STATE vs. HAUPTMANN
January 7, 1935
[361] LEWIS J. BORNMANN, sworn as a witness on behalf of the State.
Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. And, March 1st, 1932, I take it, you were connected with the State
Police of New Jersey? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how long had you been
connected up to that time? A. About
six years.
Q. Now, where did you reside then? A. I was assigned
to special duty at the training school at Wilbertha.
Q. What part of the state did you
originally come from? A. At that time I was living in Wildwood, New Jersey.
Q. Wildwood, New Jersey? A. Yes.
Q. But you were assigned to the
State PoliceTraining School at
Wilbertha? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Wilbertha is stationed in Mercer County, isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. Somewhere near Trenton?
A. Near West Trenton.
Q. Near West Trenton. And, it was
while you were there, was it, that you received a call to come to the Lindbergh
home? A. While I was there, I was detailed to go to the Lindbergh home.
Q. And did you go there? A. I
did.
Q. When you got there, who did you
meet? A. I met Trooper Wolfe.
Q. That is the gentleman who was just
on the stand? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else? A. And Colonel
Lindbergh.
Q. And, did you see Officers Wolfe
and Williamson of the Wilbertha
Station? A. Not then—
[362] Q. When you got there, I take it that Colonel
Lindbergh spoke to you and told you briefly what had happened? A. He did,
and Trooper Wolfe gave me a brief summary.
Q. And then did you go up to the
nursery, and if you did, with whom? A. I went to the nursery with Colonel
Lindbergh, that is, I followed him up to the nursery and Detective De Gaetano,
who had accompanied me to the home, followed me.
Q. That is to say that when you got
there, you came with Detective De Gaetano? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the three of you then,
Lindbergh, De Gaetano and yourself went up to this nursery? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, when you got there, what did
you see? By the way, what time did you get there? A. Approximately 11:15.
Q. What did you see when you got
there, to the nursery? A. I saw the usual nursery, a
number of children’s play toys, crib and so forth, and on the southeast window
ledge was a plain blank envelope which Colonel Lindbergh pointed out and says, “I
think that is a note of some kind.”
Q. I see. What else did you see?
A. I looked around the room, I saw a crib, the covers appeared to be almost undisturbed, pinned
down with two safety pins, one on the
right and one on the left at the head. I then went toward the window and
directly under the window was a small chest of drawers with a black suit case.
On the right hand side top of this suit case was a smudge of yellow mud.
Directly under the suit case on the floor was another smudge of mud. I looked
around the room further and near the center of the room, just about the center
was another smudge. I made a brief sketch of the room and asked Colonel
Lindbergh about the windows and he
said he wasn’t quite sure [363] how the windows had
been, but he would call Betty Gow.
Q. Then, you spoke to the various
people in the home? A. I did.
Q. Now, were you there when this note
was tested? A. I was.
Q. And who was it—And by whom—Who
were the testers? A. It was tested for fingerprints by Trooper Kelly of the Identification Bureau.
Q. You referred to the note with the
blank envelope on the window sill that you saw in the nursery that night? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I show you Exhibit E—or,
rather, Exhibit S‑17 with the initialling “F-A-K” on the back of it and ask you
if that is the envelope? A. Yes, sir; it appears to be.
Q. How do you know that is the
envelope? A. Trooper
Kelly initialed it in my presence.
Q. I also show you note, and ask you if that was
contained in the envelope referring to Exhibit S‑18? A. Yes, that is the note.
Q. After the tests there didn’t
appear to be any fingerprints, did there, as far as you know? A. No, sir;
there did not. We also fingerprinted the window ledge and around the window,
but there appeared to be none at
all.
Q. That is, you attempted to get
some tracings of fingerprints around the window ledge and so forth. Why did you
test the window ledge? A. Well, it was thought possibly that there might
be a print on the window.
Q. That is the southeast window?
A. Yes.
Q. Now I suppose you came out of
that room? A. Yes, I did, I
came downstairs.
Q. When you came down did you use
your flashlight around the
building? A. Not immediately. I spoke to other members of the household,
and when I was through, Trooper Kelly had arrived at that [364] time; we went back in the nursery. That is
when we examined the note and after processing several fingerprints, I then
went outside to look at footprints which Trooper Wolf had told me were out
there. While I was in the nursery, Colonel Lindbergh told me that a ladder laid
out beyond the house where I also
wanted to see that.
Q. Did you see the ladder through
your flashlight, through the rays of your flashlight? A. I came around the
house and followed a number of, walked on a number of boards laying there, and
when I got up to where Trooper Wolf had described these footprints would be, I
flashed the light; but almost immediately I flashed the light further on to
look at the ladder—I heard a noise out there and I saw a number of men standing
around out there who I took to
be reporters who were arriving at that time. I followed the walk on around and made a circle and picked this ladder up.
Q. Is that the ladder you picked up
(exhibiting)? A. Yes, sir; it is.
Q. Three sections? A. Three
sections. Two sections were lying
together, and one section about ten foot further on.
Q. You say two sections lying
together and one section about ten feet
away? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the two sections that were
lying together, were they connected or disconnected? A. They were connected to a certain extent.
Q. And I suppose that means
disconnected to a certain
extent? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us the extent. A. One
section had split. The two upright pieces had split, allowing the sections to
separate. They had been connected with a dowel pin.
Mr. Wilentz: Is the dowel pin here?
[365] Mr. Hauck: It is on the ladder, yes.
Q. You were talking about a dowel
pin. I take it that is what you mean by a dowel pin (indicating)? A. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Wilentz: First, may I offer the
ladder so when we refer to it—
Mr. Reilly: I object.
The Court: Do you object to its
introduction?
Mr. Reilly: I do object to it most
strenuously upon the ground that there is no evidence that this ladder was used
at that house that night or that it is in the same condition now that it was in
then. It is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial at this time.
The Court: Well, Mr. Attorney
General, it would seem that you ought to show that the ladder is now in
substantially the same condition—
Mr. Wilentz: I will.
The Court: (Continuing)—as it was
when it was found that night, and then you might offer it. Then we will listen
to any objection that is made to it.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Officer, is this ladder substantially in the same
condition as it was that night when you found it? A. Yes, sir; it is.
[366] Q. This white board, however, wasn’t on it, was it? A. No, that has been put on it since.
Q. Will you tell us in what other
manner it is different now than it was then? For instance, I see a number here,
No. 2, with F. K. on there; do you know what that is? A. Yes, that is
Trooper Kelly’s initials placed on there
that night immediately after—
Q. The writing is his writing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And these numbers alongside of
the nails, they have been—
A. The nails were removed for the purpose of analysis.
Q. For the purpose of analysis. And
they are put back now with those—at any rate these little clips were not on at
the time? A. No, sir; they were not, nor were those white—
Q. Those white numbers, these
identifying marks that you are speaking of now were not on at the time? A. No, sir.
Q. On this piece of board I notice a
cut. That cut was not there at the time? A. No, sir; it was not.
Q. Except for that, those changes
that I have indicated to you which I take it were made for the purpose of making tests— A. They
were.
Q. (Continuing.) Is it the same
ladder? A. Yes.
Mr. Wilentz: I now offer it.
Mr. Reilly: Pope will argue it.
Mr. Wilentz: Is there any objection?
Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.
Mr. Pope: Wait a minute.
[367] Mr. Wilentz: I still offer it.
Mr. Pope: We should like to cross‑examine upon this
ladder before it is offered in evidence.
The Court: You may do so.
By Mr. Pope (voir dire): Q. Did you take the ladder away from
the Lindbergh home? A. Take
it away?
Q. Yes, you yourself? A. To
where?
Q. Anywhere, I don’t know.
A. Not immediately,
no.
Q. Did you take it when it was taken
away? A. Some months later, yes.
Q. And what was done with it after
you picked it up? A. I turned
it over to Trooper Kelly.
Q. And what did he do with it?
A. He processed it for
fingerprints.
Q. You say that after the ladder
came into the possession of the State
Police it was taken apart, the nails drawn out and it was taken apart? A. Yes, sir; it was.
Q. And were all the nails drawn out?
A. Not all them; no, sir.
Q. How many of them were?
A. All except three,
I believe.
Q. And were the cross rungs taken
off? A. Yes, sir;
they were.
Q. And then they were put back?
A. Yes, sir; they
were.
Q. I understood you to say that the
light-colored piece of wood which shows on the righthand side of the ladder as
I look at it from here was not on the ladder that night? A. No, sir; it
was not.
[368] Q. That has then been put on there since you found the ladder? A. It has.
Q. And it was not a part of the ladder
at the time it was found? A. No, sir; it was not.
Mr. Pope: We object to the
introduction of the ladder at this time; several reasons. In the first place,
its custody has not been traced, down to the present time. We don’t know who
has had an opportunity to play with this ladder, toy with the ladder or to
change it or alter it. And, in the second place, it definitely appears from the
testimony of this witness that in several respects the ladder is not now in the
same condition that it was at the time it was found, namely, that some of the
rounds have been removed from the ladder, that it has been taken apart, that
nails have been drawn out of it. In addition to that, they also tell us that
there is now attached to the ladder a piece of light wood which was not on the
ladder at the time it was found and was not a part of the original ladder. We
insist that before this ladder is evidential, if it is ever to be admitted in
evidence, that its custody and possession must be traced carefully through
every hand that had possession of it from the moment that it was found on the
Lindbergh Estate down to its production in
court today. We have a further
objection to the admission of the ladder at this time. There is no evidence
here at this time to show, nor is there any circumstance in evidence which
tends to show, that this ladder was used for the purpose of entering the
Lindbergh house that night.
[369] The Court: (Stepping to the ladder) Mr. Pope—
Mr. Pope: Yes, I am coming.
The Court: Mr. Pope, is that the
piece of wood that you have been talking about that was not on the ladder but
now is (indicating)?
Mr. Pope: That is what the witness
says.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Wilentz: He has explained the reasons for it, if your
Honor please.
The Court: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Wilentz: All right.
The Court: I understand that.
Mr. Pope: I also notice that there
are, if your Honor please, several tags with numbers on them on the ladder.
Mr. Wilentz: That has been called to the attention and explained,
if your Honor please.
Mr. Pope: And that there has been a piece sawed out here
(indicating).
Mr. Wilentz: That is the one referred to and explained.
The Court: If counsel is finished—
Mr. Pope: And that there is
apparently a [370] piece of wood missing from the bottom
of one of the three sections. I also observe that the ladder is
bound on the side with pieces of white string, and that it is also tied up near
the top, or that there is tied to it a dowel pin, which is not shown to have
been its condition at the time it was found.
The Court: It may well be that it is
desirable before this ladder be actually offered in evidence that it be made to
appear, so far as counsel are able to make it appear, in whose custody this
ladder has been, and what has been done with it. I am not saying now that such
proof is absolutely essential to the admission of the ladder in evidence; I am
merely indicating to counsel that it might be desirable to present such proof
as counsel are able to present upon those aspects. But in order that that may
be done, I think the ladder should be marked for identification, so that it
will be subject to the examination of such witnesses as counsel see fit to call
and call it to their attention.
Mr. Wilentz: Then, if your Honor please, I offer it for
identification.
The Court: It may be marked for
identification.
Mr. Pope: May we have the number, please?
The Reporter: S‑32 for
identification.
[371] Mr. Wilentz: Q. Three sections of the
ladder will be marked as one exhibit for identification, is that it?
Q. Now, officer, did you also find
a dowel pin there? A. There was a dowel pin in the ladder which has been connected.
Q. Connected with— A. With
another section.
Q. That is, two sections of the
ladder were some way connected with a
dowel pin? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that what you mean?
A. They had been.
Q. They had been and you also
brought in the dowel pin, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir; it is in the ladder.
Q. You brought the ladder to which
you refer and the dowel pin into the Lindbergh home, didn’t you? A. I did.
Q. When you talk about a dowel pin,
you talk about a connecting rod,
isn’t that it, between, in about there, where one section joins another section
of the ladder?
A. That is correct.
Q. That makes two sections when
they are joined? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Then, if there is another section
to be joined by a dowel pin, that is at the other end of the section, is that so? A. Correct.
Q. Then, of course, when a dowel pin
connects this one section with the other, it folds in together, then, doesn’t
it, if it is built that way? A. Yes, sir; they suspend, make an extension.
Q. Now, you turned over the ladder
and the dowel pin which you found out there that night to Trooper Kelly for
processing? A. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. Wilentz: All right, I will offer
this dowel pin for identification.
[372] The Reporter: Exhibit S‑33 for identification.
(The dowel pin is marked S‑33 for
identification.)
Q. You also found a chisel there that night, did you not? A. I did.
Mr. Pope: We object to the leading
questions. Ask him what he found, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Wilentz: Thank you, Mr. Pope.
Q. As I understand it, you have also
testified that you found a ladder and a
dowel pin. What else did
you find? A. I found a three-quarter inch wood chisel.
Q. And what did you do with it? A. I also turned it over to Trooper Kelly.
Q. Is this the chisel which you
found? A. Yes, sir;
it is.
Q. And this chisel you turned over to Trooper Kelly, too?
A. I did.
Mr. Wilentz: I offer this chisel which the witness says
is the chisel that he found there for identification.
(The chisel was marked S‑34 for
identification.)
Q. And S‑34 you also turned over to Kelly, is that it?
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: Is there no objection to
the chisel?
[373] Mr. Wilentz: It is just for identification. I have not offered it.
Q. I show you a picture of what
purport to be some bushes and some woods and ask you whether you recognize that at all?
A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. What does that show? A. That
shows a spot very closely to
where the ladder was laying.
Q. Does that show the grounds upon
which the ladder was lying when you got it? A. Yes, sir; it does.
Q. The ladder, the chisel and the
dowel pin? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Does it include that spot where
the third section of the ladder was
lying? A. It does.
Q. So that this is a part of the
Lindbergh Estate as I understand it and particularly that part where you found the ladders and the chisel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it correctly shows that part of the estate, is
that it? A. It does.
Mr. Wilentz: That I offer in
evidence.
Q. While counsel is looking at this
picture, will you tell us how far away from the house that bush is that you see
there, the nearest bush as you face the picture?
Mr. Pope: No objections to the
picture, but we object to the caption marked on the bottom of it. If it is
obliterated, we have no objection.
Mr. Wilentz: We will have the
gentleman on in a few minutes, if you don’t mind, who took it, to explain it.
If you want it mutilated, however, I have no objection.
[374] Mr. Reilly: No, let it go.
The Court: If there is no objection, it will go in and be
marked as an exhibit.
(Photograph is received in evidence
and marked Exhibit S‑35.)
Q. How far away I think I was asking
you, how far away from the southeasterly corner of that house is that bush?
A. Approximately 70 feet.
Q. That is the bush known as Exhibit
S‑35, the nearest one to the house?
Mr. Pope:S‑35? What was S‑34, the chisel?
Mr. Wilentz: Yes.
Q. And the S‑35 which is in
evidence, the exhibit, as you look at it and as the jury would look at it,
presents the same view a person would have if he looked from the house towards
the bush, isn’t that right?
A. Exactly.
Q. Though it doesn’t show the house there.
A. No, it doesn’t. It is
looking away from the house.
Q. In other words, right from the
picture toward the house is about how far? A. About seventy feet.
Q. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: You may have the
witness, sir.
Mr. Reilly: Will you be agreeable to a five minute recess
to get some fresh air in here?
Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sir.
[375] The Court: Yes. And I wish to speak with counsel. The
Court will take a recess for five minutes and the jury may retire if they wish
to.
(Five minute recess taken at 3:14 o’clock.)
(After a short recess.)
The Court: The Clerk will poll the
jury.
(The jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)
The Court: Now, gentlemen, you may proceed, when you are
ready.
Mr. Peacock: The Attorney General
will be here in a moment, your Honor.
The Court: Well, no haste, no haste
at all.
Cross‑Examination by Mr. Reilly: Q. What time did you get—Detective, is it, a detective? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you get there? A. Approximately 11:15.
Mr. Reilly: I will suspend a moment until the jury look
at that photograph.
Mr. Wilentz: What is that?
Mr. Reilly: They are looking at the
photograph.
[376] The Court: I do not understand.
Mr. Reilly: The jury is looking at a
photograph.
The Court: Oh, yes.
Q. And when you arrived there did
you enter by the front door?
A. I did.
Q. Who did you see? A. Colonel
Lindbergh and Trooper Wolf.
Q. Where were they? A. Standing
just inside the door.
Q. Did the Colonel have his rifle
with him then? A. He did not.
Q. Did you see any of the ladies of
the household? A. Not just
then, no.
Q. Did you see the butler?
A. Not at that time.
Q. From the entrance hall where did
you go? A. I went right up
the stairs to the nursery.
Q. Were the lights on in the
nursery? A. They were.
Q. Now, is it correct in saying and will you so testify
that in the nursery there was a crib; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. A table in the center of the
room? A. Correct.
Q. Chairs near that table?
A. One chair.
Q. One chair. Where were the other
chairs? A. There were several other chairs
scattered around in different parts of the room.
Q. In the room? A. Yes.
Q. They were not all up against the
wall or out in the room? A. No. There was a parlor chair at one end of the
crib and there was another chair near the other window.
Q. The room was well furnished? A. To a certain
extent, yes.
[377] Q. A rug on the floor? A. Yes.
Q. A screen around the crib?
A. Around the head.
Q. Yes. And you say eventually you
found a smudge on the window?
A. I did.
Q. And on the radiator top? A. Not on the window—no.
Q. Where? A. Just below the
window on a black suitcase, just a scrape.
Q. Did you preserve the suit case?
A. Not at that time.
Q. When did you next see the suit
case? A. I have seen the suit case several times since then. I don’t just
recall, the next day some time.
Q. Where was it the next day?
A. Still in the same
position.
Q. Who took it away? A. That I
can’t say.
Q. When did you next see it?
A. Oh, I saw it often
then during the time I stayed there.
Q. Have you seen it lately? A. Not recently, no.
Q. Where did you last see it? A. In the nursery.
Q. And since it has been removed
from the nursery you have never
seen it. A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Now, you say there was a smudge
on the floor. A. Yes.
Q. How far away from the window?
A. Just below the suit case on the floor. The rug did
not extend that far and the first smudge was on the wooden floor.
Q. Were you there when some
photographs were taken? A. No, I was
not.
Q. Did you point out that smudge to anyone?
A. It was called to the attention of Trooper Kelly in my presence.
Q. By whom? A. By Trooper Wolf.
Q. Was that the only smudge in the
room? A. No, there was another
smudge.
[378] Q. Where? A. About midway of the rug, midway between the window and the crib on the rug.
Q. Was that called to anyone’s
attention? A. Yes,
it was the same all at once.
Q. Was Colonel Lindbergh in the room at the time it was
called to the attention of Trooper Kelly? A. Yes,
he was.
Q. Did you see Kelly take
fingerprints from the ladder?
A. I did.
Q. Did you see him take any fingerprints or try to take
any from the crib? A. No, I didn’t. I understood
it was taken later.
Q. By whom? A. By Trooper Kelly.
Q. Did he take or try to take
fingerprints from anything in the room except
the window sill and the ladder? A. I understand everything in the room was
printed.
Q. Everything in the room was tested
for fingerprints? A. It was.
Q. By Kelly? A. It was.
Q. Correct? A. That’s correct
to the best of my knowledge.
Q. Did you examine the windows?
A. I did.
Q. What was the condition of the
French window? A. All the
windows were closed, the French window, the shutters were locked.
Q. How about the window itself?
A. That was closed.
Q. Locked? A. No, it was not
locked.
Q. Closed? A. Closed.
Q. Does it lock on the inside?
A. It does.
Q. What kind of a lock, a bar lock?
A. Lock similar to these windows.
Q. A throw lock? A. Yes.
Q. Throw over? A. Just swing it
around.
Q. The other two windows in the room
were open as far as the catch was concerned?
A. As far as the catch was concerned, yes.
[379] Q. Did you examine them? A. Just glancing over.
Q. Did Kelly make any effort to take
any fingerprint from the catch, the
thumb catch of either one of those windows? A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did he get anything from it?
A. No; there was
just a smudge there, but no distinct print.
Q. A smudge on what? A. Just
near the latch on the glass.
Q. Inside or outside? A. It was
outside.
Q. A smudge on the glass outside?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you preserve the glass? A. It
was not necessary; there was no—
Q. No, I didn’t ask if it was
necessary or not. Did you preserve it? A. It is still there, so far as I
know.
Q. It was not taken out and
preserved for evidence? A. No, there
was no necessity for it.
Mr. Reilly: I move to strike that out as a voluntary
conversation.
The Court: I didn’t get it, Mr. Reilly. Let the
stenographer repeat it.
(Last question and answer read, as
follows: “Q. It was not taken out
and preserved for evidence? A. No, there was no necessity for it.”)
The Court: Strike out “there was no
necessity for it,” as not responsive to the question.
By Mr. Reilly: Q. How long did you remain in the nursery the first
time? A. Long enough to talk to Colonel Lindbergh and Miss Gow.
[380] Q. About how many minutes? A. I should say anywhere up to 20 minutes or a half hour.
Q. Where was Miss Gow, do you know
where she was in the house when they sent to her to come to the nursery?
A. I believe she was in the living room, with Mrs. Lindbergh and Mrs. Whateley.
Q. Downstairs? A. Downstairs.
Q. Did you see the butler there?
A. After I had gone
downstairs, yes.
Q. You didn’t see him when he came
in? A. No, I saw no one but Colonel
Lindbergh.
Q. What size shoe did the butler
wear? A. I never questioned him as
to that.
Q. Wasn’t everybody in the house that
night, with the exception of the
Colonel and his wife, under suspicion?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to the question if, your Honor
please.
Mr. Reilly: I think it is perfectly proper cross-examination.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Reilly: Here is the footprint in
the mud and people around the building.
Mr. Wilentz: That is not the
question, whether there was a footprint in the mud or people around the
building; the question is whether or not anybody and everybody around there
wasn’t under suspicion. Now, if your Honor please, I think that necessarily
reflects upon a limited number of people. I should say—
Mr. Reilly: Well, there isn’t any
doubt but what it reflects upon a limited number of people. We had
justification for it. Here is a footprint—
[381] Mr. Wilentz: Well, just a minute now. My distinguished adversary—I disagree
with my distinguished adversary; I say he has no justification for it and that
is just the purpose of the objection, and I say up to this time there is no
cause or warrant for that sort of a question. I think if the question was
intended to show that if these officers should have questioned everybody in
sight, that is all right, but to say that there was suspicion upon everybody,
if your Honor please, is stating something that is not warranted.
Mr. Reilly: I say that in a case of such monumental
importance as it occurred that night this
officer knew the minute he arrived, as a trained detective, and as every
detective knows, that excluding the father and mother of that child everybody
that night should have been under suspicion; and I ask him now whether or not
he knows the size of Mr. Whateley’s shoe. Because it is quite possible cross-examination
may develop that this might have been the size of Whateley’s shoe.
Mr. Wilentz: I have no objection to
that, the size of Mr. Whateley’s shoe. That is different than what was asked
about suspicion.
Mr. Reilly: I am driving up to that.
Mr. Wilentz: Pardon me.
The Court: How can this witness
possibly know whether anybody in that house was under suspicion or not?
[382] Mr. Reilly: From a police viewpoint.
Q. Well, take off the word “suspicion”.
Subject to questioning, am I correct about that? Everybody in that house was
subject to questioning, am I correct? A. Naturally they were.
Q. You didn’t know this English butler, did you? A. No.
Q. And you didn’t know his English
wife, did you? A. No.
Q. And you didn’t know the English
nurse maid, did you? A. No.
Q. And you had no reason to believe
in their integrity until you investigated them, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. And you were there to put
everybody under investigation except the
Colonel and his wife, weren’t you? A. To a certain extent, yes.
Q. To a certain extent. And you
found a footprint, didn’t you? A. I
did.
Q. And you knew it wasn’t the
Colonel’s footprint, didn’t you? A. And I knew it wasn’t
the butler’s footprint.
Q. Did you take him out and measure
it? A. I questioned him.
Q. Never mind about questioning him.
Did you take his shoe off and
try to fit it in there? Did you? A. No, I did not.
Q. Because you asked a man what size
shoe he wore you came to the
conclusion that was not his footprint, is that it? A. I knew he hadn’t
been out there.
Q. Did you see this house before you
were sent for? A. No.
Q. How did you know he wasn’t out
there? A. I had his word for it.
Q. Oh, you took his word for it? You
took the word of the man who has since
died that he hadn’t [383]
gone outside the house,
is that it? A. That is correct.
Q. When you saw the woman’s
footprints, did you take anybody’s word for it as to who was outside? A. Yes.
Q. Who? A. Mrs. Lindbergh’s.
Q. Did you take Betty Gow’s word?
A. She hadn’t been out.
Q. You don’t mean to say you asked
Mrs. Lindbergh whether she was
outside the house in the mud? A. I did.
Q. You wouldn’t accuse Mrs.
Lindbergh of anything?
Mr. Wilentz: He is not accusing of
Mrs. Lindbergh of anything and the question is unwarranted. He says Mrs.
Lindbergh told him about the footprint not being hers.
Mr. Reilly: He said nothing of the
kind.
Mr. Wilentz: I so understood.
The Court: There seems to be nothing
before the Court. You may proceed.
Q. You came to the conclusion, didn’t you, as a detective
that something had stood in the ground where
there were two holes? A. I did.
Q. How long have you been a
detective? A. I have
been an officer about nine and a half years.
Q. How long a detective?
A. About three and a half—four years.
Q. You came to the conclusion that
something stood in the mud? A. Naturally, yes.
Q. Sticks or something?
A. Correct.
Q. You saw a footprint right near
it? A. I did.
Q. You wanted to know whose
footprint it was? [384] A. Naturally.
Q. You knew it wasn’t the Colonel’s,
didn’t you? A. I knew it was
none of the men that was found there that night.
Q. But you didn’t measure the butler’s
footprint, did you? A. I had his and the Colonel’s word that he hadn’t been outside.
Q. Why, did you know that the butler
was alone in that house on the ground floor for two hours while his wife and
Betty Gow were upstairs? Did you know that?
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. I object
to the question because it is not a fact that he on the first floor alone for
two hours. The testimony in fact is to the contrary, that during the time that
he was down on the first floor when these maids were upstairs Mrs. Lindbergh
and the Colonel were both on the first floor. That is the testimony.
Mr. Reilly: I am talking about servants and you know I am
talking about servants.
Mr. Wilentz: Oh, no.
Mr. Reilly: And you know I am excluding the Colonel and
his wife.
Mr. Wilentz: Oh, no.
Mr. Reilly: All right, if I am ambiguous,
let us go back. Let us get back to the servants in the house.
Q. Did you know that night that this
child was for two hours from eight
o’clock until ten, as far as any servants were concerned, absolutely alone; did [385] you know that? A. As to the
questions of servants, yes.
Q. Well my goodness, you don’t believe everybody that you
question when you are sent out to investigate a crime, do you? A. I take a
statement from them, then investigate.
Q. And if you like the statement,
you believe it, is that
it? A. No.
Q. Well did you subsequently find out
that Whateley the butler, for two hours was down in the kitchen or the reading
room out of sight of Colonel Lindbergh and Mrs. Lindbergh, his wife, and Betty
Gow, did you?
Mr. Wilentz: Now just a minute. That does not appear to
be so.
Mr. Reilly: That is the evidence.
Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please,
that is why I object to it, because it does not appear to be so. It is an
unfair question. There is no evidence he was out of the sight of Colonel and
Mrs. Lindbergh for those two hours or one hour. The testimony is, in fact, that
Miss Gow and Mrs. Whateley went upstairs at nine. They were there at ten. At
that time Whateley was downstairs. Whether he was at that time out of sight of
Mrs. Lindbergh and Colonel Lindbergh I don’t recall what the testimony is,
except I know there is no testimony that says he was out of their sight all
during that time.
Mr. Reilly: Well the evidence, as I
recall it, was that the Colonel and his wife were having dinner; they were
waited upon by Mrs. Whateley. They were out of sight of the kitchen. They were
out of sight of the servants’ quar- [386] ters. After dinner they went in the library, sat in
the lounge. After a while she went upstairs. The Colonel went to draw a bath
and Whateley was as far as we know in the servants’ quarters reading his book
in their reading roam.
The Court: Now what is your question?
(Question repeated by the reporter
as follows: “Q. Well did you subsequently find out that Whateley, the butler,
for two hours was down in the kitchen or the reading room out of sight of
Colonel Lindbergh and Mrs. Lindbergh, his wife, and Betty Gow, did you?”)
Mr. Wilentz: May I just add the
further thing, if your Honor please, to indicate how conclusively wrong that
is, that if there is any
testimony at all about Whateley, Whateley is the man that served the dinner to
the Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh.
The Court: The question seems to be as to whether or no
this witness knew certain things.
Mr. Wilentz: Whether he knew?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Wilentz: That is different. I withdraw that then. Did
he know that?
The Court: And I suppose that it is
competent for him to say whether he knew it or didn’t know it.
Mr. Wilentz: I withdraw the objection
then.
[387] By Mr. Reilly: Q.
Will you answer the question? A. What is the question?
Q. Did you know that Whateley was out
of sight for some portion of time during that evening from eight to ten, out of
sight of his wife and out of sight of Betty Gow and out of sight of Colonel and
Mrs. Lindbergh? A. He was out of sight to a certain extent. He was reading in his sitting room.
Q. Well, did you ask him what he was
reading? A. He was reading a magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, if I recall.
Q. You don’t absolve people because
they give you some answers to questions, do you? A. No. But I found all
his statements to be correct.
Mr. Reilly: I move to strike that out as not responsive
and voluntary.
The Court: Strike it out.
Q. Now, will you answer the questions
only. You have been testifying for how many years? A. As long as I have been an officer.
Q. Yes. Nine years. And you have been
trained to give answers with a little added to it, haven’t you? A. No, I
have been trained to tell the truth, that is all.
Q. Will you please answer the
questions, and just the questions. Let’s get that. When you came out on the
ground did you walk around the catwalk? A. I did.
Q. And you had a flashlight?
A. I did.
Q. And then you say off on the side
you found this ladder that you have
described as finding there? A. It had been more or less pointed out to me
by Colonel Lindbergh from the nursery window.
[388] Q. Colonel
Lindbergh pointed something out to you from the nursery window? A. He
said, “A ladder lays out there a ways.”
Q. He didn’t go downstairs and show
you the ladder? A. No.
Trooper Wolf also told me he had seen it.
Q. Have you handled this ladder?
A. I have.
Q. What does it weigh? A. Approximately forty pounds.
Q. Forty pounds. And you say you
found it in two sections, partly joined together, and one
section some distance away? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you pick it up? A. I did.
Q. Where did you take it? A. I took it in the living room, two
sections, and then went back and got the third
section.
Q. Carry anything else besides the
two sections when you first carried
them in? A. No, I did not.
Q. Then you went out and brought in
the third section? A. I did.
Q. Well, now, how long did you remain around there that
night? A. I was there—I
left there about 3:25 I guess,
or 3:20, somewheres around there.
Mr. Reilly: Now, General, you intend to call Kelly?
Mr. Wilentz: Yes, sure.
Mr. Reilly: So that
I shall not go on longer with
him.
Mr. Wilentz: Certainly.
Mr. Reilly: That is all.
Mr. Wilentz: Oh, just one question.
[389] Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz:
Q. Did Colonel Lindbergh tell you who served
dinner to them that evening, whether it was Mr. Whateley or Mrs.Whateley in
your investigation? A. The Colonel did.
Q. Who was it that served him?
A. Ollie Whateley.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
vs.
BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN
Flemington, N. J., January 22, 1935
[1942]
Present: 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.
(The
jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)
Mr.
Wilentz: Mr. Bornmann, will you please take the stand.
LEWIS J. BORNMANN,
recalled as a witness in behalf of the State:
Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. Mr.
Bornmann, what is your title, sir? A. Detective, New Jersey State Police.
Q. You
testified before, did you not? A. I have.
Q. I
want you to take a look at Exhibit S‑34 for Identification, which is a chisel,
and ask you whether or not, when you
found this chisel, you put any iden- [1943] tification marks on it. A. I
did. I found this chisel on the early morning of March 2nd, about one o’clock,
on the Lindbergh Estate at Hopewell, and placed my initials thereon.
Q. Is
that the chisel you referred to as finding near the same spot where you found
the ladder? A. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr.
Wilentz: I offer the chisel in evidence.
Mr.
Pope: Well, we object to the introduction of the chisel because there is no
evidence connecting it with the crime. The only evidence in the case is that
this particular implement was found somewhere on the grounds of the Lindbergh
estate. There isn’t any evidence to show that it was in any way connected with
the alleged crime, nor is there any evidence to show that it was ever in the
possession of this defendant. Therefore, we think it is incompetent, irrelevant
and immaterial.
The
Court: Will the stenographer repeat the answer of the witness.
(The
last question and answer were repeated as follows: “Q. Is that the chisel you
referred to as finding near the same spot where you found the ladder? A. Yes,
sir, it is.”)
Mr.
Wilentz: The proof up to this time, may I indicate, your Honor, with reference
to the chisel is as follows: that this chisel was found near the ladder—
The
Court: Mr. Attorney General, I am satisfied that it is entitled to go in in
evidence [1944] and unless you desire to argue it will be admitted.
Mr.
Wilentz: No. That is all.
Mr. Pope:
May we have an exception?
The
Court: Take your exception.
(Exception
allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly.)
(S.
S.) THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.
(The
chisel was received in evidence and marked S‑210.)
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Mr. Bornmann, you have
heretofore testified that you are the man that found the ladder and took it in
the house. A. That is right.
Q. My
recollection is then that you stated that you turned the ladder over to Mr.
Kelly, the fingerprint man. A. Trooper Kelly of the Identification Bureau.
Q.
Now, with particular reference to the side of this ladder that is cut in half
here, I think that is a part of section Number, what is herein referred to as
Section Number 1—do you know who cut that piece of wood in half? A. Yes,
sir, I do.
Q. Who
did it? A. I did it.
Q.
Where? A. At the New Jersey State Police Training School, Wilburtha.
Q. In
the presence of Captain Lamb? A. Yes, sir. In compliance with his
instructions.
Q. In
compliance with his instructions? A. Yes,
sir.
[1945]
Q. Was it done for investigation purposes? A. It was done for the purpose
of further analysis.
Q.
Further analysis? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And
after cutting it you left it there in the possession of Lamb? A. Yes, sir;
I did.
Q. Do
you know who applied this other piece, I think there has been testimony—if you
don’t know, say so; if you do know, say so. A. Mr. Koehler.
Q. Mr.
Koehler applied this white piece, fresh piece of white lumber here; is that it?
A. Yes, sir; only for the purpose of holding the ladder together.
Q. All
these references with reference to sections of the ladder and the ladder itself
are to S‑32 for identification. So that, Detective, these three sections
comprising this ladder, S‑32, is it substantially the same or is it the same
with the exception of the changes that have herein been referred to, namely,
the nails with their clips, having been taken out and put back, the one piece
that you have just referred to, cut in half and then put together, as it was
originally, these little white thumb tacks that have been referred to, the cut
which Mr. Koehler testified to on Section 1 of the three sections of the
ladder, with the exception of that and the numbers in writing, 1, 2 and 3, and
the initials of the various troopers; is that the very same ladder that you
found? A. Identically the same ladder.
Mr.
Wilentz: We offer the ladder in evidence.
Mr.
Pope: And, of course, we object to the introduction of the ladder in evidence
for the reasons which have already been indicated to the Court. This ladder, as
we understand it, is a piece of property that was discovered somewhere on the
Lindbergh estate. Afterwards it was taken by the State Police to Wilburtha, the
[1946] State Police School, or Station, and there it was entirely torn apart. The
evidence in the case is that the ladder has since its discovery been in the
possession of many different people; that it has been in many different
sections of the country, that it has been to Washington, among other places;
that it was at one time in the possession of a man by the name of Dr.
Hunter—wasn’t it?
Mr.
Fisher: Dr. Hudson.
Mr.
Pope: That it has been entirely taken apart and that there has been an attempt
to reassemble it.
Mr.
Pope: The wood expert, whose name I have forgotten for the moment, testified
that the ladder was taken apart, that all the nails were taken out of it and
that the nails were given to a metallurgist. He took the nails to his
laboratory and he had them in his possession for several weeks; that he
afterwards returned the nails to the State Police. The wood expert testified
that either he or some other person in his immediate presence reassembled the
ladder, putting the nails back as they were handed to him, but that he was
unable to testify that the same nails were handed to him or that they were
placed back in the same location where they originally were; that he took the
nails as they were handed to him to another person and he put them into holes
in the ladder and reassembled it. The ladder has been cut in two, at least one
of the uprights of one of the sections of the ladder has been cut in two as
testified to by this witness. It has been materially [1947] altered in that
respect. But, sir, our understanding is that any property that is found at the
scene of the crime which can be in any way connected with the defendant and the
commission of the crime may be received in evidence provided it is shown to the
Court that the property is in the same condition that it was at the time it was
discovered, and providing the witnesses who have had possession of that ladder are
brought into court and each testify as to what they did with it, how long it
was in their possession and to whom they turned it over. In other words, the
entire history of the property must be traced and its custody in to each
person, and what that particular person did with it, if anything, must be sworn
to and it must be followed through each and every person down to the time it is
produced and offered in evidence. And each
person who had the custody of the property must come in court and testify that
he made no alteration in it, that it is in the same condition or substantially
the same condition that it was when he received it. There is evidence here that
this ladder was in the possession of some fingerprint experts. One of them, I
believe, discovered several hundred fingerprints upon the ladder. It is quite
evident from looking at it that the ladder is
somewhat discolored and different in that respect from what it originally
was. We submit, sir, that the history and the custody of this ladder from the
time it was discovered on the Lindbergh estate down to the time when it was
produced in court has not been followed, has not been covered, has not been
testified to, and we cannot assume, sir, that any man who had the custody of
this ladder did not make some changes in it. [1948] That man who had the
custody of it must come in court. He must tell us whether he made any changes
in it; if he made any changes in it what those changes were. It must appear
very clearly to the Court by all this testimony that there has been no
alteration in it since it was first discovered. The only way that that can be
done is for each man who had the custody of it to come in court and tell us what
he did with the ladder, what condition it was in when he received it, to whom
he turned it over and its condition at that time. There is a still further and
even a stronger objection yet. There is no connection between this ladder and
the defendant here on trial. No one has even suggested that this ladder was
ever in the possession of this defendant. No one has even suggested that he had
anything to do with building it; and it is therefore immaterial, irrelevant,
and we submit that it should not be introduced in evidence at this time.
Mr.
Wilentz: Does your Honor want a reply?
The
Court: I am wondering whether Mr. Pope has overlooked the testimony of an old gentleman
to the effect that on March the 1st, I think it was, he saw the defendant in
the possession of this ladder. Have you overlooked that?
Mr.
Pope: I haven’t overlooked any such testimony. I wonder if the Court is
referring to the old gentleman, Mr. Hocksmith, or Hochmuth?
The
Court: That is the gentleman.
[1949]
Mr. Pope: Well, I do not want to say that that witness did not testify to that,
but I certainly did not understand him to say that he saw the ladder in the car
at that time.
The
Court: Well, can there be—
Mr.
Pope: Or this ladder.
The
Court: Can there be any doubt about that?
Mr.
Pope: I don’t know. I am not sure about that.
Mr.
Wilentz: I think we can agree—
Mr.
Pope: But even if he did, even if he did testify to seeing the ladder in the
car, he did not recognize this ladder; he did not say that it was this ladder.
The
Court: No.
Mr.
Pope: That was about eleven o’clock in the forenoon, as I understand it,
somewhere around there, he saw a car go by. He may have testified that he saw
something that looked like a ladder in the car; I do not remember that, your
Honor; and I do not say that he did not so testify; but he certainly did not
give any description of any ladder. But, one of the particular reasons why we
object to this ladder is because the State Police have testified that it was in
the possession of a Dr. Hunter—Hudson—a fingerprint expert, and that he had it
in his possession, that it was in Washington and different other places, and [1950] we say that this ladder should not be
admitted in evidence until Dr. Hudson and the other men are brought here and
testify what they did with the ladder, whether they made any alterations or
changes in it, whether it is in substantially the same condition that it was
when it was delivered to and by them surrendered to the State Police. Without
that we have a break in the link, we have a missing link in the chain, showing
the custody and possession of this ladder from the time it was found until the
day it is brought into court. Now, I have never known of a case, your Honor,
where the State has ever been permitted to introduce in evidence any property
which they say was in some way connected with the crime without first showing
the custody of that property from the time it was discovered down until the
time it was introduced in court. And without showing by each of the people that
had the custody of it that they have made no alteration in it.
The
Court: Mr. Pope, did not this witness, who is now on the stand, say that this
ladder was in the same condition as when found, with the exception of certain
things that were designated?
Mr.
Pope: How can this witness say, your Honor—
The
Court: I am not undertaking to say how he can say it. I am suggesting to you
that it seems to me that he did say it and, if so, I am wondering whether or
not that does not open the way for the admission of the ladder.
[1951] Mr. Pope: That doesn’t alter the rule
of evidence, your Honor, because this witness, say so. After all, you know,
your Honor is the one that must determine that question; it is a Court
question. This witness might say that the sun is shining outside, but you would
not have to believe that when you know it isn’t. This witness cannot
testify—here is a very important inquiry in this case. We do not want to
disclose it at the present time, but here is a very important question in this
case: We have a right to know that every one of those cross rounds or cross
pieces in that ladder, which has been taken apart, according to the evidence,
put back together again, are in exactly the same position that they were in
when they took it apart, that the third round is in the proper place, that the
second round is in the proper place. Neither this witness nor anyone else can
testify to that, except the people who have had it. We know that Dr. Hudson
took this ladder apart; we want to know whether Dr. Hudson put it back in the
same position that it was when he received it. We have a right to examine him
and we have a right to have him produced. We have a right to have every man
produced and to subject every man to cross-examination who has had the custody
and possession of this ladder since it was found. And until that right is
afforded us, we respectfully submit that the ladder should not be admitted in
evidence.
The
Court: I think I will hear the Attorney General.
Mr.
Wilentz: If your Honor, please, the [1952] name of Dr. Hudson I do not
recollect at all. We have proven the possession of this ladder from the very
time it was found upon the Lindbergh premises, within a short time after this
crime was committed, up to the moment it came into this courtroom. Yes, there have
been changes in that ladder made from time to time, for the very purpose, and
with the intention that it could someday be brought into this very court room
to help a Court and jury pass upon the innocence or guilt of a person charged
with the crime in question. But we have explained those changes. This ladder
went from Bornmann to Kelly, from Kelly to Lamb. Kelly then took it from Lamb
and took it to Washington; stood there and watched it; put it in a safe at
night; brought it back the next day, or that day, back to Lamb again. Then the
wood expert comes in. He has it. He returns it to Lamb. It remains with Lamb
until it comes to this Court, each witness testifying that he brought it back
in the same condition as he got it, with the exception that Kelly put the thumb
screws in there with the numbers on. Kelly marked Section No. 1, Section No. 2,
Section No. 3. Koehler cut a piece of
the wood for experimentation and investigation purposes. Bornmann cut it in
half for the same purpose. Koehler then put that together. The man who took the
nails out put numbers on them to make sure they would go back as they should. The
middle clasps are there, so that we have the same ladder, the custody of it
traced right to the very day it has gone into this court room, if your Honor,
please, and every moment of it explained—no question about any Dr. Hudson, [1953]
he is not in our case—and we have explained every change. Now, what is the
purpose of an exhibit of this kind, if your Honor, please? Why, a gentleman
down in Texas was shot or killed and the person who shot him shot him through
his coat, he had one of these long tail things and the widow that she would
give his clothes away, so some handy man in the town got his coat and it was a
little too long, so they cut it off somewhere around the bottom, and then he
saw this bullet hole and he patched it up, and he was walking around the street
with it one day when the prosecuting attorney thought he would need that coat,
so he got the coat and the defense objected that it was changed, and it was
changed, and it was patched, and it was patched, but for the purpose of the
case, if your Honor, please, to show where the bullet hole and other things
that were necessary to help a jury, the Court thought that it ought to be admitted,
and it was admitted. The point I am trying to make is that what we have
exhibits here for is to try to help, and if those exhibits do not mislead the
Court and the jury, if they haven’t been changed to such an extent to be
misleading, if your Honor, please, then they are admissible. Now, we
respectfully submit, then, if your Honor, please, that we have proved the
custody of this ladder, and the testimony is positive that in this court room
stands the ladder substantially as it was the night it was found on that
Lindbergh Estate, and there is the testimony that this defendant came with a
ladder that very day around that corner of Lindy’s Lane—that is the testimony. [1954]
So that, if your Honor, please, we have spent so much time on it, I submit to
you very respectfully—. Now, if, perchance, some of the arguments with
reference to this ladder have escaped the Court—not the arguments, but some of
the testimony—may I submit to your Honor, your Honor’s observations each time
this ladder was offered? Or isn’t it necessary?
The
Court: I think I have those pretty well in mind.
Mr.
Wilentz: Well, then it won’t be necessary. Then without taking any more time
about it, may I just respectfully submit to your Honor that the first time your
Honor did suggest, very properly, that we show a little further the custody,
which we then did, and then with reference to the nails and such other changes
as your Honor thought we might be able to show, and so we rest with that
explanation.
Mr.
Pope: Now may I just correct one erroneous idea that the Attorney General has. The
State Police, I think it was Mr. Kelly, the State Police who was on the stand,
testified under cross-examination that this ladder had been placed in the
possession of Dr. Hudson for examination for the purpose of finding out if
there were any fingerprints on the ladder. So it was in the possession of Dr.
Hudson. Koehler has had it in his possession. We submit that we don’t know that
this ladder is in the same condition that it was when Dr. Hudson received it,
we don’t know that in its present [1955] condition it may not be deceptive to
this jury. There is one cross found on this ladder that we question very
materially. We don’t know and we don’t believe that that was in that position
when the ladder was originally found. There are some things about it that lead
us to doubt that that was the piece of wood that was on the ladder. The only
way to satisfy this Court that that ladder is in substantially the same
condition that it was the day it was found is to bring before you the witnesses
that have had the custody of it and let them tell you what they did to it. We
submit that it was in the possession of Dr. Hunter—Dr. Hudson—I can’t remember
the name, but the man who used it and who searched it for fingerprints. I think
the testimony was that he found some five or six hundred fingerprints on the
ladder.
The
Court: I feel constrained to admit this ladder in evidence, and it will be
admitted.
Mr.
Pope: May we have an exception? The Court: Yes.
(Exception
allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly.)
(S.
S.) THOMAS W. TRENC HARD, Judge.
(The
ladder, previous marked S‑32 for identification, was received in evidence and
marked State’s Exhibit S‑211.)
Q.
Now, Officer, there was a loose dowel pin you testified to as having been found
on the premises. I [1956] want to ask you whether or not that is the dowel pin?
A. Yes, sir. This is the dowel pin.
The
Court: What did he say to that, it was?
Mr.
Wilentz: He said, “Yes, that is the dowel pin found on the premises that night.”
The
Court: The doll pin?
Mr.
Wilentz: The dowel pin.
The
Court: The dowel pin.
Mr.
Wilentz: Any objection?
Mr.
Pope: It is objected to for the same reasons we have already discussed and
presented to the Court with respect to the ladder.
The
Court: It will be admitted.
Mr. Pope:
Then may we have an exception.
The
Court: Yes.
(Exception
allowed, and the same is signed and sealed accordingly.)
(s.
S.) THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.
(The
dowel pin was received in evidence and marked State’s Exhibit S‑212.)
Mr.
Wilentz: Will your Honor give me just a moment?
[1957] The Court: Yes.
(Counsel
for the State and defense conferred.)
Mr.
Wilentz: That is all, Officer.
Mr.
Reilly: Wait a minute.
Mr.
Pope: Are you through?
Mr.
Wilentz: Yes.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Pope: Q. Mr.
Bornmann, I understand you to say that you are a sergeant? A. No, sir.
Q.
Detective? A. Detective.
Q.
Well, you are one of the detectives connected with the State Police? A. Yes,
sir; that is correct.
Q. And
are you connected with the Wilburtha Station? A. Assigned there for
special duty.
Q. I
see. Now, when this ladder was found to whom was it turned over? A. It was
turned over to Trooper Kelly of the Identification Department.
Q. And
then it was in Trooper Kelly’s possession? A. Yes, sir; it was first.
Q. And
in your possession? A. No, sir; not in my possession.
Q.
Were you present when the ladder was examined for fingerprints? A. Yes,
sir. Upon bringing it into the Lindbergh residence it was tested for fingerprints.
Q.
That is by Trooper Kelly? A. Yes, sir; in my presence.
Q. And
it was afterwards examined for fingerprints by Dr. Hudson, wasn’t it? A. That
I can’t testify to.
[1958] Q. Do you mean that you were not
present when Dr. Hudson was examining it? A. Dr. Hudson was not there at
that time; no, sir.
Q. I
don’t mean the night at the Lindbergh estate, sir; I mean afterwards. A. If
he came later I had no knowledge of it.
Q. You
have no knowledge whatever of Dr. Hudson examining this ladder for
fingerprints? A. No, sir; I had other details.
Q.
Well, do you know Dr. Hudson? A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Did
you ever see him at the State Police barracks or headquarters? A. No, sir,
I did not.
Q.
Were there any photographs taken of the ladder, fingerprints on the ladder? A. That
you will have to take up with the Identification Bureau.
Q.
Well, I am asking you if you saw any. A. I have no knowledge of it, no,
sir.
Q. You
have no knowledge of it? A. No, sir. That is a different department
altogether.
Q.
Then you really didn’t have the custody of this ladder, did you? A. I have
testified that I turned it over to Trooper Kelly that night.
Q.
Yes. And from that time on you had nothing to do with it? A. Yes, sir,
after it came back to Wilburtha I had considerable to do with it.
Q.
Well, how long a time elapsed between the time you turned it over to Trooper
Kelly that night and its return to Wilburtha and into your personal possession?
A. It was not in my personal possession; it was in—
Q.
Well, your custody. A. Not in my custody, no, sir.
Q.
Then whatever you had to do with it? A. From Trooper Kelly it came to
Captain Lamb. It was in his custody.
Q.
Well, what do you mean when you say, “It
came back to Wilburtha and then I had considerable [1959] to do with it”?
A. I worked on it with Mr. Koehler at various times.
Q.
Well, now, how long a time elapsed between the night it was discovered on the
Lindbergh estate and its return to Wilburtha, when you worked on it with Mr.
Koehler? A. Approximately three months, when it was returned to Wilburtha.
Q. And
during those three months it had been where? A. In the possession of
Trooper Kelly.
Q.
Well, where is the Identification Bureau? A.Trenton.
Q.
Then it had been in the Identification Bureau so far as you know during that
interval? A. Trooper Kelly will have to testify where he had it.
Q. So
that when you are testifying here today, you can only account for the ladder
during that period that it was in your custody? A. That is correct.
Mr.
Pope: That is all.
Mr.
Wilentz: That is all. Thank you, sir.
STATE vs. HAUPTMANN
January 23, 1935
[2150]
LEWIS J. BORNMANN, recalled.
The Court: I want to
interrupt you just a moment. I have a note
here from one of the officers in which he complains that he is unable to keep
the aisle open which leads to that department where the secretaries have to go
to, to come in and out. Of course everybody ought to understand that it is
essential to keep that aisle as well as other aisles open, and that aisle must
be cleared through the center. Just how it shall be cleared, I don’t know. I
don’t know whether those people can find other
places or not. If they cannot find [2151]
other places in the courtroom they will have to retire.
Mr.
Wilentz: I think, if you Honor please, it is cleared now.
The
Court: Is it cleared now? Very well, you may proceed.
Direct Examination by Mr. Peacock: Q. Mr. Bornmann, do you know where the defendant
Hauptmann lives in New York or did live? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was it? A. 1279 East 222nd Street,
Bronx.
Q. On September 26th, 1934, were you at his
home? A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. And for what purpose? A. For the purpose
of searching for evidence.
Q. Did you make a search for evidence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make a search of the attic of the
defendant’s home at that time? A. I did.
Q. How did you get in?
A. Why—
Q. Pardon me. Were you going to say something?
The Court: Will you let me have your name,
please, I missed that?
The
Witness: Lewis J. Bornmann.
The Court: Now you may
proceed, Mr. Peacock.
Q.
How did you gain entrance to the attic? A. Entrance is gained by going to the
small linen [2152]
closet leading off the
hall. It is necessary to climb through this linen closet to the attic.
Q. What was the size of that closet? A. It
is 28 inches deep, 221/2 inches wide, and has a small
door 151/2 inches wide with a lock.
Q. And where was the closet
located in the house? A. It is located between two bedrooms, rear bedroom
and what is known as the nursery bedroom.
Q. And how did you get from
the closet up into the attic? A. It was necessary to remove the shelves
and climb up.
Q. And where were the shelves located in the
closet? A. As you open the door there are three shelves spaced apart.
Q. And how wide were those
shelves? A. They are made of 1 x 12, what is known as shelving, 22 and a half inches wide,—
Q. Who was with you—
A. Long.
Q. —this day? A. On
the 26th, I was accompanied by Police Carpenter Cramer, Enkler and Detective
Tobin of the Bronx.
Q. Now, did the three of you
remove those shelves to get into the attic? A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. Now, when you got into
the attic what did you find? A. We first made a search for money, we didn’t
find any money and during this search I
found that all the floor boards were not of the same length, that is the one in
the south west corner, a portion of it had been removed.
Mr.
Reilly: I move to strike that out as calling for a conclusion, there was one
board, he can describe the boards that were there, but the conclusion one had
been removed, was missing, I say is objectionable, he can’t testify to that.
[2153]
The
Court: Well, Mr. Reilly, he may have seen evidence that it had been removed. I
do not know about that.
Mr. Reilly: And may he
say what he saw, Judge?
The
Court: Yes, he may say what he saw, that
is the best way, I think.
By
Mr. Peacock:
Q. Now, Mr. Bornmann,
referring to Exhibit S‑215, will you show to the jury where that board was
missing that you—
Mr.
Reilly: Now, I object to that word "missing." Let him tell us what he
saw.
Mr.
Peacock: I withdraw that question.
Q.
Referring to Exhibit S‑215, show the jury the condition that you found in that
attic. A. Well, this is the south west corner, this is the south side, and
this is the west side (indicating) and the end board, approximately 8 foot if
it had been removed—
Mr. Reilly: Now, I object to that as calling for
a conclusion; he can say there was no board there.
Q.
Well, there was no board there, was there? A. There was no board, and upon
examining it further,
I found that there were nail holes still in the beams, and between the 7th and 8th beam
here there was a small quantity of saw dust.
Q. Now, where was that saw
dust? A. That [2154]
was between the 7th and 8th beam, right down in
here, laying on the plaster.
Q. Referring to the end of the piece of rail
that still was on the floor, is that what you mean? A. Yes.
Q. In between the two beams at the end of this
rail? A. In between this 7th and 8th beam; it was also on this adjoining
board there, a small indentation made by a saw where, when this board had been
sawed off, the saw went into it.
Mr. Reilly: I object to
that, where the board had been sawed off.
The Court: Well, there
seems to be some little justification for that sort of an inference, doesn’t
there, Mr. Reilly?
Mr. Reilly: There might be an inference, Judge,
but it is not such an inference that a guilty conclusion can be drawn from it.
This board might have been well nailed down with that saw cut in it, and I take
it that we are only concerned in—
Mr. Wilentz: Well, he
doesn’t say anything to the contrary. Mr. Reilly’s statement may be so, that it
may have been nailed down with the saw mark in it, but the fact remains that
there is a saw mark.
Mr.
Reilly: Yes.
Mr. Wilentz: That is all
the witness has testified to.
Mr.
Reilly: Yes, the fact there is a saw mark, yes, sir.
[2155] Mr. Wilentz: That is all that he is testifying
to.
Q. Now, with regard to
the saw mark, show the jury on the picture just where the saw mark was.
A. The saw mark—
Mr.
Peacock: The jury can’t see, Mr. Reilly.
A. The saw mark is
about a quarter of an inch into the other board (indicating).
Q. How deep was that saw mark, Mr. Bornmann?
A. Approximately a quarter of an inch.
Q. Now, did Mr. Enkler and
Mr. Cramer do anything to the remaining board in the attic when they were there
with you? A. No, sir. After examining that board I then removed about
nine foot of this (indicating).
Q. Referring to the board at
the end of the pointer on the Exhibit S‑215? A. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Wilentz: The southwest board.
Q.
That is the southwest board? A. Yes, sir; coming east here (indicating).
Q. And what did you do with
that board? A. I
had Police Carpenter Cramer remove the cut nails from it.
Q. And what— A. And I
then took that board down
to the second floor and locked it in a bedroom.
Q. Did you have the key to
that closet? A. It was
in the custody of a policeman, a uniformed man on duty.
Q. Then what further was
done with that board?
A. I made a report to Captain Lamb as to—
[2156] Mr. Reilly: I object.
Q.
Well, you made a report with reference to what you had done that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, were you at the
same building on October 9th with Mr. Koehler? A. Yes, sir. In compliance
with instructions from Captain Lamb I took Mr. Koehler—
Mr.
Reilly: I object to this as all voluntary.
Q.
Well, you went to the building with Mr. Koehler. What did you do when you and
Mr. Koehler arrived there? A. We checked the nail holes in the beams with
nail holes, in what we know as Rail 16 in the ladder.
Q. Show me rail 16? A. (The witness
indicated
one of the rails of the ladder Exhibit S‑211.)
one of the rails of the ladder Exhibit S‑211.)
Q. Where are the nail holes in rail 16?
A. Rail 16, you notice there are two here and one here (indicating).
Q. Referring to what part of the ladder?
A. Two nails here.
Q. Referring to the bottom
of the ladder? A. Referring to the bottom of the ladder. There is another
one here coming toward the top and another one here coming almost to the top.
Q. You had this railing and you checked it with
the flooring of Exhibit S‑215, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. I show you a photograph with rail 16 on the
floor, is that correct? A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Now show the jury where
those nail holes of rail 16 check with the joist? A. There is one of the
nail holes right here and the other one is down here, you see the shadow of it
and down here
are the other two.
[2157]
Q. They are the same nail
holes that you have just
shown the jury in rail 16, is that correct? A. They are.
Q. Now, did you check the
nails? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the holes through
rail 16 to the holes that were in the joists? A. We placed four cut nails in this rail 16 and placed
it upon the beams. Those nails
fitted perfectly into the holes that were still in the beams here.
Q. What was the slant of
those nails? A. They were on a slight angle, sort of toed in.
Q. Necessary to pound the
nails in or could you
push them in with your finger? A. We pushed them in with our finger.
Q. And who was present when
you did that? A. Police
carpenters Cramer, Enkler and Detective Tobin.
Q. Did you make any
comparisons of rail 16 with
the board that was still attached to the floor? A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. What do you say as to the
grain in rail 16 and
the grain that was still attached to the floor? A. It appeared to match perfectly.
Q. Did Mr. Koehler match
them? A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. Now, did you obtain any
lumber from the garage
which you gave to Mr. Koehler for examination? A. Yes, sir. After continuing
the search
of the attic on September 26th we then went to the garage.
Q. I show you a triangular
piece of wood and ask
you where you obtained that? A. We obtained that—it was a bracket used to support
a shelf
on the north side of the garage.
Q. Was that afterwards
delivered by you to Mr.
Koehler? A. Yes, sir, it was.
[2158] Mr. Wilentz: May we have this marked for
identification?
(The
triangular piece of wood was marked State’s Exhibit S‑225 for Identification.)
Q. I show you a package
of nails and ask you whether you obtained them? A. These are ten cut nails
which police carpenter Cramer removed at my request from this board here.
Q. Referring to what board? A. Part of the
flooring on the south side of the building.
Q. Referring to the board
on the south side of the picture, is that what you mean? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now I show you a board
and ask you whether or not you took this from the attic of the Hauptmann home? A. Yes, sir, I did. That
is part of this section—that board runs from here, six foot eight and a half of
it.
Q. And that was removed by whom? A. It was
removed by me.
Q. Was it the same color
that it now is? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you first
compared the rail 16 of the ladder, as it is compared in the photograph, what
was the color of the rail 16? A. It
appeared to be the same color.
Mr. Peacock: I offer
this board in evidence, your Honor.
The
Court: Are there any objections?
Mr. Pope: Well, yes, we
object to the introduction of this board. It is in no way connected with this
defendant and we cannot see its materiality. It is merely to [2159] testify
that it was a piece of board that was up in the attic. This man went up there
and they removed it. There doesn’t seem to be any intimation that this
particular board or any part of it was used for the manufacture of the ladder.
It was merely an adjoining board found in the attic. So we think that it
isn’t material.
The Court: Is there any
purpose to further connect this board with the ladder?
Mr.
Peacock: Yes.
Mr. Peacock: I will
prove, your Honor, that Rail 16, attached to the ladder, is from the other end
of that board.
Mr. Pope: That it was
cut from it, you mean?
Mr. Peacock:
Yes, sir.
The
Court: It will be admitted.
The
Reporter: Exhibit S‑226.
(Piece of board received in evidence and marked
State Exhibit S‑226.)
Mr.
Peacock: Now I offer in evidence, your Honor, this bracket, which will be
connected by the State, which came from the defendant’s garage.
The
Court: The bracket?
[2160]
Mr. Peacock: Yes; which
has already been offered for identification.
The Court: Any objection
to that being admitted in evidence?
Mr. Reilly: No; no objection.
The Court: There seems
to be none. It will be admitted.
The
Reporter: S-227.
(Bracket received in
evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑227.)
Cross Examination by Mr. Pope: Q. What kind of nails
did you say they were that were in the boards up in the attic’? A. They are
known as cut nails.
Q. And a cut nail is the old-fashioned square
nail: is that what you mean’? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Not the round nail—
A. Old style.
Q. Not the round nail like there is in this
piece (indicating) A. Old style roofing nails.
Q. Now—
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Pope, pardon me one moment. I
want to offer this photograph in evidence, your Honor, which has been referred
to by the witness.
Mr.
Wilentz: It is in evidence.
Mr.
Peacock: Not this one.
[2161]
Mr. Wilentz: Isn’t that
the one that was used yesterday in court?
Mr. Peacock: No. That one had the rail attached.
In the other the rail is absent
The
Court: Any objection to it, Mr. Pope?
Mr.
Pope: No.
The Court: If there is
no objection it will be admitted.
The
Reporter: S‑228.
(Photograph marked S‑228.)
Mr. Pope: I thought it
was in yesterday.
Mr. Peacock: No. The one
that was in yesterday didn’t have this rail attached.
Mr.
Pope: Oh, just a minute, Mr. Peacock. May we have just a minute?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Pope: You mean this
piece was not in the one yesterday (indicating)?
Mr.
Peacock: No, just this piece.
Mr.
Pope: Well, yes; we object to this photograph because it is a photograph that was manufactured by the
police to show [2162]
certain conditions and positions of a board,
which they wanted to show, and it was not a natural condition.
Mr. Pope: It does not
represent the true condition of the house at the time the police went there,
and inspected it, but in order to make it show what it shows there now,
they had to do a little maneuvering with a piece of board and some other things. Of course that is not representative of a true condition which would be binding upon this defendant. We object to it.
they had to do a little maneuvering with a piece of board and some other things. Of course that is not representative of a true condition which would be binding upon this defendant. We object to it.
Mr.
Peacock: Your Honor, for demonstration purposes, the board that was shown in
the picture was placed there by the witness as he said, it showed that the
nail holes fitted through this board to the joist and being connected as the other end of that board. It is rail 16 from the ladder.
nail holes fitted through this board to the joist and being connected as the other end of that board. It is rail 16 from the ladder.
Mr.
Pope: It was never a part of the floor, only argumentatively they want to make
it appear as though it might have been. I have never known photographs to be
admitted that were manufactured, that were manipulated, and then admitted for
the purpose of showing the true condition. Photographs are admitted for the purpose of showing the true condition of the ground work or whatever it is that they pretend to describe, not for the purpose of showing a manufactured or manipulated condition that may be used by somebody in argument of the case. In other words, this is a false photograph and not a true one.
the purpose of showing the true condition. Photographs are admitted for the purpose of showing the true condition of the ground work or whatever it is that they pretend to describe, not for the purpose of showing a manufactured or manipulated condition that may be used by somebody in argument of the case. In other words, this is a false photograph and not a true one.
[2163] Mr. Wilentz: Of course, your Honor
please, we object to the word "manipulated." This witness has
testified that he took rail 16 of this ladder, and he applied it just as the
picture indicates, and in so doing, if your Honor please, he fit the cut nails
in the holes that appear in Section 16 as he showed it to the jury, and
that those nail holes he has testified
fit exactly —I think it is in the joist, they call it,—fit exactly there by
pressing the nail in; he didn’t need to have to hammer it; he put it down to
see if it fit, and sees it does fit and now we have before the jury a picture
of that experiment and demonstration for the purpose of helping everybody. It
can do no harm at all and it can help. Now, his testimony shows what it is,
there is no manipulation; there is
nothing of these things that our delightful adversary suggests; it is merely
for the purpose of being helpful and, if it is helpful, in the first place, may
I suggest there shouldn’t be any objection to it. But whether there is or not,
we submit very respectfully to your Honor it is evidential and proper under the
rules of evidence.
Mr. Pope: We don’t infer that there is anything untrue.
Mr. Wilentz: It isn’t untrue, of
course; it is his attic.
The Court: I don’t see how you
can convey it is untrue.
Mr. Pope:
Well, it is an untruthful por- [2164] trayal of a condition that
existed ; they manipulated it.
The Court: You don’t suggest for
a moment it is an untruthful portrayal of an experiment that was made?
Mr. Pope: Oh, no, certainly not.
The Court: No.
Mr. Pope: But it is an untruthful
portrayal of a condition, of a nail condition.
Mr. Wilentz: Well, that is not
correct either, may I respectfully suggest.
The Court: This photograph has
already been admitted in evidence. This motion in effect is to strike it out. I
don’t see that I would be justified in striking it out. I will allow it to
stand.
Mr. Pope: But, sir, I made no
objections to the photograph, because I was assuming that it was merely a
truthful and correct portrayal of conditions that existed; I didn’t know until
the witness began to explain to us that a part of the rail of this ladder had
been removed from the ladder and taken up there and put down on the floor for
what they call experimental purposes, and we ought not to be prejudiced by
having faith in it.
The Court: I have not undertaken
to prejudice you by that, I am merely reciting the facts, and I turn your
motion now into a [2165]
motion to strike out the exhibit—and I deny your
motion.
Mr.
Pope: May we have an exception?
The
Court: You may have your exception.
(Exception allowed and
same is signed and sealed accordingly.)
THOMAS
W. TRENCHARD (L. S.) Judge.
Mr.
Peacock: That is all.
Mr.
Wilentz: Your witness.
Cross Examination by Mr. Pope: Q. Well, referring to this,
so that we may have it
in the record, this photograph, Exhibit S‑228, before this photograph was taken, there was an
empty space from the end of
the floorboard extending
toward the top of the photograph and to the side of the attic, wasn’t there?
A. There was a
space there of about an inch and a quarter.
Q. Well, I would say—What
are those beams, 18
inches on center? A. About 16.
Q. One, two, three, four,
five, six—well, there are
seven spaces there, 16 inches on center, that is more than an inch, isn’t it? A. You
are referring to this small space here, are you not?
Q. Oh, no. A. Well,
where are you referring to?
Q. There was nothing there
between the end of this
floor board and the end of the building, was there, until you put the piece of board in
there? [2166]
A. No, sir; it was about eight foot, there
was about eight foot of that missing.
Q. In other words, calling your attention to
State’s Exhibit 215— A. Yes.
Q.—the attic was in the
condition as it is shown there, wasn’t it? A. Yes, sir; there was
approximately eight foot of it missing.
Q.
And then what you did was to take one of the runners, one of the sections of
the ladder—A. Rails.
Q. Well, rails then. I call it runner, whichever
you call it. We will call it rails. Take it up into the attic and lay it down
on the joists; then have it photographed? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, even then, the rail
which you took from the ladder did not reach from the end of the floor board to
the end of the building, did it? A. No, sir. There you can see a space of
about an inch and a quarter, and down to the end—
Q. Well, it is a space of
about 16, 32—a space of about 36 inches, isn’t it? A. Well, about eight
foot of it had been taken out of that and the rail is six foot eight and a half
inches.
Q. Now, is this rail that I am pointing to the
one, is that the one? A. That is the one.
Q. And what do you call that, number what on the
rail? A. 16.
Q.
No. 16 on the rail. You don’t know anything about wood, I don’t suppose?
A. Not the technical end of it, no, sir.
Q. Do you know what kind of wood that is?
A. That is N. C. pine.
Mr.
Wilentz: A little louder, please.
Mr.
Peacock: Talk so the jury can hear you.
[2167]
Q.
Calling your attention to the other rail on this same ladder, what wood is
that? A. That is fir wood.
Mr.
Peacock: Mr. Pope, we can’t hear you.
Mr. Pope: What is that?
Mr. Wilentz: We can’t
hear a word you are saying.
Mr. Pope: I asked him
what kind of wood it was and he said N. C. pine.
Mr.
Peacock: Referring to rail 16.
Mr.
Pope: Yes. Then I asked him what kind of
wood the other rail was, on the other side of the ladder, and he said it was
fir.
Q. So the holes in the
ladder were so loose that you could easily put the cut nails in with your
fingers, is that right? A. With thumb pressure you could push them in.
Q. With thumb pressure?
A. Yes, sir, thumb pressure.
Q. Did anybody experiment
with those nail holes before you attempted to put it down on the floor—that you
know of? A. No, sir. I had turned the cut nails over taken from that
section of board here, and turned them over to Mr. Koehler, and he had tried
them into the rail sixteen holes.
Q. You don’t know how many times they had been
put in and out? A. Once.
Q.
Before you attempted to put in there— [2168] A. Once to my
knowledge.
Q. Once to your knowledge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the first time
you were up in the
attic, Officer? A. September 26th.
Q. And how many times were
you up there after that
before Mr. Koehler came—Koehler or Kahler, which is it?
Mr. Hauck: Koehler.
A. Once
more I believe.
Q. And during that interval
how many local policemen were up there? A. To my knowledge there has never
been a local policeman in that attic.
Q. How many troopers were up there?
A. Myself only and Sergeant Schultz, the photographer.
Q. How many Department of Justice Agents up
there? A. None to my knowledge.
Q. None to your knowledge?
A. No, sir.
Q. They all had access to
the house, did they not? A. They did to a certain extent but the New York
Police Department took it over, they acted as custodians of it.
Q. After the arrest of Hauptmann, the State
Police took possession of his apartment, did they not? A. No, sir.
Q. You rented it for a
couple of months, did you not, you yourself? A. After Hauptmann had moved
out, yes, sir.
Q. Well, that was after his
arrest, he didn’t move out before his arrest, did he? A. After he had
vacated the premises, I rented it.
Q. Well, you rented it for a couple of months,
didn’t you? A. That is correct.
Q. And locked it up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And refused admission to the defense or their representatives?
[2169] Mr. Wilentz: I object to
that, if your Honor please. In the first place, he doesn’t know anything about
that. However, I withdraw the objection.
The
Court: He either did or he didn’t.
Mr.
Wilentz: I withdraw the objection.
Q. You are the tenant, aren’t
you? A. I am what?
Q. The tenant, the one that
rented it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And paid for it, and you
locked it up? A. I rented
it anyhow.
Q. You rented it, and you
have refused to permit
the defense to enter the premises, haven’t you? A. I have never had any request
from the
defense for permission to enter.
Q. Well, you left those
instructions at the house,
didn’t you? A. No, sir.
Q. With the person in
charge. May we inspect
those premises that are in your charge and possession? A. You have my permission,
yes, sir.
Q. When may we do that?
A. Whenever we can
get together on it. I guess we can go up there and look it over.
Q. Before this trial is
over? A. Yes, sir, if you care to.
Q. Now, referring to this
closet you have been telling
us about how large was this closet? A. It is 28 inches deep, 22 and a half inches
wide, and
access is gained to it through a door 15 and a half inches wide.
Q. Well, that is a standard
door,—no slightly smaller
than a standard door. A. Yes, sir. I don’t know the dimensions for a small closet
door.
Q. And the shelves were
where? Overhead, [2170] on the sides, or where? A. No, your
closet—facing into your closet you have three shelves. They are made out of 1 x
12.
Q. Now, was there a trap
door leading from that closet to the attic? A. Well, as you went up to the
top there was the covering over the closet.
Q. Well, was it a trap door?
You know what a trap door is. A. Well, you wouldn’t call it a trap door.
It wasn’t on hinges; it was just loose.
Q. Just a loose trap door?
A. Yes.
Q. Set in a frame?
A. It was part of the flooring that had been cut out to allow access to
the attic.
Q. Now, that was the only method of access to
the attic, wasn’t it? A. Yes, sir, it was.
Q. And it was apparently
constructed that way when the building
was built? A. That is correct.
Q. There was no other
entrance to the attic except the one that you have just described? A. No,
sir.
Q. Were you in this closet
before the Hauptmanns moved out? A. I had to go into it, to go to the
attic.
Q. Well, were the Hauptmanns living there at the
time you were in the attic? A. Their furniture was still there.
Q. Was Mrs. Hauptmann there? A. No, sir,
she was not. She came in a couple of times while I was there.
Q. And she had not been
there for several days,
had she? A. Not living there, no, sir.
Q. Well, the property was infested with police,
wasn’t it? A. Well, there were a few policemen around there.
Q. Yes. How many do you call
a few? A. Detective Tobin, myself, two police carpenters and two police guards, I believe.
[2171] Q. About 7 or 8? A. I
call it 6.
Q. Now, how many times were
the police carpenters
up in the attic before Mr. Koehler arrived on the scene? A. They were there
with me, that
was all.
Q. How many times?
A. Once.
Q. Just once? A. Yes.
Q. To your knowledge? A. Yes.
Q. And when was that, what
date, if you know? A. September
26th, 1934, about 10:30 a.m.
Q. Now, so far as you know
was that the first time
that any policeman went up to the attic? As far as you know yourself? A. As far
as I know, yes.
Q. And then after that you
don’t know how many
policemen were there, do you? A. I don’t know how many were there.
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
There were none there to my knowledge.
Q. None to your knowledge,
no. When did Mr. Taylor
arrive at the scene after September the 26th? A. First took him over there
on October the
9th.
Q. That was about 14 or 15
days later? A. Approximately.
Q. And at that time this
other piece of board had been removed from the flooring, hadn’t it? A. It had been removed
from the attic and was still
in the house, in the bedroom of the second floor, under lock and key.
Q. That is, the board was
under lock and key? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. In your possession?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The key was in your
possession? A. No, sir,
the key was in the possession of the Police Department.
Q. Of the New York Police
Department? A. New York Police
Department.
[2172]
Mr.
Pope: That is all, Chief.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
vs.
BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN
Flemington, N. J., February 9, 1935
[4205]
Present: Hon. Thomas W. Trenchard.
Appearances:
Mr. Wilentz, Mr. Lanigan, Mr. Hauck, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Large. Mr. Stockton, For
the State.
Mr.
Reilly, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Pope, Mr. Rosecrans, For the Defendant.
(10:00
A. M.)
(The
jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)
The
Court: Counsel may proceed.
Mr.
Wilentz: Mr. Bornmann.
LEWIS J. BORNMANN,
recalled as a witness in behalf of the State, in rebuttal.
Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: [4206]
Q. You are a detective, are you, Mr. Bornmann; you have been sworn? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. My
recollection is that you testified that you, together with some of the
carpenters of the New York Police Department, caused S‑226 to be removed from
the attic of Mr. Hauptmann's home. A. That is correct.
Q.
There has been some testimony as to whether or not this board had ever been
nailed down to a floor. Did you get possession of the nails that came from this
board? A. Yes, sir; I pulled the board up, broke it off, then asked Police
Carpenter Cramer to drive the nails through, which he done, and extracted them
with a pair of pliers.
Q. He
extracted them with a pair of pliers? A. Yes.
Q. Did
you get possession of the nails at the time? A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q. How
many nails came out of the board? A. Eight nails out of that piece there.
Q.
Will you tell me whether the nails have been in your possession? A. Yes,
sir; they have.
Q. And
are those the nails— how many of them are there? A. There are seven here
and—
Q. And
the one introduced by me yesterday? A. —is the eighth.
Q. S‑300—is
that the eighth? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Well, at any rate, they are tagged together. One is S‑300. Is that the other
one? A. Yes, sir; that is the other one.
Q. Did
you give that to me yesterday in the court? A. Yes, sir; I did, at your
request.
Q. Now
will you point out to the jury the eight nail holes. Take your time, now. A. (Witness
leaves stand.) One—
Q.
Just put it right on here, please. A. One, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight.
Q. All
right. Now will you just return to the [4207] stand for a minute and take those
nails again that you just held? Now is there one nail in that collection that
is shaped differently than the other nails? A. Yes, sir; one of them.
Q.
Pick it out, will you please? A. This one is much thinner (producing a
nail).
Q. And
it has a hook on top, hasn't it? A. Yes, sir; it has.
Q.
Will you come down and fit that in the hole from which it came? A. (The
witness leaves the stand and steps before the jury.) From this hole right here.
Q.
Just a minute, now. I notice, Officer, that there is a little recess there. A. Yes,
sir; that's where this nail was drove, driven in there and made that
depression.
Q. And
when moved down would that fit right in? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The
recess? A. (The witness inserts the nail. Board with nail inserted
exhibited to the jury by Mr. Wilentz.)
Q.
Will you just step back a minute? A. (The witness resumes the stand.)
Mr.
Wilentz: I will offer the nails for the moment for identification, this package
of six nails here, and the one nail that is in the board.
The
Reporter: S‑306 for identification, package of nails.
(Package
of nails marked S‑306 for identification.)
Mr.
Wilentz: Take the witness.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Fisher: [4208]
Q. You are the one who holds the lease to the house in The Bronx, aren't you? A. That's
right.
Q. You
testified on the stand that the defense could go in whenever they wanted to? A. If
I was present, yes.
Q. Oh,
it had to be that you were present?
Mr. Wilentz:
I object to the question.
Q. Do
you say—
The
Court: This is not surrebuttal.
Mr.
Fisher: Well, I assume I may ask the question and have it objected to.
The
Court: Yes, you may ask the question.
By Mr.
Fisher: Q. Do you say now that your testimony on the stand included the
statement, “If I am present you can go in the house”?
Mr.
Wilentz: Just a minute, Officer, please. I object to the question as not being
cross-examination.
The
Court: The objection is sustained.
Q.
Well, did you go over to the house with us at any time?
Mr.
Wilentz: I object to the question as not being proper cross-examination.
The
Court: “Did you go over to the house with him at any time?”
[4209] Mr. Fisher: Did you go over to the
house with us at any time?
The
Court: To what house?
Mr.
Fisher: To the house in The Bronx where Hauptmann lives and where that particular
piece of lumber, you say, was taken from.
Mr.
Wilentz: Objected to as not proper cross-examination.
The
Court: You may answer the question.
A. No,
I did not.
Mr.
Wilentz: The question contemplates with
Mr. Fisher?
By Mr.
Fisher: Q. With Mr. Fisher.
Mr.
Wilentz: Answer the question.
A. No,
I did not.
The
Court: Just a minute. I don't understand what this question is.
(Question
read by the Reporter as follows: “Q. Well, did you go over to the house with us
at any time?”)
A. No,
I did not.
[4210]
Mr. Wilentz: Answer the question.
Q. Did
we make an application to the State to go over and see that attic?
Mr.
Wilentz: Just a minute. I object to that, if your Honor please.
The
Court: The objection is sustained.
Q.
Now, you say those are the nails that you took out of the attic of the
Hauptmann house, is that right? A. Out of that board; yes, sir.
Q. Out
of that particular board? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
That is two of them, is that correct? A. Yes, sir; they all belong, come
out of this bunch, they all are—
Mr.
Wilentz: Now wait. Let's see now.
Mr.
Fisher: Oh, I haven't— I am no magician.
Mr.
Wilentz: No, never mind about it. I just want to know if it is out of the
package; if you say that it is, all right. He handed them to me.
Mr.
Fisher: I took them directly out of—
Mr.
Wilentz: You have a handful of nails and I wondered which was which.
Mr.
Fisher: I have two hands, Mr .Wilentz.
A. Whatever
nails come out of that package, they are the nails.
Q.
Now, are they the nails; you have identified them to us?
[4211]
Mr. Wilentz: I submit the answer has been made, if your Honor please. He says
if they came out of that package—
The
Court: Yes.
Mr.
Wilentz: —they are the nails.
Mr.
Fisher: I am asking him, sir, to identify them as the nails.
he
Court: He has already done that. You may put it to him again, if you wish.
Q. Are
they the nails? Do you now say they are the nails that came out of the
Hauptmann attic, out of this board that you have just identified here? A. The
nails that are in that package are the nails that came out of that board.
Q. So
that you identify them then only because they are in a package and not because
you can look at the nails and know where they came from? A. Because I know the
nails in that package came out of the board.
Q. And
that is the only reason you know they are the nails? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Yes. Now watch those very carefully in that hand and take a look at these three
nails, these two nails. A. They are
different type nails altogether.
Q. As
to the material, would you say those nails had ever been used?
Mr.
Wilentz: He is not a nail expert, if your Honor please. We haven't attempted to
qualify him to that extent and it is not proper cross-examination whether or
not a nail has been used. Their gentleman testified to that, not this man.
[4212] The Court: Has he already testified
that he took those nails out of the board?
Mr.
Wilentz: Those are the other nails. He is handing him new nails.
The
Court: Oh.
Mr.
Wilentz: Different nails altogether.
The
Court: I sustain the objection.
By Mr.
Fisher: Q. But you now say that the reason you know they are the nails you took
out of the board is because you found them in that paper? A. Not because I
found them in that paper, because I know they are the nails that came out of
that board.
By Mr.
Fisher: Q. You are basing your answer solely upon the fact that you find the
nails in a paper in which you put them, is that correct? A. Because I know
those nails had been in our possession; I had them taken from that board and
they have been in our possession ever since.
Q.
Have you carried them on your person every minute of the time since they were
taken from that board? A. No, I have not.
Q. No.
And you identify them then only because they are in the paper which you
identify; is that correct?
Mr.
Wilentz: Well, if your Honor please, that has been answered so many times-
[4213]
The Court: Yes, that question has been answered several times.
Mr.
Fisher: Very good, sir.
By Mr.
Fisher: Q. Suppose I should hand you that nail, would you say that that nail, as it appears to you
in your hand, came out of Board 226? A. Not just as it appears to me in my
hand; no, sir.
Mr.
Fisher: That's all.
Mr.
Wilentz: That is all, Officer; thank you.
By Mr.
Fisher: Q. Wait just a minute;
just a minute. Which side of 226 is the underside? Which is the side that was
down to the cross beam? A. This side right here. The marks of the beams
will show there.
Q. How
much clearance— you say this is the underside? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And
the marks of the beams will show? A. Yes, sir; right across there; you can
see them right there.
Q.
That you say is the mark of a beam; is that correct? A. That's correct;
and these two nail holes denote where the nails were.
Q. But
aside from the nail holes, you say there is the mark of the beam on there? A. A
slight mark there.
Q. A
slight mark? A. A light mark.
Q. A
light mark. Now, how much clearance was there from the bottom of this beam to
the floor of the attic? A. It is a 2 by 8 beam, I think.
[4214] Q. So that would be 8 inches from the
top of the floor to the top of the beam, is that right? A. That's correct,
2 by 8.
Q. How
did you get the board up with 8-inch clearance underneath it? What sort of
instrument did you use? A. No instrument was used whatsoever.
Q.
Well, how did you do it? A. This part—
Mr.
Wilentz: Go ahead, please, Officer.
A. This
end of this board came midway between two beams; take your fingers like that
and pried the board up.
Q.
With your hand? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And
did you use any instruments at all in order to do that? A. Not to do that;
no.
Q. How
did you get the nails out of the board? A. As you are prying it loose, you
turn the board over, and Police Carpenter Cramer drilled them through with a
hammer, and then extract them with a pair of pliers.
Q.
Drove these nails through? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
With a hammer on the way out, is that it? A. Taking all precaution to keep
them straight.
Q. I
see. Hit them like this and drove them out straight; is that right? A. Yes.
You can see a slight mark there.
Q.
Take the chair, please. A. (Witness resumes stand.)
Q.
What date was that done, Sergeant? A. It was September 26th, 1934.
Q. How
long after the arrest of the defendant Hauptmann? A. Seven days.
Q.
When you got a hold of this board to yank it up, like this, did the nails pull
through the board and stay in the beam, or did they come out with the [4215] board?
A. I said they stayed in the board and that we bad driven them through.
Q.
None of them stayed in the beam? A. No, sir; they did not.
Q.
Square nails, weren't they? A. Square nails; yes, sir; cut nails.
Mr.
Fisher: That's all, Sergeant.
No comments:
Post a Comment