STATE
vs. HAUPTMANN
January
10, 1935
[822] HENRY
BRECKINRIDGE, sworn as a witness on behalf of the State.
Direct Examination by
Mr. Wilentz: Q.
Colonel Breckinridge, where do you reside? A. 455 East 57th Street, New
York City.
Q.
And you are a member of the Bar of the State of New York, is that so? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And how many years have you been a member of the Bar? A. Something—of New
York State?
Q.
Yes, sir. A. Something over 12 years.
[823]
Q. Are you a member of the Bar of any other state? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
What states? A. The states of Maryland and Kentucky and the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Q.
When did you first become a member of the Bar of any state? A. 1910.
Q.
Were you ever connected with the United States Government in any official
capacity? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
In what capacity, sir? A. The Assistant Secretary of War from 1913 to
1916.
Q.
During what administration, Colonel? A. The first administration of
President Woodrow Wilson.
Q.
How long have you known Colonel Lindbergh? A. For seven years.
Q.
And during a great part of that time have you been his friend as well as his
counselor? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And in that capacity as friend and counsel, did you have occasion to advise
with him and consult with him and attempt to help him in his difficulties as
the result of the crime which occurred on March 1st, 1932? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
When was it that you were first called in by Colonel Lindbergh for your
guidance and your assistance? A. Between ten and eleven o’clock on the night
of the 1st of March he telephoned me.
Q.
As the result of that telephone call what did you do? A. I proceeded to
his residence, with my wife, his residence at Hopewell.
Q.
And finally, did you have occasion to meet Dr. John F. Condon, the gentleman who
was just on the stand? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Where did you first meet him? A. At Colonel Lindbergh’s Hopewell
residence.
Q.
Tell me, sir, whether you were at the home of [824] Colonel Lindbergh when Dr.
Condon’s call came. A. I think I was not, sir; I think I came in later,
but before his arrival.
Q.
When he arrived, I understood you to say then that you were there, however,
before he arrived that evening? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And I take it that you discussed with the Doctor and the Colonel the news that
he brought? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And as the result of that and from that time on, was your association with Dr.
Condon quite close? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
I take it the association was in the common endeavor of all the parties to
procure the return of the child. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Tell us, then, if you will from your best recollection just what it was you did
as you remember it now with Dr. Condon from that night on. A. Dr. Condon
remained in Hopewell the night of March 1-2, first and second. On the second of
March, we proceeded to go back to New York.
Q.
You do not mean the first of March, Colonel? A. No, sir. I beg your
pardon. I don’t mean the 1st of March, I mean when he came, the 9th of March,
the night of the 9th-10th of March.
Q.
At any rate, the date after he arrived. He arrived in the evening or early in
the morning. A. Yes.
Q.
The next day, sometime early in March, you and he went back to New York, is
that it? A. Yes, my recollection is that he arrived on the night of the
9th of March, perhaps after midnight which would make it the 10th; that we
proceeded to go to New York and he invited me to his home where I remained for
many weeks, for most of the time.
Q.
Did you remain there on and off at least until the day that the news was
flashed that the Lindbergh child’s body was found dead? A. Yes, sir.
[825]
Q. Right up to about May 12, 1932, then. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
How close was the contact, in other words, how frequent was it that you stayed
there? Did you sleep there? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Every night? A. Nearly.
Q.
Nearly every night. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Were you in the home when notes and papers arrived? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Referring specifically to the manila envelope in which was wrapped the baby’s
sleeping garment, were you present in Dr. Condon’s home when that arrived? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Is this the complete package—I mean, the wrapping paper or was there more to it
as you remember it? (Handing the witness an exhibit.) A. This is at least
part of it, if these portions of paper adhere here.
Q.
We are now referring to Exhibit S‑53. How large was this package? What I am
trying to find out, Colonel, is was the whole sleeping suit in that, or what? A. It
was wrapped in paper.
Q.
Wrapped in paper? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And then with reference—you don’t mean this paper, though, do you? A. No,
sir, not necessarily that paper; that may have been part of it.
Q.
That is part of it? A. Yes.
Q.
But what I am trying to find out is, this to me seems like just an envelope.
Mr.
Fisher: Oh, that is objected to, if your Honor please. That is objected to,
what it seems like to the Attorney General.
Mr.
Wilentz: I think that is objectionable.
Mr.
Fisher: I think so.
Mr.
Wilentz: I won’t argue about it.
[826]
A. I think it was contained in a package probably eight inches long with a
diameter of four or five.
Q.
And this is a part of the mailing package, as you remember it? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Who was present when that package was opened? A. Dr. Condon, Mr. Ralph
Hacker and myself.
Q.
Was it opened in your presence? A. It was, sir.
Q.
Did it arrive in your presence? A. It did, sir.
Q.
And when it was opened in your presence there was found what? A. There was
found in it the sleeping garment of the baby and at least one letter.
Q.
Now, whatever it contained, whether there was a sleeping garment, you know
that? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And one letter you remember? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Do you recollect whether there was any other note besides the one letter? A. I
do not.
Q.
Whatever it was that was in that package when it was opened you saw, did you
not? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And whatever it was that was in there and which you saw, what happened to it?
To whom was it delivered? A. To Colonel Lindbergh.
Q.
So that if there were one note or two notes, or whatever it was, it was
delivered to Colonel Lindbergh? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And you know that to be the fact? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
All right, sir. Now, these notes were coming to Dr. Condon and on occasions you
were there. Did you have anything to do with the advertisements in the paper
responding to those notes? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
As a matter of fact, Colonel, you actually caused them to be inserted, did you
not? A. Yes, sir.
[827]
Q. Am I to understand, then, that when a note would come and you and Dr. Condon
would confer about it, sometimes with Colonel Lindbergh, sometimes without, and
as the result of that conference, if an advertisement was to be inserted you
would cause it to be inserted? A. Yes, sir; that is true, except as to the
first advertisement which was inserted before any contact with Dr. Condon.
Q.
And as to that first advertisement, so far as you know, that was a voluntary
one on the point of the doctor without your knowledge? A. No, sir, it was
not, it was the one to which, the one to which I infer was inserted at my
directions after the receipt of a letter to me by the kidnaper.
Q.
Yes, but what I mean is, the one before—I withdraw that. After the receipt of
the first letter by Doctor Condon, so far as you know, the letter which came to
Hopewell when you first met Dr. Condon. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
You came back to New York? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Dr. Condon then inserted an ad, is that it? A. No.
Q.
Did you? A. Yes.
Q.
I see. A. Dr. Condon and I jointly conferred and at my direction the advertisements
were inserted.
Q.
So that from the time that you met Dr. Condon I mean, up to the time that the
ransom money was paid, all the ads that were inserted in the paper, were they
all inserted by you? A. Yes, sir, at my initiation.
Q.
And charged to your account, too, weren’t they? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
In Dr. Condon’s transactions during that period, did he comply with the
instructions and suggestions as given by you? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Were you in the house, the Condon home, the night that the taxi driver delivered
a note on March [828] 12th, 1932? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you direct Dr. Condon to go to the florist shop on Tremont Avenue in
accordance with the instructions in the note?
Mr.
Fisher: That is objected to as extremely leading.
Mr.
Wilentz: I withdraw the question.
Mr.
Fisher: Withdrawn?
Mr.
Wilentz: I withdraw the question.
Q.
Do you recall the night Dr. Condon left on March 12th, I think it was? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Prior to going there, did he discuss it with you? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Did he go with or without your consent? A. With my consent.
Q.
And of course, during those times you were acting for Colonel Lindbergh? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Now, on the night that the money left the Condon home in the box that has been
referred to and described in this court, were you present at the Condon home
that night? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Tell us please, as best you can remember just how that money was brought there,
and if you had any part in bringing the money there? A. The money was
brought in two separate packages in two separate conveyances, from the house of
Mr. Francis Bartow, $50,000 of it in an automobile in which were Colonel
Lindbergh and Mr. Al Reich; the other one by myself, the $20,000 by myself in
another automobile.
Q.
You travelled alone with the twenty? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And you arrived at the Condon home, I take [829] it, and when you did both
packages of money being there, what was done with the money? A. It was
inserted in a box.
Q.
What kind of a box was it? A. It was a wooden box.
Q.
Who had procured the wooden box? A. Dr. Condon.
Q.
Was it procured with your consent and with your knowledge? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Was it a part of the plan which you men had proceeded with as you thought in
accordance with the instructions given by the kidnapper? A. Yes, sir, plus
some other considerations.
Q.
Now you remained at the Condon home, I take it, while—I will withdraw that. Did
you see that money box leave with Colonel Lindbergh and Dr. Condon on the
night, Saturday night, April 2, 1932? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Were you present at the home when a note arrived? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
That night. Had you been expecting directions that night? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you expect that there would be a call for the money that night? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Had you caused an ad to be inserted with reference to it? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
That Saturday? A. Yes, sir; to be inserted in both the New York American and the Evening Journal, in accordance with the
directions of the kidnap note.
Q.
That is to say, did you get directions from the note which asked you to insert
the ad for that Saturday? A. Yes, sir; and the note also said that “in
case you have not time, insert it in the Evening
Journal,” so it was inserted in both papers.
Q.
I show you Exhibit S‑37: “Dear Sir: Have the money ready by Saturday evening.”
Now, was this note, S‑37, with reference to Saturday evening, [830] April 2nd,
I932,—how soon before that was this note received, S‑37? A. That note, as
I remember, was mailed on the 1st of April and was received, I think, the
evening of the 1st of April or early Saturday morning. I think the evening of
the 1st of April. So we put the ad in both, the morning New York American and the Evening
Journal.
Q.
Then as I understand it, the advertisement put in these two papers was the
result of the receipt of S‑37? A. Yes, sir, and the language of the
advertisement conformed to the direction of the kidnap note.
Q.
Did you then cause to be inserted the advertisement which appeared, “Yes,
everything O. K. Jafsie”? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
On the Saturday? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
So that on the very Saturday, April the 2nd, 1932, when you were there and
Condon was there, you expected word any time to bring the money, didn’t you? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And that is why the money was there? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Was Colonel Lindbergh there? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
What time did he arrive? A. He arrived in the latter part of Saturday
afternoon with Mr. Al. Reich, conveying the $50,000.
Q.
I take it, of course, Colonel, that that Saturday afternoon when Colonel
Lindbergh came there, I take it it was much more tense than it is here now?
Mr.
Fisher: Oh, that is objected to, your Honor. It calls for a conclusion, the
tense feeling as to what is going on there and is purely for the benefit of the
jury.
The
Court: The Attorney General may inquire as to what conditions were there at
that time.
[831]
Mr. Wilentz: May I just say if it is for the benefit of the jury, I don’t know
that that is an objection, or a legal objection.
Mr.
Fisher: I certainly think it is an attempt to influence unfairly.
The
Court: Well, I have made certain suggestions here. If they are of value they
may be pursued.
Mr.
Wilentz: Thank you, sir.
By
Mr. Wilentz: Q. Colonel, will you tell us about the situation in that home that
afternoon from the time that money arrived? The ads were in the paper, Colonel
Lindbergh arrived, as I understand it, you were there, Dr. Condon was there,
his family was there and the money was there? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Tell us just about the situation in that home, what you did there. A. The
money was packed; in packing it in the box, the box was a little split, because
the box seemed to be designed to contain exactly the money, by its dimensions
and volume, whereas the money was wrapped in paper and tied with string, and in
trying to close the box, it broke. Something after eight o’clock, as I
remember, the expected note arrived.
Q.
Tell me first before we get to eight o’clock what you men did from eight o’clock,
from the time Colonel Lindbergh arrived. A. We waited.
Q.
Just sit around? A. Yes.
Q.
That is what I want to know. The situation that afternoon as you men sat
around. A. The situation, all I can say is that it was such as one would
expect, people waiting for such an event.
[832]
Q. That is it. And was it a matter of hours? A. Yes.
Q.
Did you leave the house during those hours? A. No.
Q.
Did Colonel Lindbergh leave the house during those hours? A. No.
Q.
Did Dr. Condon leave the house during those hours? A. No.
Q.
And then finally at eight o’clock the note arrives, is that it? A. Approximately.
Q.
What happens, immediately upon the arrival of the note? Who sees it, who looks
at it, and what is done? A. I think that Dr. Condon received the note in
the presence of his daughter, Mrs. Hacker, brought it back to the rear room
where the rest of us were, the rear room of Dr. Condon’s house.
Q.
Did you give any instructions to the Doctor from wherever you were about
anything with reference to the note while he was at the door getting it? A. No.
Colonel Lindbergh was there.
Q.
I see. Did Colonel Lindbergh give any instructions or any suggestions? A. No.
Q.
Let me refresh your recollection. Did anybody say anything about giving the man
a tip or something? A. Not that I know of.
Q.
You don’t recall it? A. I do not.
Q.
All right, and then immediately—Did you hear the doorbell ring? A. Yes.
Q.
Now, from the moment that doorbell rang and Dr. Condon got to the door, what I
want to know is did he immediately come back with the note? A. He did.
Q.
And was it, or was it not, opened in your presence? A. It was.
Q.
As the result of the receipt of that note was it that Colonel Lindbergh and Dr.
Condon departed with the money? A. It was.
[833]
Q. How soon after the receipt of the note? A. I should think ten minutes.
Q.
Now, Colonel— A. Fifteen.
Q.
—I take it that from the time you and Colonel Lindbergh started discussing this
matter and Dr. Condon entered into the case, the matter of whether or not the
money should be paid was discussed? A. It was.
Q.
Tell me whether Dr. Condon ever suggested or urged that this money should be
paid. A. He did not.
Q.
Isn’t it a fact that he urged that the money shouldn’t be paid? A. Except
upon a C.O.D. delivery.
Q.
Except when the child was delivered, you mean? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Was there ever one cent paid to Dr. Condon for the time and the trouble and the
effort and the expense that he underwent in connection with his contacts with
you? A. No, sir.
Q.
Did he ever request it? A. No, sir.
Q.
As I understand it, you slept at his home? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
You ate there. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Lived with his family those days. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
I take it, Colonel, that while you were there and during those times, other
people came? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Were you there when the telephone was changed, the telephone number was changed
in the Doctor’s home? A. I am not sure of that, sir.
Q.
You are not sure.
Mr.
Wilentz: I think it has already been agreed by consent that Colonel
Breckinridge received this letter?
Mr.
Reilly: Yes.
[834]
Q. You received one of the letters with the symbol on that is already in
evidence, I think, Mr. Reilly kindly consented earlier in the proceedings not
to annoy you with it, but while you are here, State’s Exhibit S‑23—well, let me
ask you: Colonel Breckinridge, you have seen this envelope, have you not,
addressed to you: “Mr. C. O. Henry L. Breckinridge?” A. Yes, sir.
Q.
That was brought to you at Hopewell from your office? A. Yes, sir, by Mr.
Phelan.
Q.
Of your office? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
I notice on the rear of this envelope, a little torn it is, that is, the front
of it is addressed to you, sir, and on the rear, I notice that the return
address is “Colonel Lindbergh, Hopewell, New Jersey”? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Is that the way it was when it was received by you? A. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Wilentz: This is Exhibit S‑21.
Q.
Now will you take a look at S‑22 and see if that is the note that came
addressed to you in connection with the envelope and letter? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And in that, as I see it, you were asked to please hand an enclosed letter to
Colonel Lindbergh? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Is this the enclosed letter? I am not sure about it, so will you please take a
look at it yourself, Colonel? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And did you give it to Colonel Lindbergh? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now the note to you did not contain the symbol, did it? A. No, sir.
Q.
But the note which was enclosed and which you were requested to deliver to
Colonel Lindbergh did have the symbol? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
From the testimony already adduced in this [835] case, I understand that on
various occasions Mr. Al Reich was in the Condon home, too? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now his conduct in connection with these negotiations from the time that you
got into the case, was that with your consent? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Was he paid for his various services that were rendered at your request and
with your consent and at the request and consent of Dr. Condon? A. No,
sir.
Q.
Did you, after the money was paid, accompany Colonel Lindbergh, Dr. Condon and
Mr. Irey in these various airplane trips? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
On both occasions, when he went up from Bridgeport or somewhere in that
vicinity? A. On one day.
Q.
On one day? A. Several flights on one day.
Q.
Yes. And then, when the child wasn’t found and all of you returned, where did
you come to? A. I stayed on most of the time at Dr. Condon’s.
Q.
Stayed on in the hope of getting more news? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Were you at Dr. Condon’s home and did you consent to the insertion then of
another advertisement that ran for four days: “Have you crossed me? Better
directions”? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
“Jafsie.” Did better directions come? A. No, sir.
Q.
Did you continue on at Dr. Condon’s home in the hope of getting more word until
May 12th? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And of course, when the news came that the child’s body had been found, you
left? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Thank you, Colonel, that is all.
Q.
Oh, yes; I wanted to ask you about the Government Coast Guard cutter, or some
boat. Did you have anything to do with requesting that the Government cooperate
in attempting to find this boat Nellie, described in the kidnapper’s
instructions as [836] the place upon which the child was located? A. I
know that the news was flashed at some time. The exact time I don’t know. I
think it was done by the Federal authorities representatives of the Internal
Revenue Bureau.
Q.
To have the boat go out and hunt—to have the Government boats look for boat
Nellie? A. Whatever was done was done at the initiation of the Federal
authorities.
Q.
Well, the United States Government cutters, or whatever it was, didn’t find the
boat Nellie, did they, so far as you know? A. No, sir.
Q.
On the night of April 2nd, 1932, being the night when the money was paid, $50,000,
where was Mr. Al Reich that night? A. He was at Dr. Condon’s residence.
Q.
With you? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now, there is no question about that, is there? A. No, sir.
Q.
That Rich or Reich was there at Condon’s home while Lindbergh, Colonel
Lindbergh and Dr. Condon were away with the money and until the men returned,
isn’t that so? A. He was there, yes, sir.
Q.
Not out of the house? A. No, sir.
Mr.
Wilentz: That is all. Would you like to have some water, Colonel Breckinridge?
The
Witness: I think I would, yes, if you please.
Cross‑Examination by
Mr. Reilly: Q.
Colonel Breckinridge, sir, had the police alarm been flashed, as far as you
know up to the time of your arrival at Hopewell? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
It had. Had the police arrived when you arrived? A. Yes, sir.
[837]
Q. And, of course, I take it for granted that you saw the ransom note that
night? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now, Colonel, it was not generally known was it, that there were some symbols
on the bottom of the nursery note—we will call it? A. No, sir.
Q.
Can you tell me, Colonel, when it was that the public first learned that there
were any symbols on the nursery note? A. No, sir, I cannot definitely,
there were rumors of it in the press throughout the days of March.
Q.
Throughout the days of March? A. Sometime later, I don’t know when they
started.
Q.
The latter part of March? A. I don’t know, sir.
Q.
To your knowledge had any information been given out with your consent
concerning the symbols prior to the night you heard from Mr. Condon? A. No.
sir.
Q.
You were here in court yesterday and heard Mr. Condon testify that in his
opinion the note he took to Hopewell, the signatures were a poor imitation of
the original note; did you hear that? A. I heard him make that statement
about two documents. What they were, I don’t know.
Q.
The investigation into the disappearance of this unfortunate child was confined
within the grasp of yourself as adviser to Colonel Lindbergh, and the Colonel,
is that correct, and Colonel Schwarzkopf, and how many others directly formed
the group in control prior to Dr. Condon’s entrance into this? A. I don’t
know whether you could call it control, the Federal authorities were cognizant
of everything that was done, the representatives of the Intelligence unit of
the Internal Revenue people.
Q.
Were they active? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Were the State Police active? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
The local police active? Or did it pass into [838] the hands of the State
Police? A. I think it passed into the hands of the State Police.
Q.
Were the New York police doing anything, as far as you know? A. I think
they were, sir.
Q.
Do you recall, Colonel, a letter being received by Colonel Lindbergh about the
3rd or 4th of March with a stamp on it, Williamsburgh, New York? A. The
second kidnap letter dated the 4th of March was mailed from Brooklyn.
Mr.
Reilly: May I have that envelope?
Mr.
Wilentz: Yes, it is there. Here it is, S‑19.
Mr.
Reilly: That is it.
Q.
And it bears the date March 4, Brooklyn, N. Y., Station 2, 9 p.m., 1932,
and that was prior to the entry of Dr. Condon into this case, wasn’t it? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
And that bore the signature, symbol? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
What, if anything, Colonel, what orders or directions, if any, were given to
the New York police concerning the receipt of this letter postmarked Brooklyn,
if you know? A. I don’t know, sir.
Q.
Who would know? A. The New York police, sir, I suppose.
Q.
Well, I know, but the letter was received by the Colonel. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And the Colonel has testified that very few people knew what he was doing at
that time.
Mr.
Wilentz: I don’t think—
Q.
Publicly. That is a fact, isn’t it? A. I think so.
[839]
Q. Do you know whether or not the Colonel notified the New York police? A. I
do not, sir.
Q.
That from Brooklyn at 9 p.m. on March the 4th within 72 hours—Am I correct—of
the child being taken away— A. (Nodding affirmatively.)
Q.
—a letter came from Brooklyn, you don’t know, do you? A. No, sir, I do
not.
Q.
Now, in your contact with Dr. Condon in the beginning of the contact with him,
it is fair to say that you knew nothing about him, is that correct? A. Not
prior to our meeting, no, sir.
Q.
Yes. And I assume as a member of the Bar, and of your experience that you did
question in your mind the insertion of his appeal in the Bronx News? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
It gave you some thought? A. It did, yes, sir.
Q.
Is it true, Colonel, that you caused to be written to him or did you write two
letters to him bearing counterfeit symbols at any time? A. No, sir, I did
not.
Q.
Do you know of any letters being written to him— A. No, sir.
Q.
—any decoy letters? A. No, sir, not that I know of.
Q.
Not that you know of. You had many investigators working on this case, didn’t
you, Colonel? A. No, sir.
Q.
Well, do you recall a gentleman introducing you through the late President John
Grier Hibben of Princeton University whose name was Robert B. Edgar? A. No,
sir, I do not recall him.
Q.
Do you recall two gentlemen interested about the time, shortly after—I will
reframe it. Two gentlemen interested in this case as investigators whose names,
Mr. Thayer, or Mr. Fogarty? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Thayer is an attorney and Mr.
Fogarty is now deceased, was an ex-detective of the New York Police force
latterly in private practice.
[840]
Q. You say Mr. Thayer is an attorney? A. I assume that is the Thayer, Mr.
Robert Thayer?
Q.
Jersey or New York? A. No, sir, of New York, he is an associate of Colonel
Donavan.
Q.
Formerly of Buffalo, New York? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Now, it is a fact, is it not, Colonel, that—I withdraw that. You say you don’t
recall Mr. Edgar—see if I can refresh your recollection. Do you recall being at
Colonel Lindbergh’s home on Easter Sunday, 1932? A. What date was that,
sir?
Mr.
Reilly: Well, as to that, I will have to call on some of the ecclesiastical
authorities around here, the Attorney General. Do you know when Easter Sunday
was in 1932?
Mr.
Wilentz: It was in April, I think.
Mr.
Reilly: I think it was the first Sunday in April.
The
Witness: I do not know, sir.
Q.
And you have no independent recollection of having a conversation with Mr.
Edgar in Colonel Lindbergh’s library Easter Sunday, April of 1932, have you? A. I
have no recollection of it.
Q.
Do you recall the night that you arrived, rather, the night you arrived in
answer to a telephone call from Colonel Lindbergh, March 1st? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Do you remember the weather in and around Hopewell that night? Was it very
windy? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Blowing quite a gale? A. It was windy.
Q.
Well, could you give us any idea of the velocity of the wind? A. No, sir;
I couldn’t.
Q.
It was not an 80-point storm, as they say at sea? A. I don’t know.
[841]
Q. It was quite noticeable, the wind? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Colonel Lindbergh’s home was on top of the mountain or a hill? A. It was
on the slope, up-grade.
Q.
On the slope. Was the wind more intense there than it was in the lower roads? A. I
don’t know, sir.
Q.
You don’t recall that, do you? A. No, sir.
Q.
Who delivered the note at Mr. Condon’s house on April 1st? A. April 2nd.
Q.
April 2nd, the Saturday night? A. I don’t know, sir.
Q.
Just the doorbell rang— A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Mr. Condon disappeared from the room and, in a short time, reentered the room
with the note: is that correct? A. No, sir. Mrs. Hacker was with her
father there, and we did not move out of the rear room, wishing to make as
little disturbance or commotion in the house as possible.
Q.
Did Mrs. Hacker go to the door with him? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
The person who delivered the note was never apprehended, was he? A. I
understand not, sir.
Q.
Was there any description given of the person who delivered the note for the
ransom money? A. Mrs. Hacker gave such a description to the police
authorities.
Q.
How soon afterwards? A. I don’t know, sir.
Q.
Well, what prevented the person who delivered the note from being taken into
custody right there and then? A. Nothing.
Q.
You would not only have the person but you would have the note. A. That is
right.
Q.
Correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
You don’t know if it was a man, or woman, boy or girl, or what it was. A. Not
of my personal knowledge.
Q.
You don’t know. A. Or vision, no, sir.
[842]
Mr. Reilly: That is all.
Mr.
Wilentz: Just a question, please, Colonel.
Re-Direct Examination
by Mr. Wilentz: Q.
Counsel asked you what there was to prevent the apprehension of the person that
brought the note. Was it the desire, the intention or the plan to arrest the
person that brought the note? A. No, sir.
Q.
My understanding then is that it was the note that you were waiting for, that
you wanted, and not the man. A. Yes, sir.
Q.
Is that it? So far as Colonel Lindbergh was concerned and so far as his
instructions were concerned, they wanted the return of the child at the time
and not the person that was getting the money, isn’t that it? A. Yes, sir.
Q.
And his instructions were followed, so far as you were concerned and Dr. Condon
was concerned. A. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Wilentz: Thank you, Colonel.
Re-Cross-Examination
by Mr. Reilly: Q.
Now just a moment. Exhibit S‑66 and S‑67—this is the note, Colonel, is it not,
which was handed in in Dr. Condon’s house on the evening of Saturday, April
2nd? A. (Examining note at length) Yes, sir.
Q.
And that note says: “Take a car and follow Tremont Avenue to the east until you
reach the number 3225 East Tremont Avenue, which is a nursery, Bergen Green
House, Florist. There is a table standing outside right on the door or floor
you find a letter underneath the table covered with a stone. Read [843] and
follow instructions. Don’t speak to anyone on the way. If there is a radio
alarm for police cars, we warn you we have the same equipment. Have the money
in one bundle. We give you three-quarters of an hour to reach the place.” Now,
weren’t you also interested in gathering together, and arresting the members of
the band who had taken this child? A. Later, yes, sir.
Q.
Then? A. No, sir.
Q.
Didn’t you consider it as a lawyer, and not only as the friend of Colonel
Lindbergh, but as a member of the Bar of the State of New York, that it was
your duty to apprehend any person that had any connection with this case? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Why didn’t you do it that night? A. Because I was serving what I thought
was a superior duty, to recover the child alive.
Q.
But you had the man that delivered the note, and you had the note, didn’t you? A. Yes,
sir; but we didn’t have the child.
Q.
Dr. Condon, you say, always refused to surrender the money unless he received
the child? A. That was his desire.
Q.
But on this particular night, with no one looking at him, but somebody who
received it, he handed $50,000 of the Colonel’s money, as he says, over a
hedge; is that right? A. His opposition was overruled.
Mr.
Reilly: I move to strike it out as not responsive. It is the conclusion of a
very good lawyer, but it is not responsive to the question.
Mr.
Wilentz: I think it is responsive, if your Honor please.
The
Court: I decline to strike it out, Mr. Reilly.
[844]
Mr. Reilly: I except.
The
Court: Take your exception.
(Exception
allowed and same is signed and sealed accordingly. {L.S.} THOMAS W. TRENCHARD, Judge.)
Q.
Over his opposition in the group; is that what you mean? A. His
opposition—
Q.
In the group? A. —to paying any money without receiving the child at the
same time was overruled.
Q.
Overruled? A. By those immediately concerned.
Q.
Oh, I see. That it was not an opposition to the payment of the money. I
misunderstood you.
Mr.
Reilly: I think that is all, Colonel.
Mr.
Wilentz: That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment