STATE
vs. HAUPTMANN
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.”
“No.”
“ Why?”
“The leader would smack me up.”
“Excuse me, are you a German?”
“No, Scandinavian.”
“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.”
“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?”
“Yes.”
“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.)
AFTER RECESS
(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.”
“John!”
“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.
“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.’”
“Over—”
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.”
Right?
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.”
“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.)
STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
vs.
BRUNO
RICHARD HAUPTMANN
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.)
[809] AFTER RECESS
(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment