In an earlier post I mentioned that I saw some striking
similarities between the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case and our case against Ted
Bundy for the kidnapping and murder of Kim Leach. Of course the motives for the
two crimes were very different, and the two defendants came from very different
backgrounds, but still some aspects were similar. Anyhow, in no
particular order, here are some of the similarities that I saw in the two
cases.
1)
The lead prosecutor in both cases had never before
tried a murder case as a prosecutor. David Wilentz told the jury that he had
never prosecuted any case before. It appears from his final argument, however, that
he was an experienced civil trial attorney. I had much more experience in the
trial of criminal cases than Wilentz. I had tried several murder cases as a
defense attorney, and I had tried many cases as a prosecutor, but the case
against Bundy was the first murder case which I tried as a prosecutor.
2)
Both prosecutions seem to have been organized in
similar fashion. We decided on a modular presentation for the Bundy case, and I
believe that I can detect a modular format for the Lindbergh case. At first our
modules were well defined, but their orderliness broke down over time. I
believe I can see such a pattern in the Lindbergh case. We ended our case with
a witness who was an expert in a relatively exotic field of forensic science.
The Lindbergh case ended with an expert
in a relatively exotic field of forensic science.
3)
In both cases the bodies of the victim were
found away from a highway and partially covered. The condition of the two
bodies was very similar.
4)
In both cases clothing found at the scene was helpful
in identifying the bodies.
5)
Cause of death was an issue in both cases.
Unlike the Lindbergh case, however, we sought out and used the most qualified
forensic pathologist we could find to perform the autopsy. The doctor who
performed the autopsy in the Lindbergh case was a local doctor who had little
experience with such cases, and his examination left quite a bit to be desired.
6)
Both cases involved extensive investigations in
two different jurisdictions—one a large city and one a small town. The
Lindbergh case involved an extortion in New York City and a murder in Hopewell
New Jersey. Our case involved Lake City Florida and Tallahassee. Both jurisdictions
had parallel investigations going on which complemented each other.
7)
We could not have made our case in Lake City
without the investigative work done by the Tallahassee Police Department, the
Leon County Sheriff’s Office, and the FSU Police Department. The case in New
Jersey could not have been made without the investigative work done in New York
City by the NYPD and the FBI.
8)
Hopewell’s local law enforcement agencies were
not equal to the task of investigating the Lindbergh kidnapping. Lake City’s
local law enforcement agencies were not equal to the task of investigating the
Bundy case.
9)
Both cases were made with the intervention of
statewide law enforcement agencies. They had the New Jersey State Police, and
we had the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Florida Highway
Patrol. We had the better statewide agency. At the time of the Lindbergh
kidnapping, the NJSP was little more than a sort of glorified highway patrol.
In our case the FDLE was not only staffed with investigators experienced in
complex investigations, it had an excellent crime lab.
10)
Both cases were plagued by interdepartmental
rivalry. In the Lindbergh case there was a three‑way tug‑of‑war between the
NJSP, NYPD, and FBI. In our case we have even more vying agencies. They never
seem to have achieved a modus vivendi in the Lindbergh case; we partially
solved our problem by forming a task force comprised of investigators from all
involved agencies.
11)
The Lindbergh case was plagued with eyewitnesses
who had serious credibility problems. All of our eyewitnesses had credibility
problems. In our case, however, there was never any question about the honesty
of our witnesses, just their ability to observe and remember.
12)
One of the eyewitnesses in the Lindbergh case
was Amandus Hochmuth, an octogenarian with poor eyesight. Hochmuth placed
Hauptmann at the entrance to the Lindbergh residence on the day of the crime.
One of our eyewitnesses was Clinch Edenfield, a septuagenarian with poor
eyesight who put Bundy at the Lake City Junior High on the morning Kim went missing from the junior high.
13)
The prosecution’s star eyewitness in the
Lindbergh case was John Condon, a man whose eccentricities called his veracity
into doubt. We managed to destroy the credibility of our star eyewitness by
hypnotizing him and thereby giving the defense an opportunity to call mental
health experts who convincingly testified that the hypnosis could have planted
false memories.
14)
A significant portion of the evidence against
Hauptmann was the testimony of examiners of questioned documents who identified
Hauptmann’s handwriting on the ransom notes. A significant portion of our
evidence was the testimony of an examiner of questioned documents who
identified Bundy’s handwriting on various forged credit card receipts placing
Bundy in Lake City on the day of the crime.
15)
The final witness in the Lindbergh case, Arthur
Koehler, put Hauptmann at the scene of the crime by matching a part of the
kidnapper’s homemade ladder to a board taken from Hauptmann’s attic. The final
witness in our case, Lynn Henson, put Bundy at the scene of the crime by
matching fibers found at the scene to fibers from Bundy’s clothing. Koehler
also tied Hauptmann to the ladder with a tool mark examination showing, among
other things, that Hauptmann’s wood plane was used to plane the boards of the
ladder. Henson also tied Bundy to our crime scene by doing a shoe track
comparison which connected two pairs of Bundy’s shoes to the scene.
16)
Both the investigation and the prosecution of
the Lindbergh case were severely hampered by overwhelming news coverage. Both
the investigation and the prosecution of our case were severely hampered by the
intense news coverage.
17)
A license tag number figured prominently in both
cases. In our case Bundy was found in possession of a stolen license tag, 13d‑11300,
which helped to identify him as the kidnapper. Bundy had the stolen tag on the
murder vehicle when he purchased gasoline in Lake City, and the attendant wrote
the tag number down on the credit card receipt. In the Lindbergh case, a gas
station attendant was suspicious of the gold certificate Hauptmann used to pay
for some gasoline. The attendant wrote Hauptmann’s tag number on the gold
certificate. When the certificate was identified as a ransom bill, they traced
it to Hauptmann by the tag number.
18)
In both cases significant incriminating evidence
was overlooked by the prosecution and did not surface until years later. In his
new book, Hauptmann’s Ladder, Richard
T. Cahill outlines some significant evidence that Hauptmann tried to buy a
sheet of plywood at a Bronx lumberyard using a $10.00 gold certificate,
probably one of the ransom bills. When the clerk objected, he took the bill
back and his companion gave her the 40 cent price of the plywood sheet. The
clerk was suspicious enough to write down the tag number of the purchaser—Bruno
Hauptmann’s tag. Cahill found documents suggesting that this evidence was given
to the New York grand jury which indicted Hauptmann for extortion, but it was
never mentioned in the New Jersey murder case. The only reasonable explanation
I can think of for their not using this evidence at the trial is that the New
Jersey prosecution team was unaware of it. In our case a soil expert pinpointed
the location of the body by examining soil found in the murder vehicle. This evidence
was ignored and played no part in the discovery of the body. It was never communicated
to the prosecution team, and I found out about it decades later. If I had known
about it at the time of the trial, the jury would certainly have heard about
it.
19)
Both cases were circumstantial evidence cases
which required fitting together a mass of circumstances to obtain a picture of
what happened. No single circumstance was enough in either case. It took all
the circumstances together to get a conviction.
20)
In both cases the defense team put on a pathetic
showing with the evidence they offered in defense of the charge. They did so
poorly in the Lindbergh case that Wilentz decided to shorten his rebuttal. They
did so poorly in our case that we put on a very brief rebuttal.
In some areas, we had the advantage over the Lindbergh case
prosecution team, in other areas they had the advantage over us. The area where
they had by far the greater advantage was in the area of case quality. We
analyzed our case as being iffy enough that there was a real question whether
we were going to be able to get a conviction. The foreman of the jury, who
later wrote a newspaper article about his experiences, agreed with us. He said
he was initially surprised at the low quality of our evidence, but we
eventually pulled everything together with the accumulation of circumstances.
He also said if the defense had offered a scintilla of evidence supporting the theory
they argued, they would have gotten an acquittal. The defense, of course was
severely hampered by the fact that their client was guilty. I’ve read the
Lindbergh trial transcript several times now, and I don’t see how the trial
jury could have come to any verdict other than guilty based on the evidence
presented at trial.
One of the biggest differences between the two cases was the
behavior of the defendant at trial and post‑trial. Hauptmann testified at trial,
a huge mistake; Bundy didn’t, an excellent decision. Hauptmann was thoroughly
discredited on cross-examination; Bundy would have been thoroughly discredited
on cross if he had taken the stand. Hauptmann maintained his innocence to the
bitter end; Bundy confessed to thirty murders (including ours) in an effort to delay
his execution. I’m glad he finally confessed. If he hadn’t, our case would be
plagued with myriads of innocence theories just as the Lindbergh case is.
