the box? A. A wood carver on Webster Avenue, near 198th Street or tooth Street.

Q. What is his name? A. I couldn’t tell you.

Q. What? A. I can’t tell you, but I would know it if you would recall it to me.

Q. Don’t be pointing at me. You had this box made? A. I did.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

The Witness: Don’t shout. I can hear you. I am not deaf. I can hear every syllable that you utter if you use your lips. All right.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, Doctor. You wait for the question, please.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Now we will get back to this letter. In a certain letter and I want to be precise about this question and I want you to understand it. A. Yes, certainly.

Q. In a letter from the kidnappers they drew a diagram of a box? A. Yes, sir.

Q. They asked that the money be enclosed in a box of about those dimensions, correct? A What dimensions?

Q. As indicated in their letter. A. Right.

Q. You then had the box made, didn’t you? A. Yes, sir.

[768] Q. According to those dimensions? A. And according to orders, yes, sir.

Q. Who were the orders from, the Chief? A. Colonel Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge, that is in conference. I won’t say “orders.” They never ordered me to do anything.

Q. Now we will cut out all the orders and all the conferences and get right down to United States talk, Doctor. A. Yes.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. All right. I withdraw the objection. I wanted to object to the cutting out business, because it is a part of the case.

The Witness: Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: Answer the question, please. Doctor.

The Witness: What was the question?

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Who made the box? A. A wood carver and box maker at Webster Avenue, near 198th Street. It is in the United States Theatre Building, I believe.

Q. When did he make the box? A. I can tell you from the letter they sent.

Q. No, tell me from your memory. A. Well, then, I don’t remember.

Q. You remember everything else about this case, don’t you? A. The date wasn’t important about making that box, sir, to me.

Q. No? The box that was to contain the ransom money was of no importance to you, is that correct? A. Not in the sense that you use it, no.

[769] Q. You knew it was an important link in the chain, didn’t you? A. Of what chain?

Q. The passing of the money, if it ever was passed. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has the box ever been found? A. I do not—

Q. As far as you know. A. I do not know.

Q. 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. Wilentz: 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.

Q. How much did you pay? A. Pay what?

Q. For the making of the box. A. About three dollars and a quarter.

Q. When did you pay it? A. At the time the box was made.

Q. Did you get a receipt? A. I did not.

Q. Why didn’t you ask for one? A. I never think in my local place of looking for a receipt for anything.

Q. Now, what was the box made of? A. That is what I meant by planning.

Q. Just tell us. A. I took whitewood—yes, I am telling you—I took whitewood, and they call that poplar, they call it honeysuckle; that is the same wood. I took whitewood and mixed it with other styles of wood until I got the color and the kind of a box that I wanted.

[770] Q. What kind of a box was that? A. A box made of layers of substance, a little thicker than veneer, so that at any time I could recognize the box; it was five-ply.

Q. Five-ply what, wood? A. Wood.

Q. Five distinct layers of wood? A. Yes, sir; carefully put together, as I recollect it.

Q. That made the sides how thick. A. The sides? Rough guess, five-eighths of an inch; three-quarters of an inch, about that.

Q. How long? A. The box?

Q. Yes. Show me with your hands, will you? A. Not yet. It was six inches by seven inches by fourteen inches, and I will give you my conception of what you ask me now. I think that six inches is about—will you get a ruler or something.

Q. No, we will take your recollection. Go ahead. A. About six inches (indicating.)

Mr. Wilentz: Hold it there now a minute. The Witness: Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: May we have on the record that the witness indicates the distance between his fingers which counsel—can we agree about what it is?

Mr. Reilly: Oh, yes, six inches by fourteen inches.

Mr. Wilentz: Indicates about six inches. The Witness: No—

Mr. Wilentz: All right now, you have answered the question. Now what else?

[771] Mr. Reilly: Well, he is going to give us the size of the box.

Mr. Wilentz: Give us the other dimensions.

A. You want the dimensions. By seven inches. That is enlarging that about an inch.

Q. That is depth, is it? A. I make an inch about from the edge of my thumb here to the end, because I have measured that.

Q. All right. A. Six by seven was the end of the box, and its length was fourteen inches, or as close as the artist could make it.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, Doctor, you have answered the question then.

Q. And when you took this box under your arm that night—and you did, didn’t you? A. What do ‘you mean? What night and what—?

Q. The night you passed the money. A. No, I didn’t.

Q. Well, did you take the box? A. No, sir.

Q. You didn’t take the hox? A. No, sir. Colonel Lindbergh took the box and put it on his seat.

Q. I am not talking about that. I am talking about when you walked up the street to meet the kidnapper. You had— A. You didn’t say so. Yes, sir, yes, sir.

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.

Q. I am jumping all those details and lectures. A. Well, they are important to me.

Q. All right. Let’s get as to what the kidnapper did. You have the box now, haven’t you? A. Yes, Counsel.

Q. You handed it to him? A. Well—

Q. You said you handed it to him? A. I did.

[772] Q. He got down on the ground? A. What is that?

Q. He got down on his knees? A. Yes, sir.

Q. He pulled the money out? A. Some.

Q. He put it in his pocket? A. Some.

Q. Not all of it? A. No, sir.

Q. How was the money. bound up, one package, wasn’t it? A. You know the bankers’ packages?

Q. Yes. A. That is the way the money was bound up, such as the bankers have.

Q. How was it; in fives—? A. I would have to calculate it.

Q. Were they wrapped in one package? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you see the kidnapper stuffing the money in his pocket? A. I did.

Q. Did you ask him to give you the box back? A. I did not. The money was in the box when he left me.

Q. Did he leave first? A. I think we both left together.

Q. Did you ever go back there and look for the box? A. I did.

Q. When? A. On several occasions.

Q. The first is all I want. A. Yes. Wait, now—Saturday night I gave him—the following Monday I went over there and I had heard from someone in that section—

Mr. Reilly: I object to this; it is not responsive.

A. (Continued)—that a grave was disarranged.

The Court: Not what you heard.

The Witness: Thank you. What I saw.

[773] By Mr. Reilly: Q. Monday you went over? A. Yes.

Q. What time? A. Around noon.

Mr. Wilentz: Would your Honor object to a slight recess at this time, to get some air in the room?

The Court: We will take a recess of—how long?

Mr. Wilentz: About five minutes.

The Court: We will take a recess of about five minutes.

(At I I:20 A. M. a recess was taken.) (The jury returned to the court room.)

The Court: The Clerk will poll the jury.

(The jury was polled and all answered present).

The Court: You may proceed when you are ready, Mr. Reilly.

Mr. Reilly: Thank you.

Cross-Examination continued by Mr. Reilly: Q. Doctor, I understand you to stay that you accompanied Colonel Lindbergh in a plane from Bridgeport? A. That what?

Q. You accompanied Colonel Lindbergh in a plane from Bridgeport? A. To where?

[774] Q. Somewheres off the Maine Coast. A. Right.

Q. Is that correct? A. Right.

Q. When was that? A. April 3rd, 1932. Pardon my delay; I was thinking.

Q. Sunday? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Fly all day? A. Not all day.

Q. Well, when did you land? When did you come back and land at the field in Long Island? A. What? Hicksville, I think it was. Right? Around six o’clock.

Q. The same day? A. The same day.

Q. So that all the search that was made for this boat, twenty-eight-foot boat, off the coast of Maine, after the paying of the ransom money, covered a period of from dawn, we will say, at Bridgeport, although you did say yesterday that you were advised that you would have to wait a while, the visibility for the plane was sort of low, is that correct? A. What do you mean? The what for the plane?

Q. The visibility. A. The visibility?

Q. For the plane to observe the water. A. Yes.

Q. Was sort of low, and you were advised to wait a while, is that correct? A. The visibility was low? I don’t understand that language. If you will put it in English—

Q. I will put it— A. Yes. I don’t understand it.

Q. You and I have a great difference in English, have we not? A. No, it is the way you express it.

Q. Do you have any difficulty in understanding me? A. In that, yes, sir.

Q. You don’t want me to talk baby talk, do you? A. I want you to talk in English; speak English.

Q. Let me see if I can recall your testimony of yesterday. A. Yes.

Q. In your English. A. Yes, sir.

Q. You did go to Bridgeport? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you arrived there at what time? A. Around six o’clock in the morning.

[775] Q. Correct. Did you take the plane immediately? A. We did not.

Q. Why? A. Because it was too dark.

Q. Then you did have to wait until it was light enough? A. That is right.

Q. For the plane to see? A. Right, for the Colonel to see.

Q. Do you know now what I mean by visibility? A. For the Colonel to see the plane. Not in that connection, it is not correct in English.

Mr. Wilentz: Don’t argue with counsel, please.

Q. What time did you leave Bridgeport? A. Around six o’clock in the morning or a little after that.

Q. You said at six o’clock it was too dark? A. A little after that.

Q. Seven? A. I think before that.

Q. How many miles up the coast did you fly? A. I didn’t measure it, but if you will show me a map I will tell you exactly.

Q. No. A. All right, I will give you my opinion then, that is all it is.

Q. That is all I want. A. From Bridgeport to Cuttyhunk is the best way I can describe that; Elizabeth Islands, Cuttyhunk, Horse’s Neck, Woodshole and Gayhead, are all in a vicinity, if you know any of those.

Q. Yes. A. The number of miles I haven’t calculated, but I could do that easily.

Q. Well, do you recall when the plane was over about Woodshole? A. Yes, sir.

Q. About what time of the day was that? A. Ten o’clock.

Q. Ten o’clock in the morning? A. As nearly as I can remember.

[776] Q. Now, you know, don’t you, that Woodshole—Massachusetts, isn’t it? A. Well, it is outside.

Q. Yes. A. Outside the coast.

Q. It is on the coast line? A. Yes, it is between two islands.

Q. Woodshole is the station of a Coast Guard ship? A. Right.

Q. Correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you arrived there about ten o’clock in the morning? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long did you stay in the air before the plane came down to the little cove you told us about yesterday? A. From Bridgeport to that little cove, I should judge, between nine and ten, eight and nine.

Q. Came into the cove at— A. Between eight and nine, I should judge.

Q. Between eight and nine, before you arrived at Woodshole? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you go up in the plane again? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long did you stay in the air? A. Stayed in the air until after four o’clock, between four and five—scouted.

Q. By “between four and five in the air,” do you mean that was the time you arrived back at Hicksville? A. No, sir.

Q. Then did you start back? A. That was in addition. It was getting dark and Colonel Lindbergh wanted to get back and investigate along Long Island to see if he could find the boat Nellie. Yes.

Q. Was there anything in the note that indicated Nellie, the boat, was along the Long Island Shore? A. The Long Island shore? The words, “Long Island shore,” did not appear in the note, as I recollect it, sir.

Q. Did the Colonel ever tell you why he wanted to go back to the Long Island shore? A. He didn’t, but I knew.

[777] Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. You have answered the question. You didn’t.

The Witness: He didn’t.

Q. So that you were back in Hicksville anyway around what? A. Around five or six o’clock; six o’clock, yes.

Q. On Sunday of the same day? A. Sunday of April 3rd, 1932.

Q. Did you ever go out on a plane after that in connection with this case? A. No, no.

Q. You did insert or there were some insertions of ads after that? A. Oh, yes.

Q. You never received any so-called ransom notes, did you, after the payment of the money? A. Not with the signature on.

Q. But you did receive some notes? A. Oh, yes.

Q. Without the signature? A. Yes, even last week.

Q. Then did you attend a boathouse conference at any time? A. Never. That is if I understand what you mean by boathouse.

Q. Was there any conference at your shack, City Island? A. Never.

Q. Well, did you visit City Island afterwards. A. Yes.

Q. Did you visit City Island on or about April 10? A. I do not recollect that, but the chances are I did.

Q. That would be the second Sunday of April, 1932. A. I couldn’t say that I did.

Q. Were you in the habit of going to City Island on week-ends? A. Yes, sir. What do you mean week-ends again?

Q. Saturdays and Sundays. A. No, sir.

Q. Saturdays or Sundays, either day. A. Just to visit, that is right.

[778] Q. When you went to City Island on these weekends or Saturdays or Sundays, with whom would you associate? A. The neighbors, people whom I had known for thirty-five years on the island.

Q. Would you talk to them? A. Much.

Q. Now, on April 10th, 1932, at City Island—A. Yes.

Q. —did you say to any of the neighbors that you believed there was a gang of four or five connected with the Lindbergh baby kidnapping?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. I object to the question, if your Honor, please. I have no objection to the question if it is limited to some particular person or persons, but it is impossible to meet this sort of a question, if your Honor, please, in any other way.

Mr. Reilly: It is cross-examination. He said he talked to his neighbors many times on City Island. It is a small place.

Mr. Wilentz: May I suggest in response to that, if your Honor, please, that I take it if counsel directs this form of a question that it is based upon some information and that would have to be on the basis that some person or persons whom he knows he thinks were addressed in that fashion. Now, just to leave the question an inference just wide open, I don’t think is quite a fair question.

The Court: I think the rule is that the witness should have his attention directed to individual or individuals and the time and place.

Mr. Reilly: But may I first ask him in a general way if he spoke to the neighbors, and [779] if he says no, am I not bound by his answer? Is this not more or less collateral?

The Court: Spoke to the neighbors about what?

Mr. Reilly: About this kidnapping.

The Witness: Certainly.

The Court: Yes, certainly.

Q. On City Island on April 10th?

The Court: Yes.

A. Certainly.

Q. You did? A. Yes.

Q. You did speak to the neighbors? A. I did, many times.

Q. Many times you spoke to them? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now in your conversations with the neighbors of yours on City Island on April 10, 1932, did you tell them that you believed that it was a gang of four or five that had kidnapped the Lindbergh baby?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

A. I don’t remember. I don’t remember.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, that will do.

Q. Did you tell the neighbors at City Island, your friends, at any time that you were the Jafsie mentioned in the ads?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, please, Doctor. I have already made an objection to a [780] similar question. I thought your Honor ruled on it.

Mr. Reilly: The Court ruled that I might ask it.

Mr. Wilentz: Oh, well, I didn’t understand that.

Mr. Reilly: Now this is indicative of more conversation that he had after he announced that he was the Jafsie.

Mr. Wilentz: I have no objection to those questions if they are directed as to somebody, so that we might be able to meet it, if necessary.

Mr. Reilly: I can’t ask him all at once, General. I will do the best I can.

Mr. Wilentz: I don’t mean that, sir, if your Honor, please. What I mean is, to whom was it directed.

The Court: Well, I have already indicated, I think the witness is entitled to have his attention directed to the person, the time and the place.

Mr. Wilentz: Therefore I object to the word “neighbor” as a general term.

The Court: Now, then, what is your question?

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Did he—did you, rather, on April 10th, 1932, [781] on City Island, to the neighbors of that small place, people that you had known for thirty-five years, tell them that you was the Jafsie mentioned in the ad?

Mr. Reilly: I don’t see any harm in that.

The Court: Well, what is the objection to it?

Mr. Wilentz: There is no particular objection to that particular question, but as to conversations—

The Court: Let that particular question be answered.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes.

A. I don’t remember.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Did you ever tell anyone that you were the Jafsie mentioned in the ad? A. When?

Q. At any time? A. Yes, sir; everybody I knew.

Q. And that included the neighbors on City Island, didn’t it? A. Well, as a general statement, yes.

Q. Now, will you give me the names of some neighbors on City Island that you talked to and that you told them that you were the Jafsie of the ad. A. Every one that I met, after it was published by someone else.

Q. Well, after it was published? A. Yes, that was it, never before.

Q. All right. A. Never before.

Q. I asked you if it was published by someone [782] else; did some neighbor come to you and say, “Doctor, are you the Jafsie in the ad?” A. Many.

Q. Give me the names of some of them. A. I don’t remember the names, but if you name anyone I will tell you, with pleasure.

Q. Give me the names of some of your neighbors on City Island. A. Yes. In regular order from my own home: Mr. Carmen—will you stop me if I make a mistake?

Mr. Wilentz: No, no. Go on, Doctor.

The Witness: Mr. Carmen, Mr. Booth, Mrs. Booth, Mr. Van Allen—Will that be sufficient for you? If you name any others I will tell you yes or no. Mr. Horace Smith. Mr. Robert Barry. It is pretty hard to name names without tabulating them.

Q. Those are all people you talked with? A. All people I have spoken with.

Q. At some time or other? A. Did you say all the people or did I speak to all those people?

Q. All those people. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And during your conversations with all those people did you at different times tell them you were the Jafsie in answer to their questions? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you also tell those people different incidents of your transactions with the so-called kidnappers? A. Only after—Yes, sir—

Q. After it was published? A. Right, yes, sir.

Q. You have been talking about this case? A. All the time, every time I could.

Q. To anybody that would talk to you? A. Anybody that would talk to me, yes, sir.

Q. Can you remember every statement you made to everybody you talked to? A. I don’t believe it is possible. No, I don’t believe it is possible for a [783] human being to do it. If you name anyone I will tell you.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, Doctor, you have answered the question.

Q. You don’t write stenography, do you? A. Well—

Q. Yes or no? A. Wait a minute—stenography? No.

Q. You never made any record of your different conversations with any person in this case, did you? A. No.

Q. Did you ever say to anybody— A. Outside the official statements under the Department of Justice and the Police Departments—

Mr. Wilentz: All right, Doctor, you have answered the question.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Whatever you told them, Doctor, they wrote down? A. Yes.

Q. You did not? A. No, I didn’t write down, I told them.

Q. And now, of course, you are depending upon your memory in 1935 for what happened in 1932? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever say a woman took part in the negotiations?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. That I object to, your Honor, please, unless the time and place and person are indicated in the question.

Mr. Reilly: He says he has talked to everybody that talked to him.

[784] The Court: I know, but we ought to proceed in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Reilly: Your Honor holds that that is not a proper question?

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Reilly: May I have an exception?

The Court: Yes.

(Exception allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly. {L.S.} THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.)

Mr. Wilentz: Just put your papers away, please, Doctor.

The Witness: This was hurting me. I have adjusted it.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Do you recall speaking to a group of newspaper men in Bronx County on May 15th, 1932? A. I don’t remember the date, but if you will specify, I will be pleased to tell you.

Q. Do you remember being in the District Attorney’s office on May 13th, 1932, District Attorney McLaughlin, of the Bronx? A. McLaughlin? I was there. The date—?

Q. In May—let’s see if we can get the date.

Mr. Wilentz: May, 1932.

The Witness: Yes, sir.

[785] Mr. Reilly: Did you see some newspaper men there?

The Witness: I couldn’t tell you that.

A. (Continuing.) I couldn’t distinguish the newspaper men from others.

Mr. Wilentz: All right.

Q. Did you talk to some people there who said they were newspaper men? A. Before or after the transaction? May 15th?

Q. Yes, but—

Mr. Wilentz: May 15th, 1932.

A. I couldn’t remember that.

Q. May 15th, 1932? A. The date specified in the—business men and newspaper men meant nothing to me.

Q. How many visits did you make to District Attorney McLaughlin’s office in May? A. One; one that I remember.

Q. One that you remember? A. Yes.

Q. And, on that day, irrespective of the exact date, did you talk to some newspaper men? A. I do not—

Q. Or people who said they were newspaper men? A. I do not recollect.

Q. Did you talk to a group of men after you left District Attorney McLaughlin’s office? A. I do not remember that. If you will specify I will be pleased to tell you.

Q. If I repeated a conversation to you that I thought might refresh your recollection— A. Yes, sir; I would know if you said anything I ever said.

Q. Did you say on the visit to the District Attorney’s [786]  office in the Bronx, in May of 1932, to a group of people that asked you questions, did you say to them there at that time that you knew the abductor? A. I knew the abductor—on May—?

Q. Yes. A. On May 15th, 1932—I did not, to my recollection.

Q. Now, Doctor, did you ever go out on a boat in connection with this case? A. Did I ever go out? Yes.

Q. Were you taken blindfolded aboard a boat at any time? A. I was never blindfolded by anybody in my life.

Q. This boat that we are speaking of, where was that? A. What boat?

Q. I asked you if you were ever on a boat. A. I did.

Q. In connection with this case. A. That is right, sir.

Q. I asked you whether you were blindfolded and you said no. A. Never, never.

Q. Now, where was the boat, please, and under what circumstances did you get on the boat? A. The Department of State Troopers, under Colonel Schwarzkopf, who was in close touch with me, sent a man, he may be new, sent a man—shall I name him, sir?

Q. Go right ahead.

Mr. Wilentz: Tell us what happened.

A. Yes. By the name of Samuel Laon, and he had a companion with him. They asked me to go with them to Boston. I got on their boat and went with them to Boston, Massachusetts, on the case, if that is what you refer to, sir.

Q. No, I am referring— A. Steamboat.

Q. Were you ever on— A. It was a steamboat.

[787] Mr. Wilentz: All right, sir.

Q. Were you ever on a small boat? A. Now what do you mean, rowboat?

Q. In connection with this case. No, a cruiser. A. Wait now. Sailing or moving—was I ever on a boat?

Mr. Wilentz: In connection with this case.

The Witness: Never.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Did you ever stand on the deck of a boat upon which you thought the lady had been hidden below the deck? A. Never.

Q. Did you ever visit a boat anchored just above Throgg’s Neck? A. Many times.

Q. In connection with this case? A. In connection with the case.

Q. Well, all right. Give me the first time you were on a boat at Throgg’s Neck in connection with this case? A. I didn’t get on the boat that I went to see. I stayed in my own rowboat, a pilot boat.

Q. Did you see some men on the other boat? A. I saw some men on the other boat.

Q. Did you talk to them? A. I did.

Q. Did one speak with a German accent? A. I couldn’t recollect that unless you told me what he said.

Q. You spoke to him. I don’t know what he said. A. I don’t know then. I don’t know either.

Q. Well, give me a description of the men you talked to? A. One of them was known—shall I?

Mr. Wilentz: Answer the question.

[788] The Witness: One of them is known as “Coal Barge John.”

Q. Give me a description of him, will you? A. A man who has been working on those boats for years. Right above Throgg’s Neck you said, didn’t you? I mean in a northerly direction. When I say “above” I distinguish the words “northerly direction” and “above,” is that fair? Yes, north of Throgg’s Neck. Yes.

Q. How many men were on the boat? A. I couldn’t tell you.

Q. How many men did you see? A. Two at least.

Q. You went out of that boat believing those men were the kidnappers—

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

The Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: All right. I object to any questions about his beliefs, if your Honor please, without counsel asking him any more, because apparently the witness won’t wait for my objection. But I object to any questions about his beliefs at that time or any time, because they are not material and admissible, I think counsel knows that.

Mr. Reilly: I think they are material for this reason: If he ever saw anybody on a boat and came back and made any statements concerning that person that he believed to be an interested party in this particular case different from what he said at this trial, I think it is material.

The Court: Well, of course, the Court will [789] have to deal with the questions as they are put, Mr. Reilly.

Mr. Reilly: I cannot put them in advance, because my witness is not a child and he listens to me as I address your Honor and the value of the cross-examination will be swept away.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. How many boats did you visit after you paid—and I am not talking about steamboats that you rode on or the rowboats that you rowed in; how many boats did you visit after you paid the ransom money in connection with this case?

Mr. Wilentz: Excluding steamboats and rowboats?

Mr. Reilly: I don’t want anything he rode on. I want boats he went to visit.

The Witness: I don’t recollect—one. One that I told you about was the only thing that I visited, and then I did not go aboard.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Now, Doctor, do you recall being in Childs’ Restaurant, New York, Broadway, in the neigbborhood of 67th Street, during the month of December, 1934? A. I was there at Childs’ Restaurant, visited it frequently, but the exact moment I don’t know.

Q. Well, which Childs’ Restaurant? A. Well, I will tell you—

Q. Let’s see if we can get that? A. There is a kind of an opening in a northeasterly direction—

[790] Q. What street? A. Well, St. Nicholas Street, I think, is about 66th Street or near that, and then it was one block south, or near it, 65th, 64th or 63rd, about that. I can point to it.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, Doctor, you have answered it.

Mr. Wilentz: All right, Doctor.

Q. Did you meet there a man named Marcus Griffith, or Griffin? A. Marcus Griffith?

Q. Yes, of the New York Inquirer? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you talk to a man in Childs’ Restaurant the last time you were there in December, 1934? A. Yes, sir.

Q. About this case? A. I couldn’t tell you, but if you specify I will remember.

Q. Did you tell Marcus Griffith of the New York Inquirer in Childs’ Restaurant during the month of December, 1934, that the child’s body was brought back to the spot where it was found buried and you knew that to be a fact? A. I don’t remember having said so.

Q. Is your memory poor? A. It is not. It is a question of my belief that I am thinking of.

Q. You won’t say you didn’t say it? A. I won’t say I didn’t—I don’t know.

Q. Now, after the defendant was arrested and you saw him in Centre Street Police Headquarters—is that correct? A. Police headquarters I think—yes, yes.

Q. Did you ask a detective in the Bronx for some pictures of the defendant so you could study them? A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Will you say now that you did not, after the arrest of this defendant, ask Detective Callahan of [791] The Bronx for some pictures of this defendant so you could study them? A. I did not.

Q. Did Detective Callahan of The Bronx give you some pictures of the defendant? A. I don’t know—I don’t know him.

Q. Did anybody give you any pictures in The Bronx of this defendant? A. Not that I remember.

Q. And did you say to Detective Callahan— A. I don’t know; I don’t remember—

Q. Wait a minute, please. A. I see.

Q. Did you say to him when he gave you the pictures, “Don’t tell anyone you gave me these pictures?” Yes or no. A. No.

Q. Now, I want the exact date, if you can recall, when you say you saw Hauptmann in The Bronx and you were riding in a bus. A. The exact date of the month I do not know, but it was in the latter part of August, 1934.

Q. And what bus were you riding in? A. Riding from the New Rochelle section down, that is in a southerly direction toward New York.

Q. And you didn’t think it of enough importance to write that date down, did you? A. Not the date.

Q. Give me the number of the bus. A. I didn’t take that. The number of the bus I was in?

Q. Yes. A. No, sir; I didn’t take it.

Q. Did you take the chauffeur’s number? A. I did not.

Q. Did you call out to the chauffeur, “Get that man?” A. ”Get the man?” No, it was none of my business.

Q. None of your business? A. No, sir.

Q. To get the man? A. For me; no, sir.

Q. Do you want this jury to believe that it was none of your business—I will reframe the question. A. Yes.

Q. If it offends the General. It is your sworn [792] testimony then, is it, that you saw the man in August, 1934? A. Yes, sir.

Q. On the street in The Bronx, the man to whom you had handed the $50,000 ransom, the man you believed had double-crossed you, and you made no outcry? A. I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that I didn’t make any outcry.

Q. Did you make an outcry? A. I did.

Q. In the bus? A. In the bus.

Q. Give me the name of a person that heard you. A. I don’t know anybody. I was alone.

Q. Did you take anybody’s name? A. I didn’t know anybody.

Q. Did you make any effort to have the bus driver run the man down? A. He couldn’t—

Q. Did you ask him to? A. Yes, sir.

Q. To run him down? A. No, I didn’t, on account of the traffic. You see, he couldn’t run him down; there might have been fifty people killed.

Q. That is what you think about it? A. That was my thought then.

Q. Did you ask anyone in the bus to give their name and address? A. I did not.

Q. In what direction did this man go that you saw in August? A. Northeasterly direction, that is—

Q. Where did he disappear? A. He disappeared in the woods north of Pelham Parkway.

Q. And where did you ride in that bus before you got off? A. Rode to the crossroad of Pelham Parkway and Williamsbridge Road. Williamsbridge Road runs, well, almost in a northerly and southerly direction; Pelham Parkway goes to the east, towards City Island.

Q. Do you recall a detective, an investigator by the name of Val O’Farrel? A. Never saw him to my recollection. He died I believe, didn’t he?

[793] Q. Yes. But he died after the defendant was arrested. A. I didn’t place him. All right.

Q. Now, do you recall a few days after the defendant was arrested being on the piazza of your home at 2974 Decatur Avenue, the Bronx? A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk there to anyone about this case and particularly to O’Farrel? A. Never saw O’Farrel in my life to my recollection.

Q. Would you recognize a picture of him if you saw him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I show you a picture—A. Yes, sir.

Q. —and ask you whether or not you recall ever seeing that gentleman? A. I never saw the gentleman in my life.

Q. Of course, you know he is dead now, don’t you? A. I do, but the truth is just the same.

Mr. Wilentz: Wait a minute.

Q. Well, who did you talk to on the piazza of your home? A. Beg pardon?

Q. Who did you talk to a few days— A. My own immediate family, their friends and mine only.

Q. Anybody else? A. Not that I recollect.

Q. Do you remember during the negotiations that you were carrying on with the alleged kidnappers during the month of March, 1932, driving to a theatre, the Windsor Moving Picture Theatre in The Bronx; you know where that is, don’t you? A. Yes, sir; yes, sir.

Q. It is at Fordham Road and Kingsbridge Avenue, isn’t it? A. Windsor; yes, sir. Whether I drove or walked I could not tell you now.

Q. Do you remember going there one night with Al Reich? A. I don’t recollect that. If you will tell me the play or—Windsor? I don’t recollect ever having gone to the Windsor Theatre with Mr. [794] Reich, unless you would give me a hint that I might recollect it. I don’t remember it.

Q. If you can’t recollect the date, I can’t ask you any more. His Honor has ruled on that. A. No.

Q. Doctor, did you ever in your real estate business that you have told us about rent any farms in the neighborhood of Hopewell, New Jersey? A. I was never in Hopewell.

Q. I asked you whether you rented any farms in the neighborhood of Hopewell, New Jersey? A. Did I rent them?

Q. Yes. A. No.

Q. Did you ever know a Mrs. Day? A. No.

Q. Who lived— A. No.

Q. You don’t know where she lived? A. I don’t know any such person.

Q. Do you know a Captain Barnard Eels? A. Barnard what?

Q. Eels. A. The word Barnard is odd. Captain Eels I know very well.

Q. Do you know a Mrs. Peacock? A. Mrs. Peacock, I do.

Q. Captain Eels is at City Island, is he not? A. No, sir.

Q. Where is he from? A. Around Cuttyhunk.

Q. Where is Cuttyhunk? A. Cuttyhunk is just maybe southeast a little of the Elizabeth Islands, and just west of that station that you said, Woodshole, in that vicinity.

Q. Woodshole? A. To the west of that.

Q. That is a Government station for coast guard cutters? A. Yes, sir; yes, sir.

Q. And you knew him from up there, did you? A. No, I knew him from City Island before.

Q. Where did you know Mrs. Peacock from? A. She was a tenant of mine.

Q. Where? A. At City Island.

Q. Did you ever tell anyone that the headquarters [795] of the kidnappers was at City Island? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever tell anyone that you knew the headquarters of the kidnappers? A. No, sir.

Q. Was at City Island? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever tell anyone that you were receiving mail from City Island from an agent of the kidnappers? A. Not to my recollection.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

The Witness: Oh, pardon me.

Q. I ask you whether or not you received this letter (showing to the witness)? A. You said Mrs. Peacock?

Q. I asked you whether you received that letter? A. Yes.

Q. When? A. I couldn’t tell you that. Let me see now (examines paper). I couldn’t tell you exactly when because I have received more from the same family and I do not specify the Captain himself, Captain Bernard Eels.

Q. Can you tell me when you received that letter? A. I cannot.

Q. Will you say you didn’t receive it during the ramson negotiations? A. No.

Q. You did or did not receive it? A. I couldn’t tell you.

Q. Couldn’t tell me? A. No.

Q. I show you another letter—

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. Pardon me a minute. I ask that the letter referred to now be marked for identification.

Mr. Reilly: No objection at all.

[796] (Letter referred to marked Defendant’s Exhibit D-8 for identification.)

Q. Did you receive this letter? A. (Witness-examined letter at length.)

Mr. Wilentz: Will you answer it.

The Witness: Is there a question? A. Yes.

The Court: Did you receive the letter?

The Witness: I received such a letter, but it was dated, it is not exactly as this is. It was dated.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Did you receive it? A. Someone tore the date off. That would have to be from memory purely and simply. When those folks were my tenants, just before they moved in place place—

Q. What year? A. Rough guess, November, November, 1932.

Q. Where was your place that you are talking about? A. Corner of Minneford Avenue and Beach Street, a little bungalow.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. Do you expect to mark it for identification?

Mr. Reilly: What is the number of the exhibit? The number of the exhibit, the one just referred to by the witness?

The Reporter: This one here?

Mr. Wilentz: What is the number?

[797] The Reporter: D-9 for identification.

Q. Well, there is no doubt that these two are your letters, letters you received? A. Not my writing.

Q. Letters you received? A. Two letters I received, yes.

Mr. Reilly: I offer them in evidence.

Mr. Wilentz: I have no objection if the defense—

The Court: No objection?

Mr. Wilentz: No.

The Court: Well, it is a little irregular, but I suppose they really should go in as a part of the defendant’s case.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. If he offers it as a part of his case—

Mr. Reilly: As a part of my case.

Mr. Wilentz: A part of the defendant’s case.

The Court: And there is no objection?

Mr. Wilentz: And there is no objection.

The Court: Let them be admitted.

The Reporter: D-8 and D-9.

(Letters referred to were received in evidence [798] and marked Defendant’s Exhibits D-8 and D-9.)

Q. Who did you give these letters to, Doctor? A. I don’t remember. I think I left them on my desk in the shack—in the bungalow at City Island.

Q. Do you remember two ladies calling on you during the time that you were conducting these ransom investigations? A. Two ladies?

Mr. Wilentz: When and where, please?

Mr. Reilly: At his home on Decatur Avenue, Bronx.

The Witness: At my home on Decatur Avenue, Bronx—many hundreds of them.

Mr. Reilly: Will you recognize one of them if you saw her? A. I think so.

Mr. Reilly: Mrs. Corran, stand up, please.

The Witness: Have her come over this way, please, so I can get a good look. (A woman came forward and stood before the witness.)

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Do you recognize this lady as being one of the ladies that called at your home? A. There were two ladies, Mrs. Bush— Yes, sir; I recollect her.

Q. Did you give these two letters to her? A. I did not. I beg pardon. I think to her companion, to her companion.

Q. Did you say in her presence and to her companion that the handwriting on these two letters or [799] of these two letters were the handwriting of the kidnappers? A. No, sir.

Q. And did you say to this lady and the lady that was with her that you knew the kidnappers to be four in number? A. Not to my recollection.

Q. You won’t say you didn’t say it? A. I won’t say either till I am sure. Might I ask a question?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute now. You have answered the question, please.

The Witness: All right; all right.

Q. And one of these ladies was a Mrs. Bush, wasn’t she? A. Right.

Q. Who formerly lived in Flemington, New Jersey? A. I only know that by her own statement.

Q. Didn’t she exhibit to you as evidence of the fact that she came from this very town checks from her bank account on the Hunterdon County National Bank (showing a check to the witness)? A. I will see.

Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, I object to the question because I don’t see that it makes any difference what Mrs. Bush told him as to where she lived.

The Witness: (Aside to Mr. Wilentz) She didn’t say.

Mr. Wilentz Well, I will withdraw the objection. [800] I suppose if it doesn’t matter, it can’t do any harm.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Did she exhibit a check? A. No, sir; not to my knowledge.

Q. Didn’t she say she came from Flemington, New Jersey? A. She came from the vicinity. The word “vicinity” she used; yes.

Q. She said also that she was familiar with the terrain surrounding Colonel— A. With the what?

Q. —the terrain and country. I am now using map language. Terrain. A. I see. How do you spell that name?

Q. T-e-r-r-a-i-n.

Mr. Wilentz: Please, please now.

The Witness: All right. I want to know.

The Court: Please don’t occupy time unnecessarily.

A. The earth, yes; I know it now.

Q. Did she tell you that she came from the neighborhood? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Surrounding Colonel Lindbergh’s estate? A. Not Colonel Lindbergh’s estate; no, sir.

Q. In the neighborhood? A. No, sir; Flemington.

Q. And that she was familiar with Hopewell? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then didn’t you ask her to identify herself? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And didn’t she then draw out some checks and say, “Here—” A. No, sir.

Q. “—are checks from my bank account?” A. No, sir.

[801] Q. Did she tell you that she had been in the real estate business? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ask her where she lived down here? A. I did.

Q. Where? What was her answer? A. Her answer was that she owned two farms, one of which—you refer to Miss Bush, not to this lady?

Q. Yes. A. She answered me and this is the real estate transaction that comes to my mind. Wait a minute. She told me that she bought two farms here, that she worked one herself. That is right.

Mr. Wilentz: May I know when this conversation is alleged to have taken place?

Mr. Reilly: This conversation was in March—

The Witness: As nearly as I can remember.

Mr. Reilly: 1932.

The Witness: It was in 1932.

Q. In March in your home?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. Let’s ask him.

The Witness: On the front veranda and in the front room when other people came and occupied the veranda.

Q. After your name had been announced as Jafsie and people knew that you were conducting some investigation? A. People knew that I was Jafsie.

Q. Conducting some investigation? A. Right, right; that had been published.

[802] Q. Yes, and you gave her these letters, these two letters. A. Yes.

Q. Yes. Now, Doctor Condon, you say that you have been an educator for how many years? A. Fifty-one years.

Mr. Wilentz: Oh, pardon me, since they are in evidence on the part of the defense, would counsel mind reading the letters to the jury so they will know what they are?

The Court: Well—

Mr. Reilly: I don’t think that is part of our case to read them now and confuse the jury.

Mr. Wilentz: Well, I don’t think there ought to be an air of mystery about them, if your Honor please.

Mr. Reilly: There is no air of mystery, we will follow them up in the usual course of chain.

Mr. Wilentz: Well, they were offered in evidence. They are in evidence.

Mr. Reilly: Yes, they are in evidence.

Mr. Wilentz: I do not know why they should be withheld even at this time.

The Court: Well, perhaps—

Mr. Reilly: Formal link in our case, it will be much more intelligent to the jury as we progress to have this lady go on the stand and give her conversation connected with the letter in evidence and then they will be read to them.

[803] The Court: When are you proposing to read those?

Mr. Reilly: Yes.

The Court: When are you—?

Mr. Reilly: In the case, in the defense, when Mrs. Corran takes the stand and gives her recollection of the conversation with Dr. Condon.

The Court: My thought was that if these letters were important enough to mark in evidence, that it might add to the clarity of the situation if they could be read now, so that the people could understand what counsel is talking about. 

Mr. Reilly: The letters in themselves are not so important as to what the letters contained insomuch as it is the handwriting of the writers and that I don’t care to disclose Mrs. Corran’s testimony at this time unless I am forced to.

Mr. Wilentz: Well, if your Honor please, we have been spending, I think, about fifteen or twenty minutes about this phase of the case and two letters have been introduced by the defense. I take it that the jury is as much a part of this case as the rest of us. Now, counsel knows what is in the letters, the witness knows what is in the letters, and I know what is in the letters; they are in evidence, your Honor, if you want to see them, but we are withholding them from the jury. I cannot understand that phase of it.         

[804] Mr. Reilly: We are not withholding at all. As I told your Honor, and I don’t want any misstatements made or exaggerated statements made in front of this jury that we were withholding anything—it is the handwriting that we are concerned with, and the handwriting, as I understand, in this particular case, the General is going to rely on later on by the calling of his experts. I don’t think it fair or proper at this time for us to expose our reasons why these letters which this witness gave to our witness should not be given in advance before his handwriting witnesses testify.

Mr. Wilentz: Well—

(Counsel held a whispered consultation.)

Mr. Wilentz: Counsel agrees for the time being, rather than make an issue of it, that these letters have absolutely no reference to the Lindbergh case or mention of it.

Mr. Reilly: No, it is the handwriting and the conversation of the Doctor when he turned over the letters. One more question and I am through.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Were you ever connected with School 35—or rather, the school on 35th Street near Ninth Avenue, Manhattan? A. I was principal.

Q. You were principal there, were you not, from 1899 to 1902? A. Right.

Q. When you left there in 1902, where did you go, what school? A. I was transferred by request [805] to Public School 97 then, No. 12 now. They changed the numbers.

Q. By whose request were you transferred? A. By my own.

Q. Weren’t you transferred by the Department of Education? A. They do all that transferring.

Q. Yes. Weren’t you transferred not at your request but at the request of the teachers in the school? A. No, sir.

Q. Weren’t you transferred to another school because of conduct—

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, if your Honor please. Now that I object to.

Mr. Reilly: I have a right to put the question.

Mr. Wilentz: I know, but you can’t—

Mr. Reilly: The record should show my question even if—

The Court: The Doctor testified, as I recall, that he was transferred at his own request.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir.

The Court: I suppose the cross-examining counsel have a right to search him in that respect.

Mr. Wilentz: As to whether or not that is true, but if your Honor please, and I take it a courtroom cannot permit the assassination of a witness by an inference. The reason is what I object to. I don’t object to the most searching [806]  examination as to whether it is at his request or somebody else’s.

The Court: The question may be put. You may object to it and I will rule upon it.

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir.

The Court: I can’t rule upon a thing when I don’t know what it is.

Q. Weren’t you transferred after being principal thirteen years—three years there, wasn’t it? A. Do you ask me?

Q. Yes; 1899 to 1902. Right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Three years, right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Question withdrawn. Had you even been transferred from any school before? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many times? A. Twice in 50 years.

Q. Now Public School No. 32 was known as the William Woods School, am I correct? A. I do not know now.

Q. It is at 357 West 35th Street? A. That is right.

Q. New York City. Is the present principal Dr. John H. Grotkopp? A. I don’t know.

Q. Have they an alumni association connected with that school? A. They have.

Q. Do you know the president of the alumni association? A. If you will give me his name—

Q. Franklin Johnson? A. No, sir.

Q. Now I ask you again, weren’t you transferred from that school in 1902 not at your request but by orders of the Department of Education—

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

[807] Q. —because of conduct unbecoming a gentleman—

Mr. Wilentz: Just a moment.

Q. —arising out of your conduct with a woman teacher? A. No, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

Mr. Reilly: I think we have a right to investigate not only convictions of a witness, if there are any, or his moral turpitude.

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.

The Court: The witness answered the question “No, sir.”

The Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, while the answer is in the record and it is in our favor, I still want to protest to your Honor against this form of a question as to other witnesses, too, and when they come I expect to object again, because I think they are unfair to the limit.

Mr. Reilly: Now, when I ask a question—

The Court: There is nothing before me, The question has been asked, it has been answered, and it is in the record.

Mr. Reilly: And I move that the remarks of the Attorney General after your Honor ruled, be stricken from the record.

[808] The Court: I decline to strike out his remarks.

Mr. Reilly: I except.

The Court: Take your exception.

(Exception allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly. {L.S.} THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.)

Mr. Reilly: Now may we adjourn for lunch while I go over my files and papers?

The Court: One moment. Quiet, quiet. I would like the jury to retire now and come back at 1:45. I want the people to remain seated where they are in the courtroom until the jury has retired and until the defendant has retired.

(At 12:32 the jury retired.)

The Court: The prisoner is now remanded to the custody of the Sheriff and he may retire with the officers.

The court will now take a recess until 1:45 p. m.

(At 12:34 p. m. a recess was taken until 1:45 p. m.)


(1:45 p. m.)

The Court: The Clerk may poll the jury.

(The jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)

The Court: Is the defendant in court?

Mr. Reilly: Yes. We have finished with Dr. Condon.

The Court: What is that?

Mr. Reilly: We have finished with Dr. Condon.

The Court: You have finished with Dr. Condon. Mr. Attorney General, the defense has announced he is finished with Dr. Condon.

Mr. Wilentz: I just have a few questions, if your Honor please, as soon as the witness—is the witness here?

The Court: Is Dr. Condon in court?

Mr. Hauck: Yes, he is here. We have sent for him, your Honor.

JOHN F. CONDON, resumed the witness stand.

Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. Dr. Condon, there has been some talk about your athletics and your familiarity with it. Just one [810] question or two about it. When you were at college were you active in athletics? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Play football? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Captain of your college team? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And are you the holder of a Congressional medal for—

Mr. Pope: I object to the question as immaterial.

Mr. Wilentz: I will withdraw the question if counsel objects.

Q. You will recall that with reference to the first letter that you received at your home and which you say you got about ten o’clock that night after which you went to Rosenhain’s restaurant and called Colonel Lindbergh’s home, with reference to that incident my recollection is that your testimony indicated that one of the letters was not opened until you got to Colonel Lindbergh’s home. Is that the fact or not? A. That is not the fact.

Q. Would you like to tell us what was the fact? A. Yes, sir. I took two letters, which were enclosed, one of which had signals on them, as I learned after, and one addressed to me, which had no signals, symbols or signature upon it. I had that one which was addressed to Colonel Lindbergh and sealed in my hand with the other one; called up Hopewell and asked if I might see Colonel Lindbergh as I had a letter that I thought might be important because in the opening—

Q. No, never mind. That is what you said. Now, as a result of that what direction did you get over the telephone from the person you believed to be Colonel Lindbergh?

Mr. Reilly: I object to it on the ground [811] that he did not know Colonel Lindbergh’s voice at that time.

The Witness: I did not—

Mr. Wilentz: Counsel has gone all over that.

The Witness: I did not—

Mr. Reilly: I went over—

The Court: You may inquire of the Doctor whether or not he now knows that that was Colonel Lindbergh’s voice.

The Witness: I say the first one who came to the telephone was not Colonel Lindbergh.

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Well, as the result, at any rate, of whatever it was that was said to you over the telephone that night, you being in Rosenhain’s Restaurant and the voice being elsewhere down at Hopewell, what did you do? A. I asked permission to open a note.

Mr. Reilly: I object to it.

Q. What did you do as the result of it; did you open it? A. Well—

Q. After you talked on the wire? A. I got permission—

Mr. Reilly: I object to it.

The Witness: All right.

[812] The Court: The question now is what did he do. He may state that.

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Tell us what you did, Doctor? A. So I went to the telephone and a voice directed me—right?

Mr. Reilly: I object.

Mr. Wilentz: Counsel can’t object. He can move to strike out. The witness should be permitted to answer an orderly procedure followed.

Mr. Reilly: The Court has ruled that the conversation was inadmissible. He was about to say “A voice directed me.” That is a conversation.

The Court: I did not understand that that was the purport of the testimony.

The Witness: No.

The Court: The question was what did he do.

Mr. Reilly: The answer was—he started to say “A voice directed me.”

The Court: That may be stricken out.

Mr. Wilentz: I will try to regulate it, if your Honor please, so what Mr. Reilly objects to won’t get into the record.

The Witness: Thank you. I opened the letter addressed to Colonel Lindbergh and read [813] that letter which contained the signature of the kidnappers to someone at Hopewell.

Q. And did you do that at the request of the person with whom you were talking?

Mr. Reilly: I object to it, that is another ingenous way of getting in the question.

Mr. Wilentz: I will withdraw the question.

Mr. Reilly: It is not re-direct examination.

Q. As the result of the conversation which you had over the telephone with Hopewell that night from Rosenhain’s, did you then open that letter you are talking about? A. I did.

Q. And was that the letter which you talked of as first being sealed and addressed to Colonel Lindbergh? A. It is.

Q. And when you read that letter over the telephone did you describe whether it was at your own instigation or at the request of the person on the other side, the symbol and the signature? A. I read that letter.

Q. Will you please answer the question? A. It is rather complicated, counsel.

Q. I don’t doubt it a bit. A. It is.

Q. Did you refer to the symbol at all when you were talking over the telephone? A. I did.

Q. And following that, you went to Hopewell at the request of the voice on the other end? A. I did.

Q. So that my recollection is that earlier in the testimony, however, you stated you took the sealed envelope to Colonel Lindbergh. A. I did, that is an error.

Q. All right, that is an error. A. That is an error.

[814] Q. Now, speaking about the sleeping suit, when that sleeping suit arrived and before it was ever opened—I withdraw that. When that sleeping suit package was opened, who was present in your house to the best of your recollection? A. Colonel Breckinridge—

Q. I see. A. —is the only one that I remember.

Q. How about your daughter, was she there?

Mr. Reilly: I object to it as leading. He said Colonel Breckinridge was the only one there.

Mr. Wilentz: He says—

The Witness: My family is always there.

Mr. Reilly: In answer to my question this morning he said Colonel Breckinridge was there

Q. Tell us—

Mr. Reilly: Now, there has been a recess and I think we should be concerned and confined to re-direct, strict re-direct examination without the leading questions.

The Court: What is the present question?

Mr. Wilentz: The first question was about who was there, and he said Colonel Breckinridge and I asked whether his daughter was there and he said it is too leading.

The Court: He may answer that question. A. Yes, my daughter was there.

[815] Q. All right, sir, now, with reference to the wood carver that you spoke about and you gave the address and not the name, did you give the name to the authorities at the time? A. I did.

Q. In connection with some of the questions about the airplane trip or trips I think Mr. Reilly included trips to Maine, I think unintentionally. The place was up around Massachusetts, isn’t that it? A. I never went to Maine, no.

Q. No, but where you did go was up in the vicinity of Massachusetts? A. Of these Islands described in the note.

Q. Well, is that in the vicinity of Maine or Massachusetts? A. Massachusetts, vicinity—well it was up toward Massachusetts, New Bedford.

Q. But not Maine? A. No.

Q. All right. Now about the bus; as I understand it, in August, 1934, you were on a bus? A. Yes.

Q. And while on that bus, my recollection is you stated that you saw John? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do when you saw John with reference to making an effort to apprehend him? A. I arose from my seat and told the bus driver to stop.

Q. Did he stop? A. He did not.

Q. Then what happened? A. The traffic was going at that time in a westerly direction along the northerly side of Pelham Parkway, which runs in an easterly and westerly direction.

Q. Well, did he finally stop? A. He did.

Q. And did you get out? A. I did.

Q. Did you make an effort to apprehend this man? A. I searched the best I could, but he had gone away. I couldn’t see him.

Q. Did you report that incident to the authorities? A. I reported it to the Department of Justice.

Q. Now, some short time ago, when counsel for the defense was interrogating you with reference to [816] what you did or what you didn’t say to various people— A. Yes.

Q. —that you have met in these years, the question was asked you whether or not you didn’t tell somebody that the child’s body was moved to the place where it was eventually found. Now let me ask you this: Did you at any time from March 1st, 1931— A. ’32.

Q. —1932, and up to the present time, did you at any time and do you know now how that body was placed in the grave in which it was found in Mercer County, New Jersey? A. I do not.

Q. And you did not then? A. I did not then.

Q. Early in the cross-examination by our distinguished adversary you were asked the question: did you learn that he phoned Betty Gow at half past eight the night of the kidnaping—referring to Mr. Johnson. A. I said—

Q Just a minute. now. My recollection is that your testimony was: “I knew that, the night of the kidnaping.” Now, is that correct? A. No. I knew that was so on the night of the kidnaping.

Q. When did— A. I didn’t know it on the night of the kidnaping.

Q. When did that information come to you? A. Will you pardon my distinction there?

Q. All you have got to do, sir, is come along with me and we will be finished in a minute. A. Yes.

Q. When did you ascertain that—not accurately; to the best of your recollection. A. It was after my meeting with John at Woodlawn Cemetery on March the 12th, 1932.

Q. Where did you get the information, in other words? A. From John.

Q. About the newspapers? A. No.

Mr. Reilly: Don’t lead him, Mr. Attorney General, please.

[817] The Witness: No.

Mr. Reilly: Go ahead. I have been waiting to hear this.

By Mr. Wilentz: Q. What I want to know is this, sir: at some time or other you learned that Miss Gow had received a telephone call from Mr. Johnson? A. Yes.

Q. When did that information come to you and how did it come to you if you remember? A. It came to me through general gossip and the newspapers.

Q. That is all. A. That one point, yes.

Q. When was the first time that you saw the symbol which is attached and affixed to these various notes which are in evidence? A. About March 12th, 1932.

Q. The first time you saw the symbol? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What date did you receive the first note? A. I beg your pardon? The first time I received the symbol—around the 9th or 10th of March as nearly as I can recollect, 9th or 10th.

Q. When you saw it for the first time, under what circumstances did you see it? A. The opening of the sealed letter which was addressed to Colonel Lindbergh, to the best of my recollection.

Q. My recollection is, if you don’t mind, Doctor, that in describing the cough which you heard once while you were with John, that you referred to it as pulmonary or something to that effect. A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you mean by that? A. To my mind, it is plain that when a man coughs, he coughs—

Q. Please tell us what you meant by that particular expression as to John that night? A. That any slight difficulty in breathing through the lungs or [818] compressed lungs would make you cough.

Q. That was your conclusion from the cough? A. That was my conception at the time.

Q. You had no way of knowing and did not know whether it was tuberculosis or what it was, did you? A. I had not.

Mr. Wilentz: That is all, Doctor, for a minute, unless Mr. Reilly has some questions.

Re-Cross-examination by Mr. Reilly: Q. Doctor, in any of your lectures or in any of your public appearances heretofore have you ever had any difficulty in expressing yourself in the English language?

Mr. Wilentz: I object to the question as not being material or competent, it is argumentative, that is all.

Mr. Reilly: I will prove in a minute why it is material, if the Court will allow me.

The Court: Well, he may answer yes or no.

The Witness: Will you repeat that question for me?

Q. In any of your lectures and public appearances, the number of times you have been before audiences or making speeches any place, have you ever had any difficulty in expressing yourself? A. Never.

Q. You pride yourself on your education, your degrees and your knowledge of English, is that correct? [819]

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute now, please. Just a minute.

The Court: Is there an objection.

Mr. Wilentz: I object, if your Honor please.

The Court: Sustained.

Mr. Reilly: May I have an exception.

The Court: Take your exception.

(Exception allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly. {L.S.} THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.)

Q. Now you come in here at the close of your cross-examination and you say that when you used the language yesterday that you had taken a sealed note to Colonel Lindbergh at Hopewell that that was a mistake? A. I did say that and it was a mistake, yes.

Q. Was it a mistake in English? A. A mistake in English? No.

Q. You did not use the wrong words, did you? A. Stating it? I did not use the wrong words at the time.

Q. When you testify now, rather when you testified yesterday and used the language that you knew the night of the kidnaping that Red Johnson had phoned to Betty Gow, was that a mistake in English? A. It was.

Q. Last night after you left here, where did you go? A. To the hotel where I am stopping.

Q. In Trenton? A. Yes, sir.

[820] Q. With whom did you talk? A. (No answer.)

Q. Connected with the prosecution. A. I don’t know, but maybe that was in the automobile, I do not, I did not even think of it.

Q. When you arrived there, or at any time today, were you questioned about the mistakes of English, as you call them, you made yesterday? A. I was not.

Q. When was it first called to your attention by anyone that you had made a mistake yesterday when you said you took the unsealed or, rather you took the sealed envelope, unopened envelope, to Hopewell? A. It occurred to myself—

Q. Where and when? A. —as I was leaving the automobile, going home from here—that is, to the hotel, sir.

Q. Who did you have lunch with today? A. Samuel Leon, of the New Jersey State Police, who was assigned to—what will I say—escort me, and Alfred J. Reich.

Q. I show you a picture, Doctor, and ask you if you ever saw this person. A. As the photograph is presented to me, I can’t say that I did. I may have. I have taught 46,000 people, and I may have seen him, but I don’t know.

Q. Did you see him in 1932? A. 1932? Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you see him after you handed the money over the hedge in the cemetery? A. Not to my knowledge. He made no impression on me if I did.

Q. Did you have many visitors at your home after— A. Oh, many.

Q. After you paid over the money? A. Many.

Q. Did you have the same visitors, the same individuals call there many times? A. Yes.

Q. Will you say now whether or not the original living person whose photograph I showed you didn’t call on you many times after the payment of the ransom [821] money? A. I could not say. I would only know by the conversation and the events which occurred during that conversation or those—

Q. Then the recollection of people’s faces make no impression on you? A. They make a fine impression on me.

Q. You say now you can’t remember this man? A. That man? I did not think of seeing, I don’t recollect having seen him, and he did not make any impression upon me as seen in that photograph.

Q. You have seen this photograph in the newspapers, haven’t you? A. I have—this one?

Q. Yes. A. I haven’t taken notice.

Q. You have never seen this picture in the newspapers in connection with this case? A. I don’t recollect.

Q. Have you seen the newspapers in connection with this case? A. Many.

Q. Many of them? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have read and seen, you have seen the faces and read the captions under each picture, haven’t you? A. Not each picture; too many for that.

Q. Well, do you recollect now whether you have ever seen this picture in the newspapers? A. Just this particular time I do not.

Q. You won’t say that it never was in the newspapers? A. Oh, no, I would not.

Q. Can you recall the names of any of the pictures you saw in the newspapers?

Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. If your Honor please, I object to the question.

The Court: Well, Mr. Reilly, I am obliged to call your attention to the fact that this is not re-cross-examination.

[822] Mr. Reilly: I know it isn’t, but I was going along so nicely I didn’t think the General would even object. (Laughter.) May I have the picture marked for identification.

The Court: Is there any objection to that, Mr. Attorney General?

Mr. Wilentz: No.

The Court: It may be marked.

(The photograph referred to was marked D-10 for identification.)

Mr. Wilentz: Doctor, thank you, sir.

The Witness: Is that all.

Mr. Wilentz: That is all, sir.