STATE
vs. HAUPTMANN
January 7, 1935
[389] FRANK
A. KELLY, sworn as a witness on behalf of the State:
Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q.
Young man, you are connected with the State Police of New Jersey, are you not? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And you live in the City of Perth Amboy? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
You have been connected with the State Police how long? A. It will be eight years
the 15th
of this
coming August.
Q.
How many years did you do plain trooper duty? A. Practically a year and a
half.
Q.
And as a result of some injury that you received, then you went to this work
that you are doing
now: isn’t it? A. Identification work, yes sir.
Q.
Identification. Now, you have made a study of that particular field of endeavor, I
take it? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And in that connection you take photographs? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Fingerprints and things of that kind? A. Yes, sir.
[390]Q. All forms of
identification? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
You have attempted to school yourself and learn as much as you could about it: is
that so? And you
have been doing that work for the State Police for how many years now? A. About six
years.
Q.
About six years. And in that capacity did you come to the Lindbergh home on the night
of March 1st,
1932? A. On the morning of March 2nd.
Q.
About what time? A. Five minutes after twelve.
Q.
And when you got there, where did you go and what did you do, sir? A. Upon my
arrival I was
met at the front entrance of the Lindbergh home by Corporal Wolfe, and Colonel
Lindbergh, who
directed me to the nursery on the second floor of the home.
Q.
When you got to the nursery on the second floor of the Lindbergh home did you see a
note there?
A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q.
And did you take that note and test it for fingerprints? A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q.
And this envelope, S‑17, and the note, S‑18, both of which bear your initials on them
somewhere, are
those the papers that you tested that night? A. They are.
Q.
Was the note in the envelope? A. It was.Q. Did you take it out? A. I did.
Q.
And did you find any fingerprints there on? A. I did not.
Q.
Did you use such appliances as to you or such methods as were known to you that night
to the best
of your ability, to try to find fingerprints? A. I did.
Mr.
Pope: We object to that question; we are entitled to know what methods he used; then
we will determine whether they are the best methods or not.
[391] Mr. Wilentz: Who is going to determine that?
The
Court: Well, you have the full right of cross-examination in respect to that. I apprehend that
the Attorney General thinks that he has qualified this officer as a fingerprint
expert.
Do
you deny that, Mr. Pope?
Mr.
Reilly: I think we will handle it under cross-examination.
The
Court: Very well.
Q.
Those two things just referred to, you tested so far as those fingerprints are
concerned? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
What else did you do, sir? A. I made a general observation of the nursery,
the conditions
therein,
noticed the crib and processed the rest of the room for fingerprints, noticed the
dirt marks described
by Trooper Wolf on the floor and on the leather bag directly under the window. My
duties consisted
of trying to take fingerprints on various parts of the articles in the nursery,
photographs on
the
interior of the same and processing the ladder that was brought in by Trooper Bornmann
for prints.
Q.
With reference to your efforts in the room, did you attempt to get any fingerprint
evidence in the
room aside from the note? A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q.
What did you process besides the note and the envelope? A. I processed the
window sill, the
window,
inside and out, the crib, the screen, the light in back of the screen, the French
windows, the window
on the north side of the nursery, that is the north window on the east side of the
nursery, the bureau
drawers, a little chair that was at the foot [392] of the crib, everything in the room that it was
possible to
obtain a fingerprint from.
Q.
Did you find any fingerprints upon those articles? A. No, sir; I did not.
Q.
Now, what else then did you do later? A. I later was called down into the hall by
Bornmann, who
had brought that ladder in to me.
Q.
When you got down to the hall, did Bornmann give you a ladder? A. He gave me two
sections of a
ladder. And later he brought in another section of the ladder and a chisel.
Q.
And was the dowel pin in there with it? A. It was.
Q.
The two that he brought in together, were they somewhat connected, the two sections
of the ladder?
A. Somewhat connected and somewhat disconnected.
Q.
I see. Just a minute. I show you S‑32 and ask you whether that is the ladder, the three
sections, that
Bornmann gave you that night? A. May I examine that, please?
Q.
You certainly may. A. (The witness steps from the witness stand and examines
ladder) Yes, sir,
it is.
Q.
Did you place any marks upon that ladder which lead you to the conclusion that it
is the same ladder?
A. Yes, I did.
Q.
Tell us what marks you put on there. Point them out to us, please. A. On this
rung here I marked
it No. 1
with my initial, F.K.; on this rung here I marked No. 2 with my initial F.K.
Q.
Yes, sir. A. On this rung here I marked No. 3 with my initial F.K.
Q.
So that upon each section of S‑32 for identification you marked in your writing a number on
one, No.
1, on another one No. 2, and on another one No. 3, and underneath that number you
marked your
initials? A. That is correct.
[393]Q. And your initials are
F.K.? A. That is correct.
Q.
And you also marked, did you not, the date March 2, 1932? A. I did.
Q.
On each section? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
So that at least to the extent of the boards that you marked, they are the boards that
were there that
night and that you saw and that were given to you by Bornmann? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And are these sections the identical sections that you got from Bornmann? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And what did you do with these sections, S‑32 for identification? A. I had them in
my possession except
when they were taken out by investigators.
Q.
Well, now I want to know about it, about the “except” and the “investigators” and who
they were. How
long did you have them under your direct charge? A. Under my direct charge
until around June,
1932.
Q.
Now from March the 1st,
1932, to June,
1932,
then you had them under your direct charge and sole custody? A. That is right.
Q.
And when it was taken to Washington to be processed or whatever they did with it
and tested, did
you take it there? A. I did.
Q.
And when this operation wasn’t finished at night what did you do with it when you
were in Washington?
A. Locked up in a safe.
Q.
And in the morning did you come and see that it was gotten out of that safe? A. I
did.
Q.
And is this the same, the genuine same thing that you had that night March the 1st,
1932, and carted
with you to Washington and brought back? A. It is.
Mr.
Reilly: Now you are leading, Mr. Attorney General.
[394] Mr. Fisher: Let the witness testify.
Mr.
Wilentz: If counsel has an objection I take it that Mr. Pope knows where to direct it.
Q.
Not having brought it back until June, what did you do with the ladder then? A. I
brought it to the
training school.
Q.
And there you surrendered it to whom? A. Captain Lamb.
Q.
And has it been in his custody so far as you know? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And under his charge? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
All right, sir.
The
Court: Surrendered it to Captain Lamb?
Mr.
Wilentz: Yes, sir.
Q.
Now, just one other thing before we get away from S‑32 for identification. Will you
tell us so far
as you know, so far as you remember and recollect, any differences in this ladder as you see
it now from
the time that you first saw it when Bornmann gave it to you? A. Those numbers
were not on there.
Q.
Which numbers, these little white— A. These little white numbers, these tags.
Q.
The little white clips in each rung? A. That’s right and these aluminum tags.
Q.
These aluminum tags with the numbers? A. Nor the board on the side.
Q.
The white board as distinguished from the dark and used boards. A. That’s
right. Nor this
split.
[395]Q. A split there which
seems to be the reason for putting this white there to attach one part—
Mr.
Pope: We object to that question.
A. That’s
right.
The
Court: Perhaps it is a little leading.
Mr.
Pope: Terribly leading.
A. (Continuing)
And the saw cut.
Q.
And the saw cut. Now where is the saw cut that you are talking about? A. On
this rung.
Q.
The saw cut in rung A, where there is tag Number 2 on Section 1.
Q.
The cut on one of the rungs where there is a white tag Number 2 on Section 1, is that the cut you
are talking about? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now I notice a couple of holes on top; were they there? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
I notice the top rung as we look at it now is separate from the sides of the ladder.
Tell me whether
that presented that appearance, the nails being out. A. As far as I recall,
yes, it does.
Q.
Now, sir, I notice these little white—what are they, thumb—some sort of— A. Some
sort of a thumb tack.
Q.
Thumb tack on Number 2 with your initials on? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
It is Number 2 section of the exhibit we are referring to and I ask you whether those
thumb tacks
were there? A. No, sir; they were not.
Q.
Now, what else besides that and these metal clips? A. These ropes.
Q.
The metal clips and the ropes were not on. How about the indentations, other
indentations? A. [396] Other
than the rope and thumb tacks and aluminum tags the ladder was as I have stated.
Q.
Well, as you have stated, you mean the same as you found it? A. The same.
Q.
How about these holes on top? A. They were in there.
Q.
Now, get to the next section, Section 3 as you have it marked with your initials “F.
K.” I notice
that the same sort of white thumb tacks were on there. Were they there that night, the
white thumb
tacks? A. No, sir.
Q.
Who put them on? A. They were put on at Washington when I brought the ladder
there.
Q.
And these little clips, were they on? A. No, sir, they were not.
Q.
What else besides the metal clips and thumb tacks do you see on this section that were
not there that
night? A. The rope.
Q.
The rope, piece of cord. How about this dowel pin? A. That dowel pin was in
the ladder.
Q.
One of the dowel pins was in the ladder? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
How about the other dowel pin? A. The other dowel pin was outside in the yard.
Q.
Outside in the yard so that one dowel pin was in the ladder and the other was
outside. Now except
for that is there anything about that section that is different than the
morning of March
2d,
1932, when it was given to you by the police officer that you referred to a minute
ago? A. No,
sir;
there was not.
Q.
Is it the same ladder? A. It is.
Q.
It is. All right, sir. Then you came down, I take it, you processed this ladder? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And found no fingerprints on it? A. I did not.
Q.
What did you do then? A. I returned to the nursery to continue my investigation
there.
[397]Q. All right. What did
you do? Tell us about it, please? A. I continued with my fingerprint
work there
in the nursery and taking photographs in the nursery.
Q.
Yes, sir; and having done that, what did you do then? A. I noticed during this
investigation that
there
was a leather case on top of a wooden chest directly under this window, the southeast
window. There was a marking of dirt—
Q.
Yes., A. On, facing the leather case on the left hand side, apparently a slide—
Mr.
Reilly: I object to the apparently.
The
Witness: It was my opinion at that time—
Mr.
Reilly: I object to your opinion.
The
Court: Well, just tell us what you found.
The
Witness: This dirt mark on the leather case. Directly under that on the floor
there was
another dirt mark.
By
Mr. Wilentz: Q. Just wait one minute. We will identify the leather
case which you are talking about, which I think has already been done. I show you
Exhibit S‑11. You notice a leather case there right
near the
southeast window? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Is that the leather case you are referring to? A. It is.
Q.
It is the very nearest to the window sill? A. Yes, sir.
[398]Q. You say you saw some
dirt smudge— Is that what you said? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
All right. Now, on what part of the leather case was the dirt smudged? A. Facing
the leather case
it was on the left
hand
corner.
Q.
And as you look from the window was it the far corner? A. Looking from the
window with my
back
to the case?
Q.
Well, was it the nearest side of the case to the window or the farthest side? A. The
farthest side.
Q.
The farthest side? A. Nearest to the crib.
Q.
Yes, sir. All right. Then what did you do, sir? What else did you see, rather? A. I
noticed on
the floor directly under that there was a dirt smudge.
Q.
Yes. A. And in the middle of the floor, going in a direction to the crib from the
window there was
another
dirt marking on the floor.
Q.
Did you test those? Did you make any test at all with reference to those dirt
smudges? A. They
were similar to the substance that was in the yard.
Q.
Well, did you make any test with reference to them of any kind at all? A. Other
than noticing the
color of the dirt in the yard and the color on the floor, that was the only test that I
made.
Q.
Now, then, what did you do, sir? A. I continued my investigation the following morning,
as soon
as it got light outside.
Q.
Yes. A. And made photographs of outside conditions.
Q.
As the result of some notice that was directed to you did you take this picture (showing
to witness)? A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q.
What date? A. The morning of March 2d.
Q.
1932? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And that is a picture of part of that ground [399] and what is supposed to show as it did
show on March
2d, 1932? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Referring to S‑3 for identification. Now, referring to S‑6 for identification, did
you also take this
picture of the board walk? A. I did.
Q.
And that is a true picture of conditions as you saw them on March 2d, 1932, early in
the morning?
A. It is.
Q.
With reference to the board walk and on the east side? A. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Wilentz: I offer S‑6 in evidence.
Mr.
Hauck: I understand there is no objection to that. Have it marked.
Mr.
Wilentz: I offer S‑31, while counsel is looking at the other, S‑31 for identification in evidence. I
understand there is no objection.
The
Reporter: S‑36 in evidence.
The
Court: S‑31
is admitted, there being no objection.
Mr.
Wilentz: Yes, sir.
(State
Exhibit S‑31
for identification is now received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑36
in evidence.)
The
Court: How about the other?
Mr.
Wilentz: It is offered without objection.
The
Court: The exhibit will be admitted.
[400] The Reporter: S‑37 now.
Mr.
Wilentz: S‑36 and S‑37.
(The
photograph referred to was received in evidence and marked S‑37.)
Q.
Now, did you—I notice that S‑36 is the picture of a footprint. Did you do anything about encasing
it? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q.
Did you do anything about preserving it? A. It was preserved when it was pointed out
to me.
Q.
In what fashion? A. Under the supervision of Lieutenant Lang.
Q.
In what fashion? A. Lieutenant Lang was in custody of it to see that nobody
destroyed it or
tampered
with it in any way.
Q.
In other words, you mean that somebody was guarding it so far as you know? A. That
is it.
Q.
I see, but you did nothing of your own account to test it, measure it, preserve it,
encase it, or anything else? A. No, sir.
Q.
So that, so far as this exhibit is concerned, you know nothing about it except what
this picture shows?
A. That is it.
Q.
With reference to the dowel pin attached to one of the sections—
Mr.
Wilentz: May we consider that, for the purpose of identification, as part of the section?
Mr.
Reilly: Yes.
Mr.
Wilentz: Rather than offer it again?
Mr.
Reilly: Yes.
[401] The Court: John, let me see that
photograph there
about the footprints?
(The
exhibit was shown to the Court.)
Q.
Now, did you also see Exhibit S‑34 for identification, the chisel—I understood you to say you did
see it—did you test it for fingerprints? A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q.
Found none on that? A. No, sir; I did not.
Q.
Did you test the dowel pins, the one attached to the ladder a part of the exhibit for
identification
there,
and also this identification, Exhibit S‑33 for identification, for fingerprints? A. Yes,
sir; I did.
Q.
Now, was the ladder which Lieutenant Bornmann gave to you on the premises assembled
together in
three sections? A. No, sir; it was not.
Q.
I mean eventually was it put together? A. Oh, yes.
Q.
Was it put together in your presence, the very ladder that was there? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And was it placed against the house? A. It was.
Q.
Now, when it was placed against the house, the three sections together, on the east
side of that house—
A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
At the point where that ladder touched the house were there any marks at all, the
top section? A. Yes, there was.
Q.
On the third section? A. On the second section.
Q.
Well, first time taking you with the three sections? A. No.
Q.
The third section, when placed up at the top of the house—were there any marks there? A. No, sir.
Q.
Anywhere within the vicinity of that area? A. No, sir.
[402]Q. Now, then, did you
take the ladder with the first two sections, put it together, place it against the
wall near that window, and did it show—
Mr.
Reilly: I object to that. That is very leading.
Mr. Wilentz: I will withdraw it if it is leading.
The
Court: He is going to reframe his question.
Q.
I will reframe it. What did you observe when you did that? A. I observed that
at the top section,
that is, the top of the second section, where the ladder had rested against the wall of
the house, that
there were markings, that is the width of the ladder about an inch and a half to two
inches above that
top section of the second ladder.
Q.
I don’t understand about that inch and a half that you are just talking about. A. Placing
the ladder—
Q.
First when you placed the ladder did you place the ladder in the indentation shown
near the board
walk in Exhibit S‑37? A. I did.
Q.
That is where you rested the ladder? A. Exactly.
Q.
All right. Now, were the two sections of the ladder and were the foot of the ladder
there in those
two
holes— By the way, did they fit? A. Exactly.
Q.
All right, sir. Then since it did fit you put it against the house at that point? A. I
did.
Mr.
Reilly: Again you are leading. I am sorry, but my brothers of the Bar are so nervous from
your leading I must object.
[403] Mr. Wilentz: I think maybe you are right, but
sometimes in our enthusiasm—we forget.
Q.
Did you take a picture of the ladder as you placed it at that time? A. I did.
Q.
Is this the picture of the ladder as you placed it with the two pieces of wood in those
holes shown in
Exhibit S‑37? A. It is.
Q.
Does that correctly portray the ladder placed against the east side of the house, the
bottom part of
the ladder in the indentations shown in S‑33? A. It does.
Mr.
Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.
Q.
And is it incidentally a picture of these two sections? A. It is.
Mr.
Reilly: We object to it.
The
Court: Object?
Mr.
Reilly: We do.
The
Court: On what grounds?
Mr.
Reilly: On the ground that it does not conform to the testimony heretofore
given. It shows a window of a third floor, apparently the nursery, with the shutters off,
window open,
the general condition not as heretofore testified to.
The
Court: Well, it purports to be a photograph of an experiment. Do you put your objection
upon that ground?
Mr.
Reilly: Yes, sir. Also upon the ground [404] that it portrays and might portray and
convey to
the jury a wrong impression. It does not conform to the evidence as given
heretofore, the
physical condition of the outside of that house.
Mr.
Wilentz: If your Honor please, it is offered for the purpose of illustration. It is intended
to be helpful to the Court and to the jury, and there is nothing about that except the
open windows—it is the same ladder, it is the same house—and there is nothing
about that
picture that the Court cannot instruct the jury about if it so happens that it
should escape their
memory, the fact that the windows we claim were closed at the time. But I think that it
will be helpful and I don’t see why there should be objection if it is going to be
helpful.
Mr.
Reilly: Whether it is helpful or not we are relying upon the strict rules of evidence. I
think there we are perfectly within our rights.
The
Court: I suppose the true rule is that either side has a right to make an
experiment under
substantially the conditions which are of interest to the case and to prove the
result of
that experiment. That is the rule; but this proposition seems to be rather an
extension of the
rule and I would think that at the moment I ought to sustain this objection.
Mr.
Wilentz: Well, if your Honor pleases, before there is anything like that, let me state very
respectfully, that I cannot see how it is anything but a simple experiment and not
an extension
of the rule; because we have not only the same house, but we have not brought a [405] strange ladder on the
theory that someone may have brought one to fit; we have the very same ladder,
the very indentations there, the same house, everything identical, except for the physical fact
that a window may have been closed or opened, which is a minor matter after all; and
with those very things—we are not taking a strange object and bringing it in, if
your Honor
pleases, not one single strange foreign object, for the experiment, which is a
very unusual thing
for an experiment, but the very objects there on the ground. Now, if we are permitted
to make any experiment at all, if your Honor please, for the purpose of helping the
jury and for the purpose of your Honor’s help, we have certainly used only those
things that
are there, without a foreign object.
Mr.
Reilly: Well, of course, it is not our purpose to keep anything from the jury or
to prevent
the Court, who needs no assistance, from getting assistance, but I say this: If I may
look at the photograph, there is no evidence in this case, either direct or, to my
mind, circumstantial
to this case, that that child was passed out that window and down any ladder or
down this ladder, and I contend that this is merely an experiment with a ladder found
seventy-five feet away, brought to the house and place in some holes; the shutters are
taken off
the house, off the window; the window is left open, to convey to this jury an
improper idea
that by the window being open and the shutters out of the way and the ladder placed the
way it is here in this imperfect experiment, it would be possible to go up the ladder
only once,
go up the ladder,
put the ladder against the shutters, open the shutters with the ladder [406] leaning against them, come down, then
with your
window open go up the ladder again without moving the ladder, go in a window, take the
child out and come down the ladder again, and still shut the shutters after you,
and leave a
note, your visiting card, on the radiator.
Mr.
Wilentz: If your Honor please, may I suggest to my delightful adversary’s summation that
this ladder when placed in the manner that we are attempting to show it with the two
sections, and I don’t want my adversary to get impatient, because we will show it,
placed roughly—
Mr.
Reilly: I am not getting impatient.
Mr.
Wilentz: —placed right up against that building, is placed in such a way that it never
approaches the shutters and the shutters have got nothing to do with it.
Underneath the
window it falls, when you place the ladder in the two holes, indentations, the
shutters are no
obstruction at all, having nothing to do with this case. Here is this building and that
is the more
reason I think this experiment is necessary instead of being a matter of argument here
is an experiment, an illustration. Let him take that ladder and take that view and
situation as
an experiment and let him explain it away.
Mr.
Reilly: Now it seems to be the contention of the General that he brings in a ladder of
three sections of which only two were used.
[407] Mr. Wilentz: That’s right; we will prove that.
Mr.
Reilly: That is entirely different from his opening.
Mr.
Wilentz: No, it is not.
Mr.
Reilly: Oh, yes, it is. “I will bring in a ladder of three sections” up which you
say this
kidnapper went. Now you are trying to hedge and say he went up two.
Mr.
Wilentz: No. Counsel does not need to hedge. We will prove that this ladder as I said
in my opening was used. We have it in the court room and the defense is hollering about
keeping it out, not the State.
Mr.
Reilly: That is very unfair.
Mr.
Wilentz: No. You say we are hedging. I want to show you there is no hedging, the
very ladder and we will show that that was used in the kidnapping and the murder.
The
Court: Well, I am inclined to think at this moment that the State should be confined to
proof by the witnesses who can speak concerning what sort of an experiment was made,
and he may state the result of that experiment subject to the Court’s ruling, and after
all that is done, then if there seems to be any necessity for the picture of this
experiment, then
we will rule on the picture.
Mr.
Wilentz: Thank you, sir, and I withdraw the offer.
[408]Q. And, Kelly, tell us
then, please, just exactly what you did in this experiment? A. In this
experiment, I
placed the ladder with two sections, with the lower part of it resting in these two
marks that were
found.
Q.
The marks are the marks referred to in this exhibit that is in evidence, S‑37? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
All right. A. And found that after the bottom section was placed in those marks and the
top part
of the ladder rested against the house.
Q.
Yes. A. Upon examination I found that where this ladder, the top section of the
ladder rested
against the house, that directly over the top two rungs, or the braces on the side,
there were two
marks
about an inch and a half to two and half inches long that could in my opinion be
cause—
Mr.
Reilly: I object to your opinion.
Q.
Not in your opinion, what did they do with them right with the ladder? A. They
were right with
the ladder; yes, sir.
Q.
On the house? A. On the house.
Q.
Are you talking about marks on the wall of the house? A. I am talking about
marks on the wall
of the house; yes, sir.
Q.
Yes, sir. What kind of marks were they? A. Ladder marks.
Mr.
Reilly: I move to strike that out as calling for a conclusion, unless the ladder in his experiment
made the marks.
The
Court: I decline to strike it out.
Mr.
Reilly: May I have an exception?
[409] The Court: You may have an exception.
(Exception
allowed and the same is signed and sealed accordingly.)
(s.
s.) THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.
Q.
And, now, did you also make an experiment with three sections, the three
sections that you found there? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And what did you find when the ladder with three sections was placed against the
building? A. It
went up above the window.
Q.
And, when it went up above the building, were there any marks on the wall there? A. No, sir.
Q.
None at all? A. No, sir.
Q.
All right, sir; now, when you got up to this second—with the ladder, the two
sections, did you
take
a look at the shutter? A. Yes, I did.
Q.
What kind of material was on the side of this house, what was it built of on the east
side? A. stone.
Q.
What color was the stone? A. White.
Q.
What sort of white was it? A. I would say whitewash, it was painted with a
whitewash or white
paint.
Q.
Were the marks that you speak of, that you saw when you placed the two sections
of the ladder up
against the house the marks that you referred to before as ladder marks, were they
plain? A. Very.
Q.
Tell us with reference to color what color it left with reference to the white? A. A
scraping mark
in the white paint.
Q.
Well, having had these scraping marks, did it leave white there or a different color? A. The
gray of
the stone showed through just
a little bit, but the— [410]
Q.
The gray? A. The gray of the stone house.
Q.
The gray, and when you say gray, that is as distinguished from the rest of the wall,
which is white,
is that what you mean? A. That is right.
Q.
Now, just about what part—
Mr. Wilentz: Let me have an exhibit, please,
of—have
you got a picture of the outside of the house in evidence?
The
Reporter: No.
Mr.
Hauck: Not in evidence.
Q.
Will you come down, please, Mr. Kelly, to Exhibit S‑2, and will you with this
pencil mark just
about
the point with relation to that southeast window that those ladder marks that you say you
saw underneath
the window—
Mr.
Reilly: Now, just a moment, I object to him marking those exhibits. We asked the right
to mark an exhibit before and you objected to it.
Mr.
Wilentz: No, I objected to tracing all the way around the map, not the marking.
The
Court: It was a tracing, Mr. Reilly. It is common enough practice to allow a witness to
point out a spot from a map where certain things are justified and material, and
they may make
a mark there which is different from a tracing, and we do not feel like denying
the State
the right to make such a mark, nor the defense to make such a mark.
[411]Q. Will you take this
pencil—it is a little sharper-just mark an X where you— (Witness
marks State Exhibit S‑2 as indicated.)
Q.
All right. Will you just return to the stand a minute? Now the X’s you placed
underneath the
or
in the vicinity of the southeast window on the second floor, are intended by you to indicate
the point on
the wall where you say these ladder marks were, is that so? A. That is right.
Q.
I want to show you a picture of what purports to be the Lindbergh home and particularly
the east side
of it. (Witness-examines picture.)
Mr.
Wilentz: Is there any objection to the picture of the home?
Q.
Did you take it, Kelly? A. I did.
Q.
Sometime around the time of the crime? A. March 2d.
Mr.
Wilentz: Just the picture.
Q.
What date, do you know? A. March 2d, 1932.
Q.
March 2d, 1932.
Mr.
Wilentz: I only intended to use it as the picture of the home, gentlemen.
Mr.
Reilly: I know, that is the picture of the man’s home, there is no objection to
it.
Mr.
Wilentz: All right. We offer it in evidence, Exhibit S‑38.
[412] (Photograph was received in evidence and marked
Exhibit S‑38.)
Mr.
Wilentz: If there is anything else on there we make no use of it.
Q.
Now, can you also—I don’t know whether this material is permitted—but can you
with a pencil give
us your notion of where those marks were, on this picture. A. I could. (Marks
on picture.)
Q.
Have you got that—Incidentally, that is my pencil, isn’t it? All right. Will you
mark it, please,
the best you can? Have you marked it, sir? A. Yes, sir; I have.
Q.
The X’s then on Exhibit S‑38 are intended to give your idea of the point at which
those ladder marks
were shown? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And those marks were on there, as I understand it from you, before you put the ladder
up? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And when you put the ladder up is it a correct understanding to understand that they fit
with the
ladder the top section of the ladder? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Exactly? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now, with reference to that particular top section of the ladder, did you notice
whether there were
any marks on the top of that ladder? A. When the ladder was brought in to me by
Bornmann to
be processed for fingerprints, I noticed on the top inside section of No. 2 that rested
against the top
that we are referring to now there were two white marks.
Q.
That is to say then you have these in three sections, as I understand it. This S
something for identification,
S‑32, you have these various sections? A. Yes.
[413]Q. As I understand it,
one section fits in another, isn’t that it? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And you referred to them as 1, 2 and 3, is that it? A. That is right.
Q.
I take it that it fits like that (illustrating)? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Then you take the other one and you fit it in, is that it? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
So that one section is wider than the other? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Well, that is a common thing with a section ladder, isn’t it? A. A ladder built
that way?
Q.
A section ladder has that sort of a peculiarity? A. Yes.
Q.
That is, one section is wider than the other? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And a section ladder, the wide part, is down on the ground, isn’t that so? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And then as it goes up, the sections become narrower, isn’t that so? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Now I suppose when you took these ladders, these sections for an experiment, you
took the wide part
and put it in the hole? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And then being connected—
Mr.
Reilly: Will you let him testify, please?
Mr.
Wilentz: Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you connect it with a dowel pin? A. I did.
Q.
And the second sections was connected then by dowel pin? A. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Reilly: Again I must ask you to let him testify, please.
[414] Mr. Wilentz: All right, sir.
Q.
So that when you talk to us about the white marks, where were the white marks, on
what section? A. On
the top part of No. 2 section.
Q.
On the top part of No. 2 section. What sort of white marks were they? A. That is
on the side of
the house?
Q.
On the top of Section No. 2. A. On the top of Section No. 2 they were white marks
that could have
been made by paint—
Mr.
Reilly: I object to that.
Q.
Not what they could have been made by what were they, according to your observation? You
saw them there? A. I would say paint.
Mr.
Reilly: I move to strike out he would say paint.
Q.
Is that what you saw?
Mr.
Reilly: Wait a minute.
The
Court: Just one minute. If it is important I would have to have the question
read and
the answer read.
(Questions
and answers read by the Reporter as follows:
“Q.
What sort of white marks were they? A. That is on the side of the house?
“Q.
On the top of Section No. 2. A. On the top of Section No. 2 they were white
marks that
could have been made by paint.
“Mr.
Reilly: I object to that.
[415] “Q. Not what they could have been made by—what
were they, according to your observation? You saw them there? A. I would say
paint.”)
Mr.
Reilly: It is merely a conclusion on his part.
The
Court: I think I will decline to strike it out.
Mr.
Reilly: Exception.
(Exception
allowed and the same is signed and sealed accordingly.)
(s.
s.) THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.
Mr.
Wilentz: Now, if your Honor please, it is just about the closing hour and it is
still quite
stuffy here. Would your Honor mind, then, if we could steal these two minutes and adjourn
at this time before we go into another subject?
The
Court: The Court will ask everybody to remain where they are until the jury has retired. Now,
please, do the people in this court room understand English? The jury may retire and may
come in tomorrow
morning
at ten o’clock.
The
prisoner is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff. We will take a recess until ten o’clock
tomorrow morning.
The audience may now retire.
(At
4: 30 P. M. an adjournment was taken until tomorrow morning, Tuesday, January 8, 1935,
at ten o’clock.)
STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
vs.
BRUNO
RICHARD HAUPTMANN
Flemington,
N. J., January 7, 1935
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 is polled and all jurors answer present.)
Mr. Wilentz: Mr. Kelly, will you please take the stand.
FRANK A. KELLY
resumed the stand.
Direct Examination by
Mr. Wilentz (continued):
Q.
Officer, you remember this nursery room, do you not? A. I do.
[417]Q. I think there has been
testimony that somewhere in the center of that room, or somewhere in the
room, at least, there was a table and a chair? A. Yes sir.
Q.
Was that table approximately in the center of the room, or where was it? A. It
was directly in
front of the fireplace and the crib; between the fireplace and the crib.
Q.
Between the fireplace and the crib. Well, as I understand it there was a southeast
window? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
A fireplace and a northeast window; is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
So that the fireplace would be between the two windows and approximately in the
center of the
room? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And then in direct line with that, do you mean that there was a table? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And then beyond that a crib? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
As you saw the crib, was it against the wall? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
So that to the right and to the left of the fireplace there were windows? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
What have you to say as to whether or not the table was in direct line between the
southeast window
and the crib? A. That is, between the window and the crib?
Q.
Yes; what have you to say as to the course from the southeast window to the crib? A. You could
have walked a direct line from the window to the crib with no obstruction.
Q.
That is to say that the table was not an obstruction in that course. A. No,
sir.
Q.
I see. Now while this experiment was made with the ladder which has been referred
to in this case
as Exhibit S‑32 for identification there was another ladder used, was there? A. Yes,
sir.
[418]Q. What ladder was that? A. It
was an extension
ladder
that was in the garage of Colonel Lindbergh at the home.
Q.
It was the Colonel’s ladder, is that what you mean? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And just one other question. Did you measure the indentations in the ground, the
impressions in
the
ground which you and others have referred to as the holes or impressions made by the
ladder? A. No,
sir, I didn’t measure it.
Q.
Did you take a photograph of the paint—I think you said there was paint or
white-wash that
was
on top of the second rung of the ladder. A. No, sir, I did not.
Q.
Why not? A. In the process of testing the ladder for fingerprints that dusted off.
Q.
As I understand yesterday, you stated in taking, attempting to take fingerprints
in that baby’s
nursery,
that you found none? A. That is correct.
Q.
You have been in court for several days, have you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
You heard Mrs. Lindbergh’s testimony and Miss Gow’s that they had been in the
room? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
You mean then that you found no fingerprints of anybody’s? A. I mean this.
Q.
Just answer the question. A. No, sir; nobody’s at all.
Q.
Nobody’s at all? A. No, sir.
Mr.
Wilentz: Mr. Reilly, take the witness.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reilly:
Q.
Mr. Kelly, how much experience have you had in taking fingerprints? A. Six
years.
Q.
Where did you study? A. While I have been in the department.
[419]Q. Under whom did you
study? A. I studied this under Sergeant Jastrom, and I studied myself in
various books that I have picked up.
Q.
Did you ever study the Bertillon system? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q.
And, are you the, what is known as the expert of the Police Department, the State
Police? A. No, sir, I am not.
Q.
Well, who takes the Bertillon measurements? A. It is not used, it is obsolete.
Mr.
Reilly: I move the latter part be stricken out as a conclusion, “It is obsolete.”
The
Court: Strike it out.
Q.
The Bertillon system is a system of measuring by height, breadth and general
dimensions, is
that
correct? A. That is.
Q.
Yes, it has been used for over 100
years in foreign
countries and in America, hasn’t it? A. I couldn’t say.
Q.
Did you ever study under the late Inspector Farout of New York, the late fingerprint
expert? A. I
did not.
Q.
Did you bring with you the paraphernalia this morning for taking fingerprints? A. No,
sir, I did
not.
Mr.
Reilly: I understood from the table here, the prosecution would have them this morning.
Mr.
Wilentz: Well, if counsel wants them I will certainly get them for him sometime today.
Mr.
Reilly: All right.
[420]Q. Do you think you would
be able to take fingerprints and give the jury an observation? A. I would.
Q.
Yes. Now you want us to believe, do you, that although Mrs. Lindbergh had been in
the nursery
that evening, Miss Gow had been over to the medicine cabinet and the medicine
table and given
the child, I believe, cough mixture and had rubbed the child’s chest with a jar of
Vicks and had
been around the medicine table, shown in the State’s exhibit S‑9, you could find no fingerprints? A. Of value.
Q.
Of anybody you testified here, of anybody; is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q.
Yes. Now you know, do you not, that there are no two fingerprints in the world
alike. A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
That we each have our own individual photograph on our fingerprints. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Does that also apply to the feet? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now, when you arrived at this house I think you said it was around eleven o’clock. A. No,
sir.
Q.
How late? A. Five minutes after twelve in the morning of March 2nd.
Q.
Five minutes after twelve. I see. And who did you see in the nursery? A. When
I went to the
nursery it was empty.
Q.
Did anybody accompany you to the nursery? A. They did.
Q.
Who? A. Colonel Lindbergh and Corporal Wolf.
Q.
Was the nursery lighted or was it in darkness? A. As I recall, it was lighted.
Q.
What was the first object you attempted to photograph or take fingerprints from? A. The note.
[421]Q. Now, when you received
the note it was in
the
envelope? A. That’s right.
Q.
Was it sealed? A. Yes.
Q.
And how did you open the envelope? A. With a fingernail file.
Q.
Now, what did you do to this envelope to try and find fingerprints from it? A. I
at that time used a camel hair brush that is used by fingerprint operators
and a black powder which is manufactured by Flaacke, standard fingerprint powder, dusted
the surface of the note with the powder and the brush.
Q.
First you take the powder and sift it on, don’t you? A. First I dip my brush
into the bottle
and
sift the powder on and then brush over the surface of it.
Q.
Very lightly? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Is it not the proper way to take a fingerprint to sift the powder from the bottle over
the paper and
then blow it off and the powder remains where the fingerprints are? A. No, sir, it
is not.
Q.
Do you not know that the brushing of your brush destroys the fingerprints? A. I
know in blowing
it
off you blow moisture on it and destroy the fingerprint.
Q.
You see me handle this paper? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And counsel at the table are going to handle it now. We are going to leave it
right here with
the
clerk until you bring your apparatus. That is what you did with the note, too, I assume, you
brushed it with the brush? A. That is correct.
Q.
Dipped in the powder? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Did it leave any marks at all? A. It did not.
Q.
Was anybody present when you tried to take the fingerprints? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Who? A. Colonel Lindbergh.
Q.
Anybody from the department that knew any- [422] thing about fingerprinting? A. It depends on
what you
mean, Mr. Reilly, knowing anything about fingerprints.
Q.
Any police officer? A. Police officers, yes, sir.
Q.
Do they generally know anything about fingerprints? A. They know a fingerprint when they
see one.
Q.
Do they know how to take one? A. I don’t know. I couldn’t answer that question.
Q.
How long were you working on the note before you gave it up as hopeless as far as
fingerprints went?
A. Possibly about half an hour.
Q.
Always in the nursery? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Then what did you do with the note? A. I kept it on my person until the arrival of
my troop commander
and turned it over to him.
Q.
After the note, what was the next place? A. The nursery.
Q.
That you went to try and get some fingerprints? A. The nursery.
Q.
You were in the nursery? A. That is correct.
Q.
With the note? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now you are through with the note? A. Right.
Q.
Where did you go then to try and get fingerprints? A. I believe my next attempt was the
window, and the window sill.
Q.
Now the window—what
part of the window
did
you look for fingerprints? A. All of it.
Q.
When you arrived at the window, you found the window closed, is that correct? A. That
is correct.
Q.
Did you find the latch opened or closed? A. Open.
Q.
Did you do anything to the latch? A. Processed it for fingerprints.
Q.
You found none on it? A. No sir.
[423]Q. Did you take the
bottom of the window and process it for fingerprints, this sash? A. Do
you mean
inside the bottom window?
Q.
Inside and outside. A. Yes, I did.
Q.
Did you take this upper part of the window that you would have to shove up with the
finger? A. The
frame that holds it to it?
Q.
Yes. A. I did.
Q.
The outside? A. Yes.
Q.
You found no fingerprints? A. Yes.
Q.
What was the condition of the inside of the window? Did you try to get fingerprints
from that?
A. I did.
Q.
Couldn’t get any? A. No, sir.
Q.
Finally you got over to the crib, didn’t you? A. I did.
Q.
Now, did you hear Miss Gow testify that she came into the crib and she leaned over
the crib, she couldn’t hear the child breathing, and that she started
to feel among the coverlets? Did you hear her testify to that yesterday? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And leaning over the crib—did you try to get Miss Gow’s fingerprints or anybody’s
fingerprints off
the edge of the crib? A. I tried to get any print that was in that room.
Q.
Well, you heard Miss Gow testify that at least an hour before, or two hours
before, maybe three
hours before you arrived, she had been at that crib and leaning over it and
handling it: is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q.
And you want us to believe that you couldn’t even get her fingerprints from that crib
where she was
looking for the baby? A. If she leaned over.
Q.
She touched the crib and she leaned in the crib and she looked for the baby and she
felt the crib,
all around the crib. You say there were no fingerprints of hers? A. Exactly.
Q.
Nobody’s? A. No, sir.
[424]Q. And a fingerprint in
your opinion will last how many days, if any? A. It depends on
atmospheric conditions,
general conditions in the room or outside conditions.
Q.
What atmospheric conditions in the nursery room would cause any fingerprint to
disappear within
two
days? A. I didn’t say it was atmospheric conditions that caused it.
Q.
What condition of any kind that you could imagine and know of could cause a
fingerprint to
disappear
in that nursery room within two days? A. General handling conditions.
Q.
If anyone went near the crib wouldn’t the fingerprint remain there for at least two
days? A. No,
I wouldn’t say it would.
Q.
Would it remain there one day? A. I wouldn’t say it would.
Q.
Would it remain there twelve hours? A. I wouldn’t say it would last five minutes.
Q.
What authority did you ever study for fingerprinting? A. I studied the Henry System.
Q.
Who was Henry, the Chief of Police in Canada that wrote the book? A. No, sir, I do not know
that.
Q.
Well, who is Henry? A. He is the man that the Henry System of classification of
fingerprints and
I studied that.
Q.
Where did he come from, what city? A. I believe he came from England.
Q.
When was the book written? A. I do not know.
Q.
When did you study it last? A. For the past six years. I go over it occasionally.
Q.
When did you see it last? A. About two months ago.
Q.
And a man named Henry in England wrote a book? A. As far as I recall.
[425]Q. As far as you recall.
You have never studied any American system at all, have you? A. That is
the American system that has been used by police departments in the United States.
Q.
Don’t you know the system used in the United States is a system devised by
ex-Inspector Forrot
of
the Police Department of New York? A. No, I didn’t.
Q.
You didn’t know that he was in charge of the New York Police Department on fingerprinting
for twenty-five
years. A. I don’t know what New York does. I am in Jersey.
Q.
You didn’t know he gave lectures to all the fingerprint men in the United States at
least once a
month? A. I never heard tell of the man.
Q.
You never heard tell of the man. Have you any authority in Jersey that you can rely
upon as a fingerprint
expert? A. What do you mean?
Q.
Anybody that ever wrote a book, anybody that ever gave a lecture on fingerprinting
in this state
that you attended? A. We have men in our department that give lectures on fingerprinting.
Q.
Who are they? A. Lieutenant Jostron gives lectures on fingerprinting.
Q.
How long has he been giving lectures? A. As long as I have known him.
Q.
Did you study under him? A. I did.
Q.
You did, correct, did you study under him? A. Pardon?
Q.
Did you study under him? A. Yes.
Q.
Now, what has been your experience in preserving footprints? A. Will you be more
definite on
that, please?
Q.
Yes. Assuming that a man stepped into a muddy hole and left behind him a footprint
as has been
photographed here. Outside of photography how would you preserve the footprint? A. How would
I preserve it?
[426]Q. Yes. A. If I was
the only investigator, I would preserve it by measuring it, making a mold of
it.
Q.
Well, what would prevent you in an important case like this of not measuring it? A. If
it had been done
by somebody else.
Q.
Who measured it, so far as you know? A. I believe Detective DeGaetano did.
Q. Before you arrived? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you check up on his measurements? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q.
Did he take a mold of it? A. I couldn’t say.
Q.
Did you ask him? A. No, sir.
Q.
Did you check up on it? A. No, sir.
Q.
Did you take a mold? A. No, sir.
Q.
Now, as to the ladder, do you know it has been reported that one man took over 8oo
fingerprints from
this ladder?
Mr.
Wilentz: I object to the question, if your Honor please. I think—
Mr.
Reilly: All right, I am ahead of myself. I will withdraw it.
The Court: All right.
Q.
Did you get any fingerprints from the ladder? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q.
How soon after you were finished with the ladder was it examined by Government men?
A. Do
you mean a police conference, Mr. Reilly?
Q.
No, I will put it this way: I don’t want to do anything to confuse you. The ladder was
brought into
the Lindbergh home in two sections, correct? A. The first two sections.
[427]Q. Yes, the first two
sections were brought in and later on a third section brought in: am I correct about
that? A. That is correct.
Q.
The first two sections that were brought in were joined together and were not joined
together, half
and half? A. That is right.
Q.
They were loosely joined, I will put it that way; is that correct? A. Correct.
Q.
Yes. And where was it put, the first portion of the ladder, when it was brought in?
Left in the library
or somewhere? A. I received the ladder in the hallway.
Q.
Hallway. You had finished, had you, with your experiments up in the nursery? A. Oh,
no.
Q.
Hadn’t started them yet? A. I had started them.
Q.
All right. Then what did you do with the ladder when you finally determined you
should look for
fingerprints? A. What did I do with it?
Q.
Take it to some room and examine it? A. I worked on it right there in the hall.
Q.
Right in the hall. That is what I want to know. And you went over all three
sections? A. I
did.
Q.
What condition was the ladder in? Was it dry or wet? A. It was dry.
Q.
Wasn’t it covered with frost? A. No, sir.
Q.
No moisture on it at all? A. No, sir.
Q.
Sure about that? A. Yes, sir.
0.
Cold night, wasn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
There wasn’t any moisture on it at all? A. No, sir.
Q.
Is that right? A. That is right.
Q.
You looked the ladder all over carefully? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
It was dry, the entire three sections? A. Yes. sir.
[428]Q. Well now, I want to
know a little more about this section ladder from the Colonel’s garage. That was
a section ladder too, was it not? A. That was an extension ladder.
Q.
That was an extension ladder. What do you mean by that? A. I mean a ladder
that is wider at
the bottom and it has a pulley effect with a rope on it that you can pull the top section
up.
Q.
Something like the ladders they used to prune trees with, it has a rope on it? A. It
has.
Q. And you can pull it up? A. Yes.
Q.
And it clicks as it goes up with a catch? A. Yes. on the side, yes.
0.
How high was that ladder when it was pulled to its full length? A. I don’t know.
I don’t believe
it
was pulled to its full length.
Q.
Did you not try? A. Not to its full length, no, sir.
Q. Why not? A. There was no necessity
for it.
Q.
You were there to investigate something, were you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You never saw any ladder up against the Colonel’s
window, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. You were in possession of two ladders,
correct? A. I
was in possession of three sections of one ladder, one complete ladder.
Q.
And you were in possession of another ladder, the extension ladder? A. That is
right.
Q.
What I want to know and the jury wants to know is how high the extension ladder
would go if you
pulled the string? A. I suppose if you pull it all the way
Q.
Not suppose—don’t you know? A. No, I do not.
Q.
Where is that ladder? A. The last time I saw it, it was in Colonel Lindbergh’s
home in Hopewell.
[429]Q. How long ago? A. That
was last June, I
believe,
was the last time I was there.
Q. Yet with all your investigation, you
mean to tell
us, and that is what you were there for, that you never pulled that string to see how high
the extension ladder
would go? A. There was no need for it.
Q.
I did not ask you if there was any need for it. I ask you if you did it. A. No.
Q.
The jury will pass on the need for it. Now, did you see Colonel Lindbergh’s garage
that evening and
do you agree with him that the garage was always open?
Mr.
Wilentz: Of course, the witness would not know that.
Q.
Did you go to the garage and see the doors open? A. No.
Q.
Who brought you or directed your attention to Colonel Lindbergh’s ladder—I will
withdraw that.
I don’t want to put Colonel Lindbergh in this at all. The ladder belonging to the
Lindbergh home.
A. Repeat
the question, please.
Q.
The ladder belonging to the Lindbergh home? A. Will you repeat the question,
please.
Q.
Who directed your attention to the ladder belonging to the Lindbergh home? A. I
believe, as
I recall it, I asked about a ladder, I asked Ollie Whateley, and he told me
there was a ladder in the garage.
Q.
He was the butler? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
He was the man whose word you took that he—you didn’t, it was some other officer.
The ladder was
brought in to you or did you go up to the garage? A. I went to the garage.
Q.
When? A. As soon as I asked about it.
Q.
Well, when—I don’t know when that was, that day, or the next day, or when? A. That
day.
[430]Q. That day. I suppose
you stayed right on the job, did you, right through until about noon the next
day: is that right? A. Oh, no. I didn’t leave the premises; I was right there.
Q.
Until how long? A. Until June.
Q.
Couple of days—You lived right on the premises, did you? A. Yes, I did.
Q.
Well, sometime the next day you asked about a ladder and the butler told you there
was one in the
garage: is that correct? A. That is right.
Q.
What did you do about sifting that for fingerprints? A. Sifting what for fingerprints?
Q.
The ladder in the garage. A. What do you mean, sifting the ladder, Mr. Reilly?
Q.
Well, I mean trying to process it, as you call it. A. I didn’t do anything about
it.
Q.
You never even looked at that ladder or gave it a processing to see if there was any
fingerprint on
it: is that right? A. That is right.
Q.
You just took it for granted that this makeshift affair they brought in was the ladder
somebody might
have put up against the house: is that correct? A. I took it for granted
for what?
Q.
This makeshift ladder was the ladder that was put up against the house, if any ladder
was put up against
the house: is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q.
Now, you knew, did you not, that you were there for the purpose of preserving the
evidence for any
trial that might ever come up: is that correct? A. Correct.
The
Court: Mr. Reilly, just excuse me one moment. I am sorry, but I am very sensitive to
drafts and I am feeling a draft from that window. Thank you very much.
Q.
Now are you the photographer, too? A. I [431] work at that, yes.
Q.
Did you photograph the foot print? A. I did.
Q.
Was that photographed at night? A. Daytime.
Q.
Daytime? What time? Noon time? A. The following morning around eight o’clock or so.
Q.
Did you photograph the outside, this other picture? A. What other picture?
Mr.
Hauck: They are all here, Mr. Reilly; all the photographs (indicating).
Mr.
Reilly: Thank you.
Q.
This one that shows the bush; did you photograph that, Exhibit S‑35 (showing the witness)?
A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Well, now is this, snow? A. No, it is not.
Q.
What is it, mud? A. Mud.
Q.
Then the white portion of the photograph indicates mud? A. Indicates the
earth there.
Q.
Yes. Well, was it soft, mushy? A. In some parts.
Q.
Frozen in others? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And this footprint (showing another photograph to the witness) was that more or less
frozen in this photograph in the mud the next day? A. No, sir.
Q.
It hadn’t been disturbed? A. No, sir.
Q.
There had been a State Trooper put there to protect it, hadn’t there? A. That
is right.
Mr.
Reilly: With the understanding that this witness is to be recalled when he comes back
with his paraphernalia, I am through for the present.
STATE
vs. HAUPTMANN
January 8, 1935
[479] FRANK
A. KELLY, recalled:
Direct
Examination by Mr. Wilentz: [480]Q. Mr. Kelly, do you know who sawed this section, referring
to the section that is fixed together by a white board, on Section i of the
ladder, which is marked S-32 for identification? A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Were you present when it was done? A. No, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: All right, sir, that is all.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: He says that he does or does not
know?
Mr. Wilentz: He does not.
STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
vs.
BRUNO
RICHARD HAUPTMANN
January 23, 1935
[2125] 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: My recollection, if your Honor
please, is that there is another reserve witness for cross examination with reference
to fingerprint work; I think it was reserved by Mr. Reilly and, if Mr. Kelly is
here, I suggest that we proceed now with that phase of the case.
Mr. Reilly: That is agreeable.
[2126] FRANK
A. KELLY, recalled for cross examination, testified as follows:
Cross
Examination by Mr. Reilly:
Q. I think when you left the stand you were to go and get some paraphernalia
for taking fingerprints; is that right? A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Now, this piece of paper has been handled by
counsel for the defense, two or three of them, and has been in the possession
of the Clerk ever since you took this witness stand and left the witness stand.
Will you take this and show the jury how you attempt to locate fingerprints. A. Yes,
sir. Would you mind placing it there, Mr. Reilly?
Q. Sure; I will place it any place. A. (The
witness leaves the stand.)
Q. Couldn’t you do it up there, Mr. Kelly, in front
of the Judge and jury? A. I believe so.
Q. Yes. A. Just set it there.
Mr. Wilentz: As I understand it, a statement has
been made by counsel that this paper has been in the possession of the Clerk.
Mr. Reilly: The Clerk here (Mr. Fell).
Mr. Wilentz: And not in the possession of
anybody else?
Mr. Reilly: No.
Mr. Wilentz: No identification mark on it at
all.
[2127] Mr. Reilly: No.
Clerk Fell: There is no identification by the
Clerk.
Mr. Wilentz: I had hoped and had been under the
impression that it was marked for identification but we will make no point of
it. You may proceed, Mr. Kelly. May I suggest too, while we are at it, that my
understanding of Mr. Kelly’s testimony was that prior to the date of this kidnaping
and crime there was one form of test that he made and thereafter some new process
came along. I take it that counsel wants the old process.
Mr. Reilly: The old process.
Mr. Wilentz: All right; we want the old process.
(The witness proceeded with his demonstration.)
By Mr. Reilly: Q. Mr. Kelly, on the half that
you brushed over have you found some prints? A. On the half I have brushed
over I have found some ridge formations from the finger, but I would say that
they are prints of no value.
Q. All right. Will you sift the others. A. (The
witness demonstrated.)
Q. You don’t have to do any more, Mr. Kelly. [2128]
May I have the paper. A. (Paper handed to counsel.)
Q. Mr. Kelly, this is the paper that you brushed
over; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Reilly: I ask to have it marked for identification.
(The paper referred to was marked Defendant’s Exhibit
D‑37 for Identification.)
Q. Now, Mr. Kelly, as I indicate to you on this paper,
this mark here indicates where a finger held this paper? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the upper right hand corner. Now, these
two marks here at the bottom of the paper indicate where it was held by a
finger? A. Where a finger came in
contact with it.
Q. That is right. And that shows certain ridges,
does it not? A. Yes, sir; but they are of no value.
Mr. Reilly: Well, I move that that be stricken
out, as voluntary, that they are of no value. We will find out if they are of any
value in our examination.
The Court:
Yes. It does not seem to be responsive. It will be stricken out, “they are of
no value.”
By Mr. Reilly: Q. Now, assuming, Mr. Kelly, that
this paper, Defendant’s Exhibit D‑37 for Identification, was handled by at
least four of defense counsel without gloves the day that you were last on the
witness stand and placed in the possession of the [2129] Clerk of this court
until this morning: you say that this is all of the fingerprints or indications
that you can obtain from it, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Kelly, is it not a fact that the human
hand is constantly throwing off a secretion or grease? Is that correct? A. That
is right.
Q. And it is that secretion or grease which clings
to anything the hand touches? A. That is right.
Q. Such as paper, wood, glass, metal: correct? A. Correct.
Q. And is it not true that each individual—Put
it this way: there are no two individuals in the world that have the same
fingerprints; is that correct? A. Correct.
Q. We are each individually marked? A. That
is right.
Q. Now, am I correct in saying that on the evening
that you were called to Colonel Lindbergh’s home this ransom note was shown to
you in an envelope? A. That is right.
Q. It had not yet been taken out of the
envelope? A. No, sir.
Q. And you dusted it the same as you did here? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And you found no fingerprints on it? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Correct? A. Right.
Q. Now, did you dust the window sill? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Did you dust it completely? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Kelly, what would remove fingerprints, a
handkerchief, cloth, or what kind of a piece of material would remove
fingerprints in your opinion? A. Any foreign object that touched it,
rubbed it, would remove the fingerprint.
Q. Well now, if that window sill had been gone [2130] over with a cloth or a wash rag or a
Turkish towel, it would remove any fingerprints that were on it, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that if the window was opened from the outside
and lifted up and fingerprints were on it which were rubbed over with a towel
before you arrived in your opinion they would be removed, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now I understood you to say that you found no
fingerprints on the window. A. No fingerprints of value on the window.
Q. Did you find any? A. I found marks.
Q. Well, now, what do you mean “of value?” A. I
mean that where there is complete ridge formation enough to make identification
of value.
Q. How much ridge formation do you require to
make an identification? A. About five points of identification.
Q. What does that mean? A. Various parts of
the fingerprint, the core, the delta, ridge terminations, bifurcations.
Q. Well now, we will start with the thumb, the center
of the thumb, you have what, the core? A. The core.
Q. From which all the ridges radiate? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. You mean to tell me you cannot compare my fingerprint if taken from the edge of my thumb
with my fingerprint as a standard? A. I didn’t say that, Mr. Reilly. I
said five points of identification.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that you can compare my
fingerprint taken from the ridge or any portion of my thumb if you had at least
two ridges? A. It would be hard to do.
Q. Did you ever try it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you study fingerprinting? A. [2131]
I studied while I was in the Department. I have already answered that question.
Q. Now, did you find more than two ridges in the
fingerprints? A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Did you find any whorls? A. No, sir; I
did not.
Q. It has been testified here by both Mrs.
Lindbergh and Betty Gow that they both attempted to close the shutters of the nursery window but,
due to a warping of the shutters, they were unable to close them; that after
pulling the shutters in as far as they would go on this nursery window, then either
one of them or both of them closed that window. Now, did you find on that
window that night the fingerprints of either Mrs. Lindbergh or Betty Gow? A. No,
I did not.
Q. It has been testified to here that Betty Gow was
at the crib, she put the child to bed, she pinned the child in, she leaned over the crib
and went through the usual custom of putting the child to bed. Did you find any
fingerprints of Betty Gow on the crib? A. I found hand marks on the crib.
Q. Did you compare them with the Betty Gow fingerprints?
A. They couldn’t be compared, they were of no value.
Q. There weren’t enough rings? A. They were
of no value. The greasy formation on the side of the crib was constantly handled.
Q. How many did you take from it? A. I didn’t
take any from it.
Q. Didn’t take any. Then you found no
fingerprints of value, as you claim? A. On examination of the crib I
noticed that there was a grease formation there; in processing it, I smelled it
and it smelled like Vick’s. I attributed that to either Betty Gow’s or Mrs.
Lindbergh’s hand from rubbing the baby’s chest with Vick’s.
[2132]Q. You would hardly find that in the
fingerprint. That might have been a smudge from the hand. A. I don’t
understand you, Mr. Reilly.
Q. What you found on the crib was a greasy area?
A. Yes.
Q. It might have been a smudge from a greasy hand,
palm of the hand? A. It could have been the palm of the hand or it could
have been fingers.
Q. What comparison of the ridges did you make? A. When
you have no ridges you can’t make a comparison. I have told you that.
Q. Did you have a standard of Mrs. Lindbergh’s
fingerprint? A. I have took Mrs. Lindbergh’s fingerprints.
Q. And you had Betty Gow’s? A. That is right;
yes, sir.
Q. Where did you make your examination? A. There
was no examination to make, because the prints on the crib were of no value.
Q. Did you photograph them? A. No.
Q. In your opinion they were of no value? A. That
is right.
Q. Did you call anybody in to look at them? A. It
wasn’t necessary.
Q. Did you call anybody in to look at them? A. It
wasn’t necessary.
Q. Well now, when did you first go to Dr.
Hudson? A. I first met Dr. Hudson at Colonel Lindbergh’s. I don’t know
when I first went there.
Q. Did you go to Colonel—to Dr. Hudson’s office
and laboratory in New York before he came to Colonel Lindbergh’s? A. No, I
did not.
Q. Well, you had been there many times since? A. Oh,
yes.
Q. And where—when did you meet Dr. Hudson at
Colonel Lindbergh’s? A. Around the 12th or 14th of March, 1932, I think.
[2133]Q. And he came there in relation to the
ladder? A. He came there in relation to fingerprints.
Q. Fingerprints. Now, did you see Dr. Hudson fingerprint
the ladder? A. I saw him demonstrate on a rail of the ladder.
Q. Well, did you see him demonstrate with a piece
of board? A. I don’t recall that, Mr. Reilly, no, sir.
Q. Well now, what in your opinion—withdrawn. A man
handling a piece of board, does the secretion of his hand remain on the board? A. Yes.
Q. And it soaks into the board, doesn’t it? A. That
is right.
Q. So that although you may take this piece that
you have given here on the board and show no fingerprints, there is another
process, is there not, which will bring out the fingerprints if they are there?
A. If the board has not been constantly handled, yes, sir.
Q. Well, this ladder had been constantly handled,
hadn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you dust the ladder for fingerprints?
A. On—?
Q. At any time, before Mr. Hudson had it, or Dr.
Hudson had it. A. Did I dust it?
Q. Yes. A. Oh, yes, I dusted it.
Q. Did you get any fingerprints from it? A. No,
sir, I did not.
Q. No. Did you see Dr. Hudson make a test on the
ladder? A. I saw him demonstrate the use of a process on the rail of the
ladder.
Q. All right. Tell us about it. A. I just
did.
Q. Well, what was the process? A. He used a
silver nitrate, sprayed it on the rail of the ladder.
Q. He sprayed the ladder with silver nitrate? A. Not
the ladder; a rail of the ladder.
Q. A rail; all right. A rail. Which rail? A. I
don’t recall.
[2134]Q. Will you point it out on the ladder? A. I
don’t recall; one of the side rails.
Q. One of the side rails. There are only two. A. Oh,
no; there are six there.
Q. Well, there are two on each section. A. That
is right.
Q. Do you know which section he sprayed? A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. You can’t tell by looking at it from the color
of the wood? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn’t the silver nitrate discolor the wood? A. I
believe it did.
Q. Didn’t it discolor it more or less like this piece
of wood I show you here? A. Similar to that.
Mr. Reilly: I offer this piece of wood in evidence.
Mr. Wilentz: No objection.
Mr. Reilly: Or, rather, for identification.
Mr. Wilentz: No objection.
The Court: It may be marked.
The
Reporter: D‑38 for Identification.
(Piece of wood marked D‑38 for Identification.)
Q. Now, is it a fact that you can take a piece
of wood that has been handled by a person and you can dust it with your powder
and find no finger prints? Is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then you can even rub the wood with cloth
to clean it, and then apply silver nitrate and [2135] bring out the fingerprints?
A. In some cases.
Q. How many times have you tried it? A. Oh,
I don’t know. I have experimented with silver nitrate ever since I first
learned about it.
Q. Yes. Did you see Dr. Hudson take from this side
rail of the ladder and from the ladder itself between 800 and a thousand fingerprints?
A. On one rail, Mr. Reilly?
Q. No. On the whole ladder. A. No. Dr.
Hudson had nothing to do with the whole ladder.
Q. Well, how many fingerprints did Dr. Hudson take
from the rail of the ladder that he tested? A. I do not know. I saw some
markings come out on there but I don’t know how many prints came out.
Q. Well, look at this board I have offered for identification.
Are those fingerprints? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any silver nitrate here? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Will you take my fingerprint off this board in
front of the jury, please? A. If it is on there I will try to.
Q. All right. I will put it on there now for you.
I am handing a board—I am handing the board to you. Now, will you please take
it out with silver nitrate? A. It has been found, Mr. Reilly, with the
silver nitrate method on a piece of wood—
Q. I ask you to take it out, please, not how it has
been found.
The Witness: Will the Court allow me to explain?
The Court: Yes.
A. It has been found that with the silver
nitrate [2136] method on wood, better
results are obtained after the prints are on there for a while.
Q. How long do you want my prints to stay on there?
A. Why, I could try your print on here with powder and possibly bring it
out.
Q. I want it with silver nitrate. Twenty-four hours,
forty-eight hours? A. Oh, I should say overnight would be all right.
Q. All right. How many days after the ladder was
found did Dr. Hudson bring out with silver nitrate these fingerprints? A. Dr.
Hudson first demonstrated somewhere around the 12th or the 14th of March, I
believe.
Q. All right. That would be 12 or 14 days afterward,
wouldn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now suppose I put the board away. A. By the
edges, please.
Q. And don’t touch it again for two or three days
and call you during the defense, will you bring it out then with silver
nitrate? A. I will try to bring out what is on there.
Mr. Wilentz: Suppose you leave it with the
witness. Then there won’t be any question about it.
Mr. Reilly: ’ No, I am going to leave it with
the Clerk, if you don’t mind.
Mr. Wilentz: I take it that the clerk will have
to apply his fingers to it.
Mr. Reilly: Is it all right to wrap it in paper?
The Witness: I would suggest leaving it as it is
and handling it by the edges.
[2137] Mr. Reilly: All right.
By Mr. Reilly: Q. Now, the silver nitrate that
was applied to the ladder—were you ever asked to wash those stains off? A. I
was detailed to take the stains off, yes, sir.
Q. Did you take them off? A. No, sir, I
didn’t.
Q. They were taken off, weren’t they? A. I believe
they were.
Q. And they were taken off with a solution of bichloride
of mercury? A. I believe so.
Q. Yes.
Mr. Wilentz: I expect to use that, Mr. Reilly,
if you don’t mind.
Mr. Reilly: All right.
Mr. Wilentz: I just want you to know that.
Q. How many times would you say after this ladder
was first shown to you did you talk to Dr. Hudson about the fingerprints either
found or not found on the ladder? A. I don’t believe at any time I ever
discussed fingerprints on that particular
ladder with Dr. Hudson. I had discussed the silver nitrate method of obtaining fingerprints
and experimenting purposes on wood with Dr. Hudson.
Q. Where? A. At his office in New York.
Q. Where is it? A. Dr. Hudson, I believe,
lived on—he had moved—I don’t recall his address.
Q. East 80’s, isn’t he? A. Pardon me?
Q. East 80’s, somewhere in a Doctor’s building, isn’t
that where you went to his office? A. I [2138] went to his home when he
lived over on—near Seventh Avenue, I think it was, somewhere around there.
Q. That was after he had been down here to Hopewell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see photographs of Dr. Hudson’s experiments
on the ladder taken? A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Do you know if there are any photographs of
Dr. Hudson’s experiments on that ladder in existence? A. No, I do not.
Q. Well, who was there, if you know, when Dr. Hudson
was experimenting on the ladder? A. Dr. Hudson demonstrated the use of the
silver nitrate on the one rail of the ladder and the rest of the ladder was
completed by Sergeant Kubler.
Q. I asked you who was present? A. I am
tell ing you Sergeant Kubler.
Q. And you were not present? A. I was
there; yes, sir.
Q. Were there any photographs taken in your presence?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen any photographs that were
taken from it? A. No, sir.
Mr. Reilly: I think that is all.
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. As I understand it, Mr. Kelly, you are going to
make a test of this board which is D‑something for identification, D‑38, for
counsel; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: Is that our understanding?
Mr. Reilly: Yes.
[2139]Q. While you are making that test, will
you also make a test of D‑37 for identification, this paper, on the opposite
side? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have made it on only one side? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Is it possible or probable that there may be fingerprints
on the other side? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I notice that this board is discolored? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Am I correct in assuming that it is
discolored because of the efforts to take fingerprints? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So did the efforts to take fingerprints on the
ladder which is in evidence as S‑211, the processing, cause a discoloration? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Of some parts of the ladder? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Would the efforts to take these fingerprints,
the tests that are made, would they discolor it and make it blacker, darker? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Counsel has asked you about some Dr. Hudson who
came on the 12th, I think you said, or a little later and took some test
fingerprints of this ladder? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell me whether or not between the 1st of March
and the 12th or the 14th of March, a new process had not been discovered? A. It
had.
Q. What was the new process? A. The silver nitrate
process.
Q. So that when you first took the test of this
ladder, the silver nitrate process, as I understand it, had not yet been
discovered? A. It was not known, no, sir.
Q. And between the time of the discovery of the
silver nitrate process and the time you took the test on this ladder, that is
to say on the 1st or early in the morning of the 2nd of March, had there been
many hands touching and handling that ladder? A. Oh, yes, very many.
[2140]Q. As a matter of fact, a great number of police
officers from all over the country and others had handled the ladder at that
time? A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q. And when Dr. Hudson made his test, do you know
how many hands did handle that ladder? A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. How many touched it? A. No, sir.
Q. You don’t know whether a great number or just
a few? A. A very great number.
Q. A very great number. I suppose that if I took
this ladder, each section, and attempted to examine it and handle it all by
myself for ten or fifteen minutes, I suppose I might leave a great number of
fingerprints, isn’t that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, one person might leave different sets? A. That is right.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. If a man carried this ladder
to the Lindbergh home and he carried it with gloves and he didn’t take the
gloves off, would he leave his fingerprints on it? A. Absolutely not.
Q. If a man walked into the Lindbergh nursery and
took that child and he had gloves on—
Mr. Reilly: I object.
Q. –would he leave fingerprints?
Mr. Reilly: Wait a minute. I object to this. It.
is a hypothetical question not based on the evidence. There is no evidence anybody
carried a ladder to the Lindbergh home without gloves.
[2141] Mr. Wilentz: We disagree with that, if your
Honor please.
Mr. Reilly: Of with gloves; either with or
without.
Mr. Wilentz: Mr. Reilly’s questions have been
based as hypothetical questions all morning.
The Court: I think that I will allow the question,
Mr. Reilly.
Mr. Reilly: It is argumentative, whether the man
had gloves or didn’t have gloves.
The Court: Yes. I will allow it.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. So that it is only where a
person does not use some instrument to hide his fingerprints that the
fingerprints may show: is that it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, that is one instance where fingerprints won’t
show. Supposing he did use his fingerprints on the window sill, some person,
and then with a child in a bundle, a cloth, rubbed along the window sill: would
that remove the fingerprints? A. All trace of them.
Q. All trace of them. On the other hand—I withdraw
that.
Q. In addition to that, sir, do all impressions by
fingers leave fingerprints? A. Not of value, Mr. Wilentz.
Q. Well, when we talk about fingerprints, Mr. Reilly
and myself, we mean fingerprints which can be traced or identified if the
opportunity later presents itself. A. Not all of them, no, sir.
[2142]Q. In other words, were I to take this
paper, and, in the manner that I do now, and then attempt to stretch it like
that (Mr. Wilentz takes piece of paper in his hands and jerks on both ends of
it) would that have any effect on the prints? A. Very much.
Q. It might affect it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If it touched it and just rubbed over it or handled
it and moved my finger while I was doing it, would that leave a fingerprint or
would it interfere with it? A. It would interfere with it.
Q. Now, when you made these tests on these various
instruments, ladder, note, parts of the Lindbergh home, did you do the very
best that you could with the instruments that you had at your command? A. Yes,
sir, I did.
Q. Did you make any effort to conceal anything? A. No,
sir.
Q. You have given us the best that was in you at
that time? A. Absolutely.
Mr. Wilentz: Thank you, Trooper, that is all.
Re-Cross
Examination by Mr. Reilly: Q. Well, now, if Mrs. Lindbergh or Betty Gow, in closing the window, pressed their hands
down on top of the window, just the same as these windows here to close it, and
they had no gloves on, that would leave an impression of their hands and fingers,
wouldn’t it A. I have no information that they did.
Q. I am asking you if they did. A. I don’t know.
Q. I still appreciate you are a State Trooper, but
I am asking you this question: if they pressed the window down to close it with their hands,
and [2143] had no gloves, it would leave an impression of their hands, wouldn’t
it? A. It would leave a mark.
Q. And if the baby was kidnaped from that crib and
taken down the back stairs, and nobody ever went near the window, the window
would not show any fingerprints, would it? A. It might from previous
handling.
Q. Yes. But not of the person that took the child
out of the crib and went down the back stairs, would it? A. No.
Q. If the man never went near the window. A. No,
sir.
Mr. Reilly: That is all.
Re-Direct
Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. Now, just one more question. If nobody went into the room that
night after eight o’clock, and the baby had been put in that room at 7: 30, of course
the baby wouldn’t have been missing, would it? A. No, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: That is all.
Re-Cross
Examination by Mr. Reilly: Q. Now, just a moment, please. You haven’t any gloves on, have you? A. No,
sir.
Q. With the Court’s permission will you open that
window up from the bottom and show me how you would do it? You haven’t any
gloves on.
Mr. Wilentz: Well, I think, if your Honor
please, how he would open that window—
[2144] Mr.
Reilly: I want to see how his hands work, how he touches the railing and how he
touches the edge.
Mr. Wilentz: I appreciate—
The Court: Do you think that is important here,
Mr. Reilly?
Mr. Reilly: I want to see how he would grip it
with his bare hands.
The Court: Well, let him go.
Mr. Wilentz: All right. How many windows, one?
Mr. Reilly: Just one.
Mr. Wilentz: Any particular window?
Mr. Reilly: That window there.
Mr. Wilentz: The first one?
Mr. Reilly: The one he is going to raise up.
Mr. Wilentz: All right.
A. (The witness stepped to a window back of
the Court, unlocked it and raised it slightly by grasping the top.)
Q. Now, about the bottom. A. (The witness raised
the window still more by taking hold of it from the bottom.)
Q. Now, your hands have touched that window in how many places? A. Oh, one, two,
three.
[2145] The Court: Now, I think he may put that window
down. (Laughter.)
Q. Close the window, yes. A. (The witness closed
the window.)
Q. Do you think it left any impression of your hands
or fingers on it? A. I have left some marks on there, Mr. Reilly.
Q. What? A. I have left some marks on
there.
Mr. Reilly: That is all.
Re-Direct
Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. You didn’t have gloves on when you did that, did you? A. No,
sir, I did not.
Q. And you weren’t standing on a ladder, were you?
A. No, sir.
Q. That is all. By the way, incidentally, I notice
that there is some steam on that window. A. Yes, sir.
Q. There is, isn’t there? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: That is all, Trooper.
No comments:
Post a Comment