[937] H. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPP, Sworn as a witness on behalf of the State:
Direct Examination by Mr. Large: [938] Q. Colonel, do you hold an
official position? A. I do.
Q. What is it?
A. Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.
Q. I show you two writings,
marked S‑86 and S‑87 respectively for identification and ask you if you were
present when they were written? A. I was, yes, sir.
Q. Who wrote that? A. Bruno
Richard Haupt-man.
Q. Under what circumstances were
they written, Colonel? A. Inspector John A. Lyons of the New York
City Police Department explained to Bruno Richard Hauptmann that he wanted
specimens of his handwriting; asked him if he was willing to give us some. He
said, “Yes,” and from a circular which had been published, Inspector Lyons read
off the words on that circular and Hauptmann wrote them on two pieces of paper.
Q. In other words, then, as I
understand it, he wrote from dictation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the spelling is his own?
Mr. Fisher: I object to it.
The Court: How is that?
Mr. Fisher: I object to it as
leading, “and the spelling is his own.”
The Court: What is the question?
(The last question was repeated
by the reporter: “And the spelling is his own?”)
The Court: Well, that is a little
leading. You better reframe your question, Judge.
[939] Mr. Large: All right.
By Mr. Large:
Q. Is the spelling his own?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Referring to whom?
A. Hauptmann.
Mr. Large: Do you want to cross
examine?
By Mr. Fisher: (on voir dire)
Q. When were these written,
Colonel? A. On September 19th, 1934.
Q. At what time of day?
A. They were written, it was early in the evening, around seven o'clock; I
think it was right after Hauptmann had had supper.
Q. The same day he was arrested?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And where were they written?
A. They were written at the Greenwich Street police station, New York
City.
Q. From dictation by Inspector
Lyons? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Hauptmann was in custody at
the time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And had been since nine
o'clock in the morning? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Undergoing questioning during
that period of time? A. Intermittently, yes, sir.
Q. Was he represented by counsel
at the time the writing was done? A. No, sir.
Q. In the hands of the police?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Fisher:
Q. And without any representing
him present? A. No, sir.
[940] Mr. Fisher: I object to
them for the same reasons as urged in the argument yesterday.
Mr. Large: I call the Court's
attention to the fact that they are, as the others, not offered as confessions.
They are merely samples of handwriting written by the de-fendant.
The Court: I understand that.
By the Court: Q. Colonel Schwarzkopf, were any promises made to
Hauptmann in order to get him to do this writing? A. No, sir.
Q. Was he threatened in order to
compel him to do the writing? A. No, sir. It was explained to him that we
wanted a specimen of his hand-writing, and he willingly gave it to us.
The Court: Now, Mr. Fisher, do
you desire to present any proof upon the question of the voluntary or
involuntary character of this act of writing?
Mr. Fisher: Not at this time,
sir.
The Court: I will admit the
exhibits.
Mr. Fisher: Exception.
[EXCEPTION
ALLOWED]
[3423] Mr. Fisher: Colonel Schwarzkopf.
H. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF,
recalled as a witness in behalf of the defendant.
Direct Examination by
Mr. Fisher: Q. Colonel Schwarzkopf are you the commanding officer of the
New Jersey State Police? A. I am.
[3424] Q. And as such, were you actively in charge of the
Lindbergh investigation? A. I was.
Q. From the night of March 1st until the present moment?
A. Yes.
Q. And all activity in the State Police in connection with
the case has been under your direct control? A. Under my general
supervision.
Q. Under your general supervision. You have been responsible
for the issuing of orders and for the conduct of the investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is the next active officer in command of this
investigation, if there is any such person? Who is the next man in line who has
been on this job from the start to the present time? A. Captain Lamb.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, Colonel, you have taken an
unusual interest in this case because of its importance, haven’t you? A. I
have.
Q. And you have given unusual attention to it? A. I
have.
Q. Colonel, was there a duplicate ladder built, a duplicate
of the alleged kidnap ladder built by your force? A. There was one built;
I don’t know whether it was our men who built it or not; I have forgotten.
Q. But you had a ladder built that was supposed to be an
exact duplicate of the kidnap ladder? A. We did.
Q. Was it built two or three sections? A. Three
sections.
Q. The full three sections. Where is that ladder now?
A. That ladder is at our training school now.
Q. Could you produce that here? A. We can.
Q. What was the purpose of building a duplicate ladder?
A. Experimentation.
Q. Along what line? A. Along any line that [3425] might
reveal anything that would be of information to the investigation.
Q. At any time during the investigation was that ladder
displayed to a person who was engaged in the investigation, independent of your
organization, as the original kidnap ladder? A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Was it ever submitted to the Jersey City Police as the
original ladder? A. No.
Q. Or to the Department of Justice? A. No.
Q. Those men had access to the original ladder at all times,
is that so? A. The original ladder was always available.
Q. Was the duplicate ladder made so far as possible of exactly
the same material as the original ladder? A. So far as possible, yes.
Q. So that it was the same both in appearance and in the
material of which it was made, is that correct? A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Were there any experiments made at the Lindbergh house
with that ladder? A. There were.
Q. With that ladder against the wall of the house?
A. It was.
Q. And in that experiment, Colonel, how many sections were
used? A. Two sections.
Q. Two? Two sections? A. Two sections.
Q. Never three sections? A. Yes, it was also put
together with three sections.
Q. Then experiments were made at the Lindbergh house with
three sections of the ladder stood against the Lindbergh wall, is that correct?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Why was an experiment made with three sections when you
are of the opinion that two sections were used in the kidnaping?
A. Because we tried every possibility with the ladder.
Q. You found, as a matter of fact, didn’t you, [3426]
Colonel, when you put three sections up against the right hand side of the
window, that the shutter opened directly on the third section of the ladder?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s true, isn’t it? A. We did.
Q. So that with three sections of the ladder against the
wall it would have been impossible, or virtually impossible, for a man to have
stepped into the Lindbergh bedroom, is that correct, because of the shutter
swinging in their face? A. The shutter would swing against the ladder.
Q. So that you then went back to experimenting with two
sections of the ladder, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. And you found that came against the house at a point
about 30 inches below the window sill of the kidnap room window, is that
correct? A. Approximately.
Q. And did you in your experiment set the base of the ladder
in exactly the same place that the ladder mark was in the ground on March 1st?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that spot preserved in some way, so that it was
protected? A. The holes were in the ground and they stayed there for some
time afterwards.
Q. How deep was the hole in the ground, Colonel? A. I
should judge about two inches deep.
Q. About two inches. Now, was there any mud, Colonel, on the
rounds of the kidnap ladder, alleged kidnap ladder, when it was first
discovered? A. As I remember the report—it is a little bit vague in my
mind now—there was mud on the rungs; yes, sir.
Q. On all the rungs? A. There was mud on the rungs. I
don’t remember the detail.
Q. There was mud on the rungs, but you [3427] cannot say
which rung or how many? A. Yes, sir, I cannot remember the details.
Q. Now, Colonel, isn’t it a fact that when this ladder was
first found you had some difficulty in determining which was Section 1, which
was Section 2 and which was Section 3? A. The two sections that were
together, that is, that were held together with the dowel pin, it was quite
evident what their relative positions were.
Mr. Wilentz: A little louder, Colonel, please.
A. (continuing) The third section would not fit on the
bottom of the ladder, and therefore it was very evident where the third section
went.
Q. Did it fit on the top? A. On the top, yes, sir.
Q. It fit there at the time it was found? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now when the ladder was found, Colonel, it was found
separated in that way, isn’t that right, the two sections were fastened
together? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now did you have that ladder photographed with a
fingerprint photo camera, the kidnap ladder? A. At what time?
Q. Any time after it was found? A. Yes, later it was.
Q. Sometime during the month of March, was it? A. I
believe it was the latter part of March.
Q. And it was photographed, Colonel, inch by inch?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Well, was the entire picture taken? A. The camera in
this instance would be placed over any prints that seemed to be prints of
value, and those photographs would be taken.
Q. Well the side rails, for instance, the six side rails,
were they photographed entirely? A. I am [3428] not sure about that.
Whoever had processed the ladder and was taking the prints can give you that in
detail.
Q. Do you know who that might be, Colonel, Kuebler or Kelly?
A. It would either be Sergeant Kuebler or Trooper Kelly.
Q. Would they operate the camera, too? A. Yes, they
would.
Q. And if those pictures were taken as you say they were,
they would still be among your records, Colonel? A. They would be.
Q. And they could be produced here? A. They can.
Q. Will you produce them for me tomorrow, please? A. We
can.
Q. Approximately how many exposures were there on the
ladder, how many pictures taken of the ladder altogether? A. I’d have to
check on the prints.
Q. If I should suggest about 1200 would that seem to be
about right? A. No.
Q. Too many or too few? A. Too many.
Q. Too many. How many square inches of lumber are there in
the ladder, do you know, Colonel? A. No, I do not.
Q. If I should suggest about 5,000, would that be
approximately right? A. I’d have to figure it up before I could tell you
how approximately right it was.
Q. Will you do that for me too, please? A. I will do
that.
Q. Now, Colonel, was such an experiment as this made: Was
the ladder placed against the building and various of your men sent up and down
the ladder? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was the purpose of that? A. The purpose of
that was to see at approximately what [3429] weights the ladder would hold the
men going up and down.
Q. Now you refer to the duplicate ladder? A. To the
duplicate ladder.
Q. This ladder, of course, being broken wasn’t used in the
experiment, was it? A. No, it was not.
Q. And was it also for the purpose of ascertaining how far
in the ground a man at a given weight would drive the bottom of the ladder?
Maybe I don’t make myself clear in that. A. I don’t —
Q. What I mean is this: the night you say the hole in the
ground was approximately two inches? A. About that.
Q. Now, the test was made and I assume it was made very
quickly with the ground in about the same condition. Was there any test made to
see how heavy a man would have to be or how light he could be to drive the
bottom of the ladder two inches in the ground? A. No. The holes that were
there were the holes that were used in the experiment.
Q. You put them right in the same holes, you didn’t move an
inch to one side or another, or make an experiment to see what weight would
force the ladder down in the ground two inches? A. No.
Q. Then in making your experiment to test the weight, you
used two sections of the ladder: is that correct A. That is correct.
Q. And to what height did two sections of the ladder extend
in feet? A. Oh, approximately 13 feet.
Q. Thirteen? A. Approximately thirteen.
Q. Each, each section? A. No, the sections were around
six—
Q. Six and a half? A. —foot eight inches, something of
that sort.
[3430] Q. So it extended, the ladder went up the wall
approximately 13 feet? A. Approximately 13 feet.
Q. And at what weight did the similar ladder, the duplicate
ladder, break? A. Approximately 180 pounds.
Q. 180 pounds? A. (Nods head.)
Q. Approximately 180? A. (Nods.)
Q. And how many times did you make that test, more than
once? A. As to the breaking of the ladder?
Q. Yes. A. No, just once.
Q. Just one time? A. The ladder was broken the one
time.
Q. And on that one occasion an approximate weight of 180
pounds broke it; is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Do you know how much the Lindbergh baby weighed at the
time of its kidnaping? A. About thirty pounds.
Q. About thirty pounds. So that a person coming down the
ladder following the theory you were working on, with the thirty pound baby in
his arms, would weigh about a hundred and fifty pounds, is that correct?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Well, you say there was a total of about a hundred and
eighty? A. That’s correct.
Q. You mean that his position on the ladder would make some
difference? A. No; that would give you a range not of the hundred and
eighty minus the thirty, but with a man at a hundred and eighty pounds it
broke; at a hundred and seventy pounds, approximately a hundred and seventy
pounds, it did not break. Therefore, at the weight of a hundred and eighty or
above, the normal presumption was that it would break. So that a man up to a
hundred and seventy or possibly a hundred and seventy-five pounds could [3431]
have gone up, but with the added weight it would have broken when he came down.
Q. But the fact remains, Colonel, that it did break at a
hundred and eighty pounds. A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s true, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. No matter what the normal expectancy might be, it did
break at a hundred and eighty pounds. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it didn’t break at less than that. A. No, it did
not.
Q. And you didn’t put more weight than that on there to see
how much more than that it would take on another try; it broke at a hundred and
eighty pounds, that’s correct, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, where did the duplicate ladder break? In the same
place as the original? A. In the same place, yes, sir.
Q. Same place. And that’s where the dowel pin— A. Yes,
sir.
Q. —goes through. Incidentally, Colonel, was there any such
piece of wood as the dowel pin found about the Lindbergh dwelling after the
kidnaping? A. (No answer.)
Q. A three-quarter inch piece of wood that was very similar
to the dowel pin, was there such a piece of wood found on the Lindbergh
property? A. I don’t know when you refer to. You will have to be more
specific.
Q. As a matter of fact, wasn’t there such a piece of wood
found in the Lindbergh library? A. I don’t know what you refer to.
Q. Let me ask you this: is it true that there was found in
the Lindbergh library, after the kidnaping a three inch long piece of maple of
the identical size and quality as that used in the dowels for assembling the
ladder, discovered in a corner of [3432] the library in Colonel Lindbergh’s
home by Sergeant Gardner, one of your men, and reported to you? A. I don’t
recall that.
Q. Did you have a report on this ladder submitted to you in
writing on March the 10th, 1932, by Mr. Squire Johnson, Assistant Director of
Construction, Division of Architecture and Construction? A. A report came
to me from the Department of Institutions & Agencies, yes.
Q. Signed by Mr. Squire Johnson? A. I believe it was.
Q. Will you glance over that and tell me whether or not that
is a copy of the report? A. I wouldn’t recall that now, Mr. Fisher. I
would like to compare this with our record.
Q. Will you do this: Will you bring me the original tomorrow
when you come here? A. Yes, surely.
Mr. Fisher: Very good. And with that understanding, I should
like to defer any further questions on that report until the Colonel has the
original here and we will have more certainty about it.
Mr. Wilentz: On this business of deferring questions, if
your Honor please, I think that the witness either ought to be exhausted now or
not. If he wanted that report here, if he was entitled to it and wanted it, we
should have had some notice about it. I have no objection, if he has a right to
examine about the report, to his doing it. But are we going to pull these
witnesses on and off?
Mr. Fisher: The Attorney General is perfectly right, and I
have in my pocket a subpoena duces tecum, but your Honor [3433] knows how we
were taken by surprise on our witnesses, and Mr. Wilentz is right in his
objection.
Mr. Wilentz: I should object to the report because I can’t
cross-examine the report, a report by somebody else. I don’t think it is
admissible anyhow.
Mr. Fisher: I assumed I was paying the Attorney General a
courtesy by laying it over until he could get the report. I want to be perfecty
fair about it. I could examine on it now.
Mr. Wilentz: I would object to any such report now. Let’s
argue it. We may not have to have the report here tomorrow. Assuming the report
is here, assuming counsel wants to offer it—
Mr. Fisher: That isn’t the point. The point is, I suppose,
there will be no objection from the Attorney General until he at least hears
the question I intend to propound to the witness, and I may want to ask him
questions as to whether or not this or that is true, taking my foundation of
fact from a report submitted to the Colonel. That wouldn’t be offering the
report in evidence. It would be under a direct examination and, I feel, quite
proper examination.
Mr. Wilentz: I have no objection to questions that counsel
asks of the Colonel, as to whether certain things are true or not. That doesn’t
need to wait for the report. [3434] I will have objection to any questions as
to what this report contained.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Wilentz: For the very good reason that I can’t cross-examine
a report.
Mr. Fisher: You can subpoena the man who made it.
The Court: Suppose you proceed with the examination of
Colonel Schwarzkopf to the extent that you are able and it may well be that you
will not have to have the original report.
Mr. Fisher: That may very well be.
The Court: Suppose you proceed, Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher: Thank you.
By Mr. Fisher:
Q. There was such a report submitted to you, wasn’t there, Colonel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you ascertain from that source or from any
source as chief of the investigation that investigation of the ladder disclosed
that it was built by a person who wielded a saw with the left hand?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that, if your Honor please, as
calling for hearsay testimony.
[3435] Mr. Fisher: Oh, no, that goes a long way from the
hearsay rule, your Honor. Here is a man in charge of operations and I am now
asking him as a result of being in charge, what information came to him from
the people whom he employed in the investigation. That is certainly not
hearsay.
The Court: I think you had better confine your examination
of Colonel Schwarzkopf to what Colonel Schwarzkopf knows.
Q. Did you ascertain from the investigation conducted by you
that the indications all pointed to the fact that the kidnap ladder was made by
a person who wielded a saw with his or her left hand?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that. I have no objection, if your
Honor please, if I may suggest it, I have no objection to the Colonel being
asked what his investigation revealed as to the ladder, but I do object to
counsel suggesting to him—
The Court: Your objection now seems to be that the question
is leading.
Mr. Wilentz: Yes.
The Court: Well, of course, there is merit in your objection
so that Mr. Fisher will have to proceed with his examination henceforth without
the objectionable feature of leading.
Mr. Fisher: Very good, sir.
[3436] Q. Will you tell me what the investigation conducted
during the first ten days after the kidnaping, in reference to the ladder,
disclosed?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that, unless the investigation was
by Colonel Schwarzkopf.
Mr. Fisher: He is in command of the investigation and has so
testified.
Mr. Wilentz: Yes, you so stated.
The Court: If you have framed your question as to what his
investigation disclosed the question is proper.
(Question repeated by the reporter as follows: “Will you
tell me what the investigation conducted during the first ten days after the
kidnaping, in reference to the ladder, disclosed.”)
Mr. Wilentz: Providing it was your investigation, Colonel.
Mr. Fisher: Or under your direction, sir.
The Court: No. Let your question now be as to what his
investigation disclosed.
Mr. Fisher: All right, sir.
A. I carried on no personal investigation of that.
Q. But you had, working under you, and under your direct
supervision, you being responsible for the operators certain individuals,
didn’t you? A. I did.
[3437] Q. And they were answerable to you, weren’t they,
Colonel? A. They were.
Q. And they made their reports to you, didn’t they?
A. They did.
Q. Yes. And as a result of that what information came to you
during the first ten days of March as to the ladder? A. A very great deal
of information of a very conflicting sort. There were a number of people who
reported various opinions that they had as to the ladder and most of those
opinions were conflicting. It was for that reason that we referred our
investigation to the Federal Department, took it to the Department of Forestry,
who subsequently turned it over to Mr. Koehler.
Q. Do you want to say now, Colonel, in the first ten days of
March there was so much confusion in the reports submitted by your subordinates
as to this ladder that you couldn’t make any sense out of them? A. No,
sir, I don’t say that. There wasn’t any confusion— I say, a great many people
came in to give us their opinions presuming to be experts along various lines
from boat builders, from organ builders, from various industries and
carpenters, window cleaners and various groups of people of that kind were
desirous of being helpful and a lot of opinions were submitted, most of them in
conflict with the other opinions.
Q. Let us confine ourselves for the moment to just such
reports as came to you from your subordinates or people in the employ of the
State of New Jersey, people who are making reports either under the direct
supervision of you or under the supervision of other State departments to you.
Mr. Wilentz: Well, now, as to those who [3438] made reports
under Colonel Schwarzkopf’s supervision I may not have an objection. As to
those who made any examination and reports and who were under somebody else’s
jurisdiction I do object. The question is twofold.
The Court: The objection is sustained.
Q. From your own subordinates, from your own department, did
you receive any information during the first ten days of March indicating that
the person who made the so-called kidnap ladder wielded a saw with his or her
left hand? A. Not that I recall; no, sir.
Q. Who was Squire Johnson? A. I understand that he was
an employee of the Department of Institutions and Agencies.
Q. Was he asked by you to conduct an investigation?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was he asked by the Governor of the State of New Jersey
to do it? A. Not that I know of.
Q. Do you know whether or not he was? A. No, I do not.
Q. But the fact remains that he did submit in writing to you
a report, didn’t he? A. No, sir.
Q. He didn’t submit a report to you? A. It was
submitted, I believe, to his Department, and they submitted it to me.
Q. Well, no matter how it got there, eventually it got from
Squire Johnson to you, didn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you still have it in your file? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that to that extent it was an official report, wasn’t
it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes. Now, from that official report did you ascertain
that the person who is alleged to have [3439] built the kidnap ladder wielded a
saw with his or her left hand?
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. I object to the question for the
very good reason, I submit, if your Honor please, that it is not material, it
is not admissible, because it would be impossible for me to cross-examine the
report.
The Court: The objection is sustained.
Mr. Fisher: I pray your Honor will grant me an exception.
[EXCEPTION ALLOWED]
By Mr. Fisher:
Q. Now Colonel, was the ladder then found a well-constructed
ladder from a mechanical standpoint, in your opinion? A. I don’t feel that
I am expert enough to pass judgment on that, Mr. Fisher.
Q. Well, do you feel that you would know a good ladder from
a poor one as the commanding officer of the New Jersey State Police? A. It
is not a standard well-built ladder, no.
Q. As a matter of fact, Colonel, you consider it a pretty
poor job mechanically, do you not? A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And such a ladder as in your [3440] experience had
never been brought to your attention before? A. No.
Q. Is that correct? A. It had not.
Q. It was a nesting ladder or—I don’t know too much about
them either, you see—it was a sectional ladder, wasn’t it? A. It was.
Q. One section folding into the other or resting in the
other, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. In your experience have you noticed that type of ladder
used down in the South Jersey fruit country? A. I have not.
Q. Used to put up into the top of apple trees or pear trees
or other fruit trees? A. I have not seen them.
Q. Peach trees, reaching up into peach trees? A. No,
not on any kind of a tree.
Q. What have you to say as to the rungs of the ladder, as to
the width between rungs? Was that as you usually find, them in a ladder, the
space between rungs? Was it unusually long from rung to rung? A. It seemed
so to me, yes, sir.
Q. Now, Colonel, at the time the ladder was found was there
any paint on it anywhere?
Mr. Fisher: May we have the ladder out again, please,
Captain Snook?
Mr. Wilentz: Yes; bring it out.
A. There was some paint on it.
Q. Well, what color was it? A. It was red paint.
Q. And was there anything done to ascertain the type and
kind of paint that it was? A. Yes, an investigation was made on that.
Q. Submitted to the Sherwin-Williams Company, wasn’t it?
A. I would have to look up the reports on that, Mr. Fisher.
[3441] Q. But to some paint company? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And the reports indicated that it was a common garden
variety of red paint? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Such paint as is used frequently by plumbers, mechanics
of that kind: is that right? A. I would have to look at the reports.
Q. As a matter of fact, wasn’t there some of the same type
of paint found in the State Village for Epileptics at Skillman? A. I
didn’t find it. I would have to refer to the reports on that, Mr. Fisher.
Q. Wasn’t there some of the same type of lumber which was
found incorporated in the ladder that was found on the grounds of the State
Epileptic Village at Skillman, A. I would have to look up the reports on
that. I might say that it was, the report on that was not sufficiently
significant to cause me to remember it especially.
Q. Now, I ask you this, Colonel: wasn’t there a piece of
wood found in the State Epileptic Village that had on it just such a red daub
as appears on this ladder, wherever the red daub appears? (Examines ladder.)
What has happened to the red daub?
Mr. Wilentz: What is it,
Q. Oh, here. Is that as it was at the time it was found? Of
course— A. Yes, like it, I suppose. Yes, just about it, yes, sir.
Q. Would you say—Did you say whether or not you know that
there was a piece of wood found at Skillman similar to the wood that I have
just shown you and bearing such a red daub? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Now, Colonel, what about the ladder as to having any
marks of transportation on it? 3442 A. Was there any oil marks or grease
marks or anything of that sort on the ladder when it was found?
Mr. Wilentz: If you know, Colonel?
Q. Yes, of course, if you know. A. I don’t recall in
detail, Mr. Fisher; we have a number of thousand of reports.
Q. I can readily appreciate that. A. And you ask me the
details of one or two of these reports, it is rather hard for me to recall.
Q. About the color of the ladder when it was found, it
wasn’t the shape it is in now, was it, in color, as to color? A. No, it
was lighter in color.
Q. Very much lighter, and was it evenly colored?
A. Yes, as nearly as I remember, it was pretty evenly colored.
Q. Now, a certain process was used in that ladder, wasn’t
it, Colonel, for the purpose of picking up fingerprints, if any? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And after that process was used, was there anything else
used on that ladder? A. In what way?
Q. For the purpose of cleaning up the evidences of it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was used? A. A chemical solution that was
recommended to us was used to wash off the red marks that had gotten on there in
processing it.
Q. And was it said to you that that would destroy forever
any possibility of picking up additional fingerprints on the ladder?
A. No, sir.
Q. It was said that it wouldn’t? A. Nothing was said
about that at all. As a matter of fact, as time advanced, practically all of
the fingerprints had faded into the general red color on the lumber. They
lasted a short period of time and [3443] then they just faded into the wood,
and no fingerprints were distinguishable as such any more.
Q. Well, did you know or do you know, Colonel, that as a
result of Dr. Hudson’s method, a fingerprint can be brought back out of the
wood a number of months after it is placed there? A. I believe that is
correct, but as I understand it, if this chemical remains on the wood, in time
the whole becomes the same color, and the fingerprint is lost, and then it
cannot be revived.
Q. And do you say, Colonel, that after a piece of wood is
washed with a bichloride of mercury solution you can still pick up
fingerprints? A. I don’t know.
Q. Now Colonel, is it a fact that Trooper Kelly didn’t bring
back from the kidnap room a single readable fingerprint? A. There were a
number of smudges and the lines and marks in them were such that they would not
be of value for identification purposes.
Q. And despite the testimony of Mrs. Lindbergh and Miss Gow
that they personally put the window up and put it down, and personally put the
child in bed, you say that there was never turned in to you a single readable
fingerprint of anyone from the kidnap room? A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.
Q. Didn’t that indicate to you that after the window was
lowered and the child was put to bed, that someone washed the woodwork with
some sort of solution? A. No, sir.
Q. It didn’t strike you as peculiar that in a room where
admittedly three people had been touching woodwork, not a single print was to
be found? A. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly when no fingerprints
were found at first I ordered that a re-examination be made and the
re-examination did not disclose any readable fingerprints.
Q. Now that same, evening, Colonel, the evening that Kelly
was taking fingerprints in the Lindbergh house, or within a very short period
of that time, didn’t Sergeant Kelly take some fingerprints down in Hopewell
where there had been a safe robbery in the village of Hopewell? A. I don’t
remember that, Mr. Fisher.
Q. The smudges you speak of, where were they discovered,
Colonel? A. Sergeant Kelly, Trooper Kelly, can give you the information on
that.
Q. Do you know whether they were from the crib or from the
window or the door knob? A. Trooper Kelly would have that.
Q. Kelly would know that? A. Yes.
Q. Were you present personally when the re-examination was
made for fingerprints? A. No, sir.
Q. Who made that, the same man who made the first one,
Kelly? A. Probably, or Sergeant Kuebler, yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you meet Dr. Hudson, Colonel? A. Yes, sir,
I met Dr. Hudson.
Q. At the Lindbergh home? A. Yes, sir.
Q. About when as near as you can remember, would it be about
the 12th or 13th of March? A. About the 12th or 13th of March, around the
middle of March.
Q. And was he working on the ladder with Kuebler and Kelly?
A. I don’t recall Dr. Hudson working on the ladder at all. I know that he
had one or two boards. He demonstrated his method and showed how these prints
could be brought out, but I do not recall Dr. Hudson working on the ladder at
any time.
Q. Do you recall Kelly and Kuebler and Dr. Hudson going down
into a little room, a laundry or a tub room in the Lindbergh basement where
they took some prints from the ladder? Do you remember their going downstairs
into this little basement room? A. I don’t recall Dr. Hudson being there.
I know that most of the processing of the ladder was done down in that room.
Q. Well now, Colonel, as a result of Dr. Hudson’s process,
prints were developed on the ladder where no prints could be found before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s true, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you say how many prints were developed by Dr. Hudson?
A. I cannot say offhand. I would have to look that up.
Q. Several hundred? A. No, I don’t believe so.
Q. If I should suggest to you 500 would you think that was
too many? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were some of the prints later identified? A. I
would have to refer to my records on that, Mr. Fisher.
Q. Well, Colonel, at no time was the fingerprint of Bruno
Richard Hauptman identified as being on that ladder? A. Not that I have
any knowledge of.
Q. Now you discovered by Hudson’s process that you could get
prints where Kelly couldn’t find any? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now did you submit to him the ransom notes and ask him to
fingerprint those? A. (No answer.)
Q. Did you submit to Dr. Hudson the original ransom notes
and say, “Here Doctor, you have had great luck with the ladder, here are the
ransom notes; see what you can do with those”? A. We did submit the ransom
notes to his process.
Q. Did you submit those to Dr. Hudson? A. We were using
his process on them.
Q. Did Hudson ever see the ransom notes? A. No.
Q. No.
[3446] Mr. Wilentz: I move that the “No” be stricken out.
Mr. Fisher: I caught the habit from you this morning.
Q. Colonel, a man came down from New York and he taught your
men and worked with your men and where your men could find no prints, he
developed, we will say, dozens—
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. A. That’s so.
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. The question has been answered
on several occasions that Colonel Hudson on March 12th or 14th, with a new
process, that had been developed since March 1st, made the experiment for
fingerprints on the ladder and that he found fingerprints. Now that question
has been answered many times.
The Court: I think that is so, Mr. Fisher, the record speaks
for itself.
Q. But after that had happened the original ransom notes
never were submitted to Dr. Hudson for his examination, were they? A. No,
sir.
Q. No. A. It was not necessary.
Q. You say it was not necessary? A. No, sir, it was
not. He had shown us his process, and under his process we processed the notes.
Q. You say that it wasn’t necessary to let the man who
introduced this thing to you see the notes; that’s your answer, is it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Very good. Did you process the original [3447] ransom
note with the Hudson method? A. With one of the Hudson methods, yes, sir.
Q. Well, now, as a matter of fact, Colonel, Hudson showed
your men down in the basement of the Lindbergh home how to process wood for fingerprints,
didn’t he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at that time he didn’t do a thing about paper, did
he? A. No, sir.
Q. No. A. We inquired about it, though.
Q. And yet you say that you used his method on the letters.
A. He had two other methods, that he also showed us, and we processed the
paper with those.
Q. Now, Colonel, did you call any fingerprint experts
outside your department in in this investigation? A. No, sir.
Q. What about Federal fingerprint men? Were there any?
A. I don’t believe—no, there were not.
Q. Or New York State fingerprint men? A. No.
Q. That is, men from the New York City Police Department?
A. No, there were not.
Q. Or Newark City Police Department? A. No.
Q. Nor Jersey City? A. No.
Q. So that the only fingerprint men that ever had a chance
to examine and inspect the ransom notes for fingerprints were the men from your
own particular department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it didn’t occur to you that anybody else should be
called in? A. We used our men on it.
Q. That’s right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Colonel, how many times was there the original kidnap
ladder taken apart and put back together again, if you know? A. I do not
know.
Q. To your knowledge, how many times?
Mr. Wilentz: Does counsel mean how many times he saw it put
together—
[3448] Mr. Fisher: That is right.
Mr. Wilentz: —or what he heard about it?
A. I did not see it taken apart and put together.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. Is it your impression that this rung here
looked like that the night that it was picked up out in the Lindbergh home, the
space in here, this ripped off in here? A. I believe not, no.
Q. You believe no? A. (Nods head.)
Q. So that somewhere along the line that change has been
made in the ladder, hasn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time it was picked up it was flush? A. I believe
it was.
Q. Like this one, for instance. A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about this strip down here—has that been broken off
since the ladder was here, referring now to, I guess that is rail—it isn’t Rail
16. I don’t know which rail it is. Referring to this rail along here in the
third section of the ladder. A. The number is on there, I believe.
Mr. Pope: On the side.
Q. On Rail 17, this piece of wood that seems to be chipped
out, was that that way the day it was picked up or— A. I believe not; no,
sir.
Q. You think that that also has happened since? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Do you know how that happened, Colonel? A. No, I do
not.
[3449] Q. Do you know where the kidnap ladder was on March
2nd in the afternoon?
Mr. Wilentz: 1932?
Mr. Fisher: ‘32, yes, sir.
A. I do not know where it was because I was in charge
of a number of details at that time and did not see it, had no opportunity to
see it then.
Q. Now, Colonel, on what occasion, on what date—Withdrawn.
When did Murray Rosner first appear on the scene in this kidnaping?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that as not being material, if your
Honor please.
Mr. Fisher: It is highly material, your Honor.
Mr. Wilentz: Highly material?
Mr. Fisher: Highly, one of the most important phases of this
entire case.
The Court: What is your idea on the relevancy of it?
Mr. Fisher: My idea is that I want to show that the original
ransom insignia was in the possession of a man who had connections with the
underworld very early in the case.
Mr. Wilentz: Before the ransom note was found?
[3450] Mr. Fisher: With your permission, sir, I will address
the Court.
Mr. Wilentz: I should apologize, of course, and I do.
Mr. Fisher: Thank you, thank you, it is very gracious of
you.
The Court: I think it is a material inquiry.
Mr. Fisher: We want to show this: the development here from
the testimony of the witness Trendley and from many other spots in the case,
from Dr. Condon’s testimony that there is a vast dissimilarity in the ransom
note found in the nursery and the subsequent notes. Dr. Condon, your Honor will
recall, said one was a poor imitation of the other. Trendley said he could find
only one little word “is” that had been used out of the ransom note. Now, we
feel it is very pertinent, highly important to show who was in possession of a
knowledge of the original ransom insignia, how they came about their knowledge
and what they did with their knowledge.
Mr. Wilentz: After the inquiry that I tried to direct to
counsel who seemed to object to it, if your Honor please, I will attempt to
direct it to counsel through your Honor, which, of course, is the proper way.
What I wanted to know was, so that I might be able to answer counsel, if there
is an answer, is whether or not the purpose is to show the possession and the
knowledge of [3451] the symbol before or after the first ransom note was found
in the Lindbergh home.
Mr. Fisher: I suppose the way, your Honor, to find what our
purpose is, would be for you to withdraw the objection and let the witness say
what it is.
The Court: Well, what is the present question?
Mr. Fisher: When he first met Murray Rosner.
The Court: Oh.
Mr. Fisher: And I wanted to develop that Rosner got the
insignia. Now, I don’t know what day it was, your Honor, and if the Attorney
General will tell me—
Mr. Wilentz: I have no objection to him saying when he first
met Rosner or when he first met—
The Court: No, I suppose there is no objection to that.
Mr. Fisher: I thought it was—
Mr. Wilentz: That wasn’t the question.
Mr. Fisher: Read the question.
Mr. Wilentz: Answer it.
Mr. Fisher: Read it, let’s read it.
[3452] Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. I don’t think we have to
take up the time, if your Honor please, to bicker about that.
Mr. Fisher: I didn’t think so, either.
The Court: What is the present question?
The Reporter: “Question: When did Murray Rosner first appear
on the scene in this kidnaping?”
Mr. Wilentz: That’s different than when did he meet Murray
Rosner.
Mr. Fisher: I mean exactly the same thing, your Honor.
Q. When did you first meet Murray Rosner?
Mr. Wilentz: Well now, just a minute.
The Court: You may put that question.
Mr. Wilentz: That is a different question. I want it
recorded.
Mr. Fisher: I am so sorry. I thought it was exactly the same
in intent and meaning.
A. I don’t recall the date, Mr. Fisher.
Q. Well, was it two days after the kidnaping or three?
A. To the best of my recollection it was five or six days after the
kidnaping.
Q. Five or six days after the kidnaping? A. Yes, sir.
[3453] Q. Now, did you display to Murray Rosner the original
ransom note? A. I did not.
Q. Did he ever see it?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that, if your Honor please.
Q. If you know. A. I don’t know.
Q. Who had charge of the ransom notes at that time?
A. Captain Lamb or myself.
Q. And do you say now that Murray Rosner never saw the
original ransom note?
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute now. The Colonel is his witness
and the Colonel said that he didn’t display it to him, and he doesn’t know
whether it was ever displayed to him.
The Court: Exactly.
Mr. Fisher: Pardon me.
The Court: Exactly.
Mr. Fisher: The Colonel said on another date, your Honor.
Now I am asking him an entirely different question.
Mr. Wilentz: It is a different question as well as a
different date, and that is the question I object to, whether the Colonel says
that Murray Rosner never saw that; that I object to.
The Court: The witness said not to his knowledge.
[3454] Q. Was that
the answer, Colonel, that to your knowledge Rosner never saw it? A. Not to
my knowledge.
Q. Very good. But you say that the ransom notes were also in
the possession of Lamb on occasions: is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, Murray Rosner was up around the Lindbergh place?
A. He was.
Q. And he was what you call an intermediary, wasn’t he, a go‑between?
Wasn’t he a go‑between in the kidnaping? Wasn’t he the man who was expected to
contact the kidnapers? A. Not for the police.
Q. Did he introduce you to Spitale and Bitz? Did Rosner
bring Spitale and Bitz into the picture? A. I did not meet Spitale and
Bitz.
Q. Do you know whether Rosner brought them in or not?
A. I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that as not being material.
Mr. Fisher: It is material. It is the crux of the whole
thing.
Mr. Wilentz: I submit it is the crux of nothing.
Mr. Fisher: Then let it in. Don’t argue about it.
Mr. Wilentz: You are asking this witness—
The Court: Let us proceed in an orderly fashion.
[3455] Mr. Fisher: I am sorry, your Honor.
Mr. Wilentz: I object to the question if your Honor please,
because it is not material, it is not competent, it is not admissible: Who
would know when he doesn’t know?
Mr. Fisher: He was in command of the whole investigation,
sir.
The Court: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Fisher: Exception.
[EXCEPTION ALLOWED]
By Mr. Fisher: Q. Colonel, from time to time during the
investigation did you issue written bulletins to the press? A. I did, yes,
sir.
Q. And how many of those bulletins were there? A. I
believe we had either three or four press releases a day during the early
portion of the investigation. I don’t remember how many exactly there were.
Q. And they were all issued in writing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in one of those releases did you state that you had
definite evidence which would connect Harry Fleischer with the crime?
A. No, sir.
[3456] Q. Did you
mention Harry Fleischer in your releases? A. I probably did.
Q. Did you attempt to run Harry Fleischer down for weeks?
A. We attempted to run everyone down, Mr. Fisher, that we thought might
have any connection with it.
Q. That is right. You thought Fleischer had some connection
with it, didn’t you? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, why did you just say then you ran down anyone that
might have connection? A. We tried to run down the various criminals that
were known to be at large and had them account for where they were on March
1st.
Q. Colonel, did you issue a statement saying that the
suicide of Violet Sharpe virtually solved the kidnaping? A. Such—I don’t
recall any such statement.
Q. To the press. Do you say that you didn’t issue such a
statement? A. I am quite sure that I didn’t.
Q. Will you say positively whether you did or you did not,
to the best of your knowledge? A. I cannot tell you that, Mr. Fisher. I
say I am quite sure that I didn’t.
Q. Well, did you feel that it did solve the kidnaping, the
death of Violet Sharpe went a long way towards solving the kidnaping?
A. No, sir.
Q. Then you know that you never issued any such statement?
A. Yes. I say I am quite sure that I didn’t.
Q. If you had no such idea, Colonel, there is no question in
your mind about it, is there? A. No.
Q. No. Then why do you say you are quite sure? You are
positive, aren’t you?
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. This is Mr. Fisher’s witness.
[3457] The Court: He has answered the question in all good
faith.
Q. Colonel, let me ask you this: On March 2nd you were
searching—or shortly thereafter, along in the month of March, for a person with
a certain type of automobile, weren’t you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What type of automobile, what color? A. A dark
automobile.
Q. What color? A. We had a number of colors reported to
us from people who had seen cars around that section. We were looking for any
dark color, and we had also had a dark blue—
Q. And a green? A. Dodge.
Q. Had you had a green? A. I believe it was. I am not
positive.
Q. Did you find such a car in the home of one Chiapelli at a
spot very near the Lindbergh home? A. I don’t recall that offhand. I can
find it in my reports.
Q. Did you find a car there hidden away under certain hay
out of sight when your men got there but which was turned up by a close
examination? A. There was a car found by the investigators like that.
Q. And wasn’t that a green Dodge sedan? A. I don’t
recall that.
Q. And although it had no license plate on, weren’t the
tires fully inflated? A. I don’t recall the details of that. I can find it
in my reports, though.
Q. But there was such a car found up there very near the
Lindbergh home? A. There was a car found under a haystack, yes, sir.
Q. Didn’t you also check up a green sedan car abandoned on
the East Side of New York which investigation disclosed had been stolen in [3458]
Lakewood, New Jersey? A. That car was investigated, yes, sir.
Q. And in that car wasn’t there a blanket and a milk bottle?
A. I believe there was, yes, sir.
Q. What became of that blanket, if you know, Colonel?
A. I believe there was an extensive investigation made as to the
manufacture of that blanket, and of the number of thousand of those blankets
that were made we tried to trace the final destination of them.
Q. Were there any fingerprints taken on that car? A. I
would have to refer to that report for the details on that.
Mr. Fisher: That’s all, Colonel.
Cross-Examination by
Mr. Wilentz:
Q. Colonel, every car that you found and every clue that you
found until the day of Mr. Hauptmann’s arrest was carefully investigated to the
best of your ability and the ability of the other agencies, were they not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And every one of these clues were eliminated by
information that came, isn’t that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And every known criminal that had any connection with
kidnaping of course you looked for. A. We not only looked for them, we
sent out bulletins and tried all over the world to get a trace of them.
Q. And of course there was no criminal record on file in the
United States of America of Hauptmann, was there? A. No, sir.
Q. He had come into the country illegally and therefore
there was no record of it, isn’t that so?
Mr. Pope: We object to that question.
[3459] Mr. Wilentz: Well, it is cross-examination.
Mr. Pope: He is asking this witness to testify whether
Hauptmann came into the country illegally or not; that is one part of the
question.
The Court: Well, you proved that as a part of your case,
didn’t you?
Mr. Pope: That wouldn’t be any reason why there wouldn’t be
any record, of Hauptmann. The reason there wouldn’t be any record of Hauptmann
in this country would be because he hadn’t committed any crime, not because he
came into this country illegally. The question is this, your Honor: “And the
reason you didn’t find any record of Hauptmann was because he came into this
country illegally.” Of course that doesn’t follow at all.
Mr. Wilentz: I will reframe it if there is any difficulty.
The Court: Yes. I think you had better reframe it.
Q. The criminal record of Mr. Hauptmann in Germany was not
recorded in any of the agencies in this country, was it?
Mr. Pope: I object to the question as immaterial and
irregular.
Q. So far as you know. A. No, sir.
[3460] Mr. Pope: I object to the question.
The Court: One moment.
Mr. Wilentz: Well, they brought out the fact that he had a
criminal record in Germany.
Mr. Pope: From this witness?
Mr. Wilentz: From any witness; and counsel has gone into
this man’s investigation, if your Honor please.
The Court: Just read the question to me.
The Reporter: The question is: “The criminal record of Mr.
Hauptmann in Germany was not recorded in any of the agencies in this country,
was it, so far as you know?”
Mr. Pope: That is presuming there was a criminal record
recorded even somewhere in Germany and there isn’t any evidence as that.
The Court: There isn’t—
Mr. Pope: As I remember, sir, the defendant said—the
defendant told very frankly on the stand the difficulties that he had gotten
into in Germany.
The Court: He said he was convicted of crime there, didn’t
he?
Mr. Pope: What is that?
[3461] The Court: He said he was convicted of crime over
there, didn’t he?
Mr. Pope: Yes, but that isn’t a record, that is merely his
personal record of what he might have done. We are speaking now of criminal
records that are held by and recorded by police departments, besides that, this
is not cross-examination which was gone into on the direct examination.
The Court: Well, there may be something in that. I think
perhaps for reasons last indicated, the objection will have to be sustained.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. All right. Now, did you find any other
Dodge car belonging to a man in whose garage there was found 14,000 or more
dollars of Lindbergh ransom money? A. No, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: No.
Q. Now, when you took this test ladder, you built another
ladder, you say, and when the two sections were up, men of different weights
would go up from time to time, wouldn’t they? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was not until a man came down with a package
which, together, the package and the man, weighed 180 pounds, it was not—
Mr. Fisher: Now, that is objected to.
Q. —it was not until then that the ladder broke?
[3462] Mr. Fisher: It incorporates in the question a fact
not in evidence.
Mr. Wilentz: We will see if it isn’t.
Mr. Fisher: Refer to the record.
Mr. Wilentz: I disagree with the gentleman about that.
Mr. Fisher: My recollection is—I want to be very fair—
The Court: What is the question?
(Question read by reporter as follows: “Q. And it was not
until a man came down with a package which, together, the package and the man,
weighed 180 pounds, it was not until then that the ladder broke?”)
The Court: He may answer the question.
A. At the weight of 180 pounds.
Q. What did the weight consist of, just the man, or a man
and a package? A. Just the man.
Q. Coming down.
Mr. Fisher: That was my objection, if your Honor please, you
see.
The Court: What is that, Mr. Fisher?
Mr. Fisher: That is what I was objecting to. Now the witness
has said just what I understood his testimony to be.
[3463] The Court: Well, the water has passed through the
mill.
Mr. Fisher: Over the dam.
The Court: We will proceed now. Proceed, Mr. Wilentz.
Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, I don’t know which of us
ought to go up to the head of the class.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Colonel, let’s get to the very serious
business about this child being murdered and this ladder. You made these
experiments to try to find out, if possible, in the absence of having a man
arrested, to try to find out about the weight of the person that went into that
room: isn’t that it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was the reason for the test? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know—I withdraw that.
Q. And the 180 pound weight cracked the ladder broke it,
didn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did the ladder break with reference to the old
ladder? A. Exactly the same place.
Q. At the junction of the two sections? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The same place practically? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, up
to 180 that ladder, going up and down, didn’t break, did it? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you actually have a man going in and out of that
bedroom, that nursery, with a package, from time to time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you also try that? A. Yes, sir.
[3464] Q. Did your investigation reveal how much Mr. Fisch
weighed?
Mr. Pope: We object to that as not cross-examination.
Mr. Wilentz: All right. If they object to it I will withdraw
it.
Q. Was there any other man who was arrested or apprehended
or found who owned a Dodge, in whose garage was found $14,600 and in whose
bedroom was found the name and number of Dr. John F. Condon? A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any other man or any other—withdrawn.
Q. Was there any other person whose identity came to your
notice who had in his garage $14,000 or more of Lindbergh ransom money, in
whose rooms there was found in one of the closets the name and number of Dr.
John F. Condon, who owned a Dodge and in whose attic was found a board that was
sawed off? A. No, sir.
Q. Anybody else but Hauptmann? A. No, sir; no one else.
Q. Did you have any other man whose handwriting the experts
reported to you was anybody’s but Hauptmann’s? A. No, sir.
Mr. Fisher: I would like to have that question read.
(Question repeated by the reporter.)
Mr. Fisher: I don’t know that that makes a question, your
Honor.
Q. Well, did the experts, did the men who the [3465] State
of New Jersey and the Federal Government, or the State of New York, or any
other agency, the handwriting experts that you had gotten during all the years
of the investigation, did they identify the handwriting in the ransom notes as
anybody’s else’s except Bruno Richard Hauptmann, every single one of them?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were asked about the ladder and whether or not it was
a good job or not. As long as they are getting your opinion, let me get one
from you. Of course you are not an expert lumber man and you are not a
carpenter, are you? A. No, sir.
Q. You are a graduate of West Point, aren’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And during the early years of your administration and
particularly 1932, March 1st, 1932, Colonel, how many detectives were there
altogether in the entire State Police? A. At that time we had two
detectives in each troop and a headquarters detachment of four detectives.
Q. How much would that be altogether? A. That would be
ten detectives.
Q. Ten detectives for your entire troop for the State of New
Jersey? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had to do the patrolling in the rural sections
and the police work there in your department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that you weren’t, in addition to being a graduate from
West Point and superintendent of the State Police, spending your time learning
particularly about lumber, were you? A. No, sir.
Q. And you are not an expert wood man. A. No, sir.
Q. And you are not a carpenter. A. No, sir.
Q. But you have been asked your opinion about the ladder.
Let me ask you is it your opinion that this looks like the work of a hundred
dollar a month carpenter? Doesn’t this look like the work [3466] of a hundred
dollar a month carpenter? A. Well, it looked like rough carpentry work.
Q. Yes. A jeweler wouldn’t build it, would he? A. No,
sir.
Q. A lawyer wouldn’t build it, would he? A. No, sir.
Q. A doctor wouldn’t build that, would he? A. No, sir.
Q. He would have to know something about dowel pins,
wouldn’t he? He would have to know something about these grooves or recesses as
they call them? He would have to be able to cut them out, wouldn’t he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He would have to be able to use a saw, wouldn’t he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A plane. A. Yes, sir.
Q. A chisel, a hammer, wood, nails, everything that goes
with a carpenter—isn’t that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Colonel, you have been asked whether or not you have
paid unusual attention to this case. The truth of the matter is, is it not,
Colonel, that you have given the very years of your life since this kidnaping
to try to solve it, isn’t that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn’t put the $14,600 in Hauptmann’s garage, did
you? A. No, sir.
Q. And so far as you and your department are concerned, you
have done the best you could, isn’t that so? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: That is all.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. Colonel, any man that graduated from West
Point could build that ladder, couldn’t he, because you get a little manual
training up there, you get [3467] a little engineering up there? A. I
don’t recall any manual training at all, Mr. Fisher.
Q. Well, a little engineering. It wouldn’t take a very noted
engineer to figure out, to build a little recess to slip a board in, would it,
in that ladder? A. No, it wouldn’t.
Q. No. Any child out of high school, with a course in manual
training would know that, wouldn’t they?
Mr. Wilentz: Any child.
Mr. Fisher: Well, when I say child, Mr. Attorney General, we
will go up to 16 or 17 years of age, to make it easy.
A. With basic training.
Q. Yes. A. That could be made, yes, sir.
Mr. Fisher: That is all.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q.
If a child knew the work of a carpenter, he could do it, couldn’t he?
A. Yes, sir. (Laughter in the courtroom.)
Q. You have seen me around for a couple of months, haven’t
you? A. Yes.
Q. And you know I couldn’t build one; you know that, don’t
you? (Laughter in the court room.)
Mr. Reilly: Well, I think there are a lot of things you
couldn’t build.
A. (No answer.)
Mr. Wilentz: That is all.
[3468] Mr. Reilly: We have exhausted our witnesses that he
has here today and he moves I respectfully move for an adjournment until
tomorrow morning.
The Court: Mr. Reilly is stating to the Court that he has
exhausted all of the witnesses that he has here today and he moves for an
adjournment until tomorrow morning at ten o’clock.
Mr. Wilentz: We have no objection at all to counsel having
all the time that your Honor sees fit to award for the production of every
witness that they have.
The Court: We will take a recess until tomorrow morning at
ten o’clock. The people will remain in the courtroom until the jury has
retired.
(At 4:03 p. m. the jury retired.)
The Court: The prisoner is remanded to the custody of the
sheriff. He may retire.
(At 4:05 p. m. the prisoner retired in the custody of the
sheriff.)
The Court: The Court will now take a recess until 10:00
o’clock tomorrow morning.
(At 4:06 p. m. the further trial of the case was adjourned
until tomorrow morning, Tuesday, February 5th, 1935, at ten o’clock.)
No comments:
Post a Comment