Evening Star Newspaper, January 8, 1935, Page 5

Neighbor of Lindbergh Says He Saw.Bruno Near Estate On Day Baby Was Kidnaped (Continued From First Page.) Sweeney, both of the New Jersey State police, were other witnesses of the morning session. The defense attack upon the efficiency of the department they represented came with Frank A. Kelly, fingerprint expert, and Nuncio de Gaetano, a trooper, on the stand. Reilly attacked especially the “ex- pertness” of Kelly and quarrelec with him over proper methods used for pre- serving fingerprints. After an exchange with tne witness about the Bertillon system, which Kel- ly declared was obsolete as an identi- fication means, Rellly pressed him: “Now you want us to believe, do you, that although Mrs. Lindbergh had been in the nursery that evening, Miss Gow had been over to the medi- cine cabinet and the medicine table and given the child, I believe, cough mixture and had rubbed the child’s chest with a jar of Vicks and had been around the medicine table, shown in the State's exhibit S-9, you could find no fingerprints?” “Of value,” XKelly qualified. Quarrel on Prints. Reilly quarreled with the witness on his method of taking fingerprints, drew from him a statement of the process he used, and then charged that his method destroyed prints which could have been preserved. Kelly said he brushed over the ran- som note found in the Lindbergh nursery with a camel hair brush on which had been sifted a special pow- der. “Is it not the proper way to take a fingerprint to sift the powder from the bottle over the paper and then blow it off and the powder remains where the fingerprints are?” Reilly de- manded. “No, sir, it is not,” insisted the wit- ness. “Do you know that the bru.shl_ng of your brush destroys the fingerprints?” “I know in blowing it off you blow moisture on it and destroy the finger- print,” Kelly countered. Brushed Ransom Note. “you see me handle this paper,” Reilly went_on. “Yes, sir.” “And counsel at the table are go- ing to handle it now. We are going to leave it right here with the clerk until you bring your apparatus.” Reilly continued: “That is what you did with the note, too, I assume, you brushed it with the brush?” “That is correct.” Reilly drew out of Kelly the fact that his education about fingerprints came from & book written by “a man named Henry in England.” “Don't you know the system used in the United States is a system de- vised by ex-Inspector Faurot of the Police Department of New York?” he ” said Kelly, “I didn't.” “Never Heard of Him.” Later, after Reilly delivered a brief homily on the erudtion of the New York expert, Kelly popped: “I never heard tell of the man.” Reilly pursued his effort to embar- rass the witness with: “Now, as to the ladder. Do you know it has been reported that one man took over 800 fingerprints from this ladder?” “I object to the question,” inter- posed Wilgnta, “If your honot please, I think— 3 “All righty)’ said Reilly, “I am ahead of myself, I will withdraw it.” The fifth day of the trial began at 10:01 'am., Eastern standard time. State Policeman Kelly, fingerprint and identification expert, resumed the witness stand to continue his direct examination. Wilentz first turned to the Lind- bergh nursery and had Kelly tell of the table and chair in the middle of the room. The attorney general asked him to describe the course from the kidnap window to the crib. Q. You could walk a direct line from the window to the crib without encountering an obstruction? The trooper answered in the af- firmative. No Fingerprints Found. Q.. You sald yesterday you could find no fingerprints in the nursery. A. That is right. Q. No fingerprints of any one. A, Well— Q. Answer the question. No finger- prints of) any one? A. Notte. ‘Wilentz then invited cross-examina- tion. Reilly began: Q. Mr. Kelly, did you ever study the Bertillon system? A, No. Q. Are you known as the exper} in the fingerprint line? A. No, sir, I am not, Reilly then demanded why the trooper had not studied the Bertillon system, an identification system, which he began to describe. “It's obsolete,” Kelly interposed. Asks Ban From Record. Reilly- turned angrily to the court to request that his answer be stricken from the record. Q. You want us to believe, Mr. Kelly, that although Mrs, Lindbergh had been in the nursery and although Betty Gow went in thére to treat the child and rub its chest, you could find no fingerprints? A. That's true. Q. No fingerprints of anybody? A. Yes, sir, Rellly had the witness describe his arrival at the nursery. Q. What was the first object you attempted fo photograph or take fin- gerprints from? A. The hote, Q It was in the envelope? A. Yes.' Reilly then had the expert give a de;ncz‘pfim of his method of taking pri ¢ Put Powder on Envelope. Kelly told how he brushed black powder on the envelope and note and then brushed it off carefully. - “Don’t you know,” snapped Reilly, “that by brushing the powder off you are liable to brush the fingerprint off? Don't you know the proper way is to blow it off?” The witness was slightly annoyed. “I know that blowing the moisture of your breath can destroy a print.” He then told how he examined the kidnap window and sill and the entire nursery, but found n&“ mmmt :{‘“ on point, - mzm'.hugt m:: the prints of Betty Gow had been found, although the nurse had been at the crib when the kidnaping was discovered. Reilly then sought to have the wit- ness express his opinion on how long a fingerprint would remain on e surface. “I wouldn’t say it would last five minutes,” snapped Kelly, after Reilly pressed him to state how many days or hours a print would last. Rellly then turned to the footprint. Q. How would you preserve foot- prints?, A. I'd measure them and make & mold of them. Q. What would prevent you from taking measurements? A. If some one else did before I t there. ”Q Did some one else measure the footprint at the Lindbergh home? A. 1 understand Detective Degae- tano did. . Q. Did you take any measurements? A. No, sir. Q. Now about the ladder, where did you examine it? A Inlooked it over and processed 1t right in the hall Q. What was the condition of the ladder—dry or wet? A. It was dry. Q. It was & cold night. Was there no frost? g A. No frost. The Colonel’s Ladder. Q. What kind of a ladder did Col. Lindbergh have in his garage? A. An extension ladder. Q. How high did it go? A. I didn’t try to raise it. Q. You were there to investigate something, and after all’your investi- gation you didn't pull the string to see how high it would go? A. No, sir. 5 Q. Who directed you to the ladder? A. T asked Ollie Whateley, and he showed it to me. Q. The butler? A. Yes, thegbutler. Q This fodtprint, was it more or less frozen in the mud next day? A. No, sir. Q. A State trooper had been put there to protect it, hadn't there? A. Yes. Reilly then excused the witness sub- ject to recall to make fingerprint tests in court. Wilentz asked one question on re- direct. He directed Kelly to state the time he processed the ladder. “Between 1 and 1:30 (am.).” Dirt Found in Nursery. State Police Detective de Gaetano was then sworn. Again the jury heard the account of what investigators found ir the Lindbergh nursery and elsewhere the night of the crime. De Gaetano told of finding three splotches of dirt in the nursery lead- ing from the window to the crib. He | said the path from the window to the crib was unobstructed. Going outside the detective came to the spot underneath the southeast nursery window. “The first thing I observed was a footprint. The next thing I observed was an indentation. I can't say it was a footprint. It had ridges in it. The next thing I saw was three other indentations, longer than wide.” After describing the “ladder prints” under the nursery window he said: “I also saw a lady’s footprint at the entrance to the house. Then I saw the ladder about 65 to 70 feet from the house.” He was asked to identify the ladder and did so. The detective described the ridges noticeable in one of the impressions found in the mud. This impression, which Wilentz soon referred to as a “hole,” was only a short distance from the footprint, which faced the house, the witness said. Reilly then took the witness for .cross-examination. Rellly tried to gain an admission that it’ would have been more logical for a climber to place his ladder on the firm base of the sidewalk, rather’ than on the slippery mud. The de- tective remained unshaken. Saw No Mud on Ladder. Q. You saw one footprint in the mud at the base of the ladder? A. Yes. Q. Did you see any mud on the rungs of the ladder? A. I kept about 8 feet away from it. Q. Did you see any mud on it? A. No. Hochmuth was then called. He said he had seen a man in a car in Hopewell on Mareh 1, 1932. The baby was kidnaped that night. He said there was a ladder in the car. Points to Hauptmann. Wilentz asked Hochmuth if he could point out “that man” in the car. “There he is,” he said, his shaking finger pointed to Hauptmann. “Now will you step down and place your hands on his shoulder.” Reilly objected to this until the aged man said, “He’s the man between the State trooper and the man in a white shirt.” He then got down from the .chair and placed his hand gingerly on Hauptmann’s shoulder and theén with- drew it quickly, Hauptmann shook his head in short negative rolls. “I saw the car coming, and the man in it looked out of the window at me as if he had seen a ghost,” Moch- muth said i “I object,” Reilly sang out. “I ob- Jject to ghost stories.” Recalls Seeing Car. The old man, trembling violently and speaking in an almost inaudible tone, said the car swung into the Lindbergh lane and stopped briefly. Q. Do you remember the color of the car? A. Yes, a dirty green. Reilly began cross-examination. Reilly asked the witness to tell if he had stood in the court room doorway with a State Trooper during yester- day’s session. “Did that State Trooper point out Bruno Richard Hauptmann to you as | rec, he sat in his seat,” bellowed Reilly. “No,” shot back the shaky voice with spirit. ‘Wilentz bounded to his feet in stren- uous objection. “I object to the defense badgering this witness.” The bearded little man, who gave his age a8 78, shook. His hand clasped and unclasped continually. His head shook nervously. Justice Trenchard overruled several objections of the attorney general. “I see no badgering here,” the justice remarked. “This is a point of inqairy.” ‘Witness’ Background. The surprist witness answered ‘s number of questions about when he moved to Hopewell before Reilly snapped: Q. What was the date you say you saw this man? A. March 1, 1932, Q. What day of the week? A. Tuesday. I think it was Tues- day. Q. What time did you see that dirty green car? A. About noon. It was & clear day. \Reilly then had the oid man describe that he had seen Hauptmann from his vantage point on the kitchen porch, which fronted on the Lindbergh estate, entrance line which Hochmuth referred to as “Lindy’s road.” He said when he heard the dirty green car coming he looked at the road, thinking it might be Lindbergh. . Was it & cold day? March, . How ¢ 'theurloinl' you first saw the man? S About 40 miles an hour, THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, TUESDAY, “Jafsie” and Other Key Witnesses Snapped at Hauptmann Trial No. 1—Dr. John F. Condon (Jafsie), photographed on arrival at Trenton, N. J., where he will make his headquarters during the Hauptmann trial. At- torney General David T. Wilentz of New Jersey is shown at left. No. 2—Court room scene during recess yesterday, showing arrow A, Col. Lindbergh; arrow B, Hauptmann: arrow C, Attorney General Wilentz, and arrow D, Mrs. Hauptmann, who was having a whispered conversation with her husband at time the picture was made. No. 3—Attorney General Wilentz (left) and District Attorney Samuel Foley of the Bronx, N. Y., “light up” during recess of the trial. No. 4—Betty Gow, nurse of the murdered baby, leaving the stand after three hours of grilling. A moment after the picture was made she collapsed. No. 5—William J. Allen, who found the body of the murdered baby near its Hopewell home, shown as he arrived to appear as a witness at the trial. No. 6—Edward J. Reilly, chief defense attorney, accompanied by members of his personal staff, shown entering the Hunterdon County Court House. —A. P. and Wide World Photos. “He speeded around the turn,” the old man said. “Then he slid into the ditch, stop- ped, and started again.” “How many cars did you say you saw go into the ditch before this one?” “Seven.” Q. And prior to this one, on what date did one go into the ditch? A. I can’t remember. “How was the man dressed,” Reilly asked, referring to the man in the dirty green car. “I think he had a dark shirt on, All I saw of him was the red face and the glaring eyes,” the feeble voice re- Pplied, Reilly questioned the old man on his visit to the jail a month ago when he viewed Hauptmann. He sought to bring out the old man's memory was faulty. The defense had Hochmuth say several times he had ‘“never” told any one of seeing Hauptmann. ‘When Wilentz sought to bring out that the trembling old man had dis- cussed the case with State officials, Reilly objected strenuously, bup Jus- tice Trenchard overruled him and said the State had the right to clarify the point. ot Reilly demanded to know whether Hochmuth had ever been in an insti- tution. “I was employed in the Hudson River State Hospital at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., he said. Under further questioning he said he had been back there for a visit, but “never stayed there.” Saw Picture in Paper. He said he first learned about Hauptmann in the newspapers. “I read about him and saw his pic- ture there,” he said, as his bony hands knocked against each other in staccato beat. Reilly excused the old man and Wil- entz walved redirect. A 5-minute recess was taken. Capt. Lamb of the State police was the first witness sworn after the ess. Lamb’s direct testimony was brief and there was no cross-examination. He said the ladder had been in his custody since June, 1932, except for the time it was in the possession of Arthur J. Koehler, weod technologist. He had been called only to account for the custody of the ladder. Koehler, wood expert of the United States Forestry Department, took the stand. He said he was stationed at Madison, Wis. ‘Wilentz promptly started asking him about the ladder. Koehler said he had examined the ladder and had turned it back t& Lamb. He was excused after a minute or 50 by the prosecution, and the defense began cross-examination. ‘Wilentz indicated that his testimony | at this time would concern only pos- session of the ladder and that his | expert testimony would come later. Defense Attorney Frederick A. Pope conducted the cross-examination. Koehler said that he had taken the ladder apart, removing the nails and the rungs and later supervised its re- assembly, using the same nails. Defense Objects. Pope brought out that the nails had passed from his possession, and he corrected his testimony on this point. When Koehler's cross-examination was over, Wilentz offered the ladder in evidence. Pope immediately ob- jected. It was the State's second effort to place this highly important object in evidence. “I object,” Pope began, “to this as evidence for the same reasons as I expressed yesterday and for several additional reasons.” “Tt also appears,” Pope continued, “that a saw cut has been made in one of the rungs.” Part of Ladder Admissable. Justice Trenchard said: “I don't seem t~ have muth doub’ in my own mind that certain parts of the ladder are admissible as evidence. “The framework, for instance. “Then, too, there is this question of nails. I dop't see how they figure in this case, but the counsel seems to.” The court concluded, however, to defer “for the moment” the ladder's admission as evidence. Pope cited thegfact that Koehler did not know whether the nails in the reassembled ladder were the originals. He advanced another point. “There is absolutely no connection, either by circumstantial or direct evi- dence of that ladder with the ac- cused.” He argued that the ladder should not be admitted until it was linked with the defendant. “We will connect this ladder with Mr. Hauptmann,” Wilentz said, in urging this exhibit be admitted. “I promise the counsel for the de- fense this: This is the ladder found on the scene of the crime. We've traced it through its custody since then -and we'll run it right into Hauptmann.” Pope again objected at length, stal ing the defense wanted to know every- thing done with the ladder before they would accept the exhibit. Justice Trenchard ruled that in Second-Rate Carpenter Made Ladder, Bruno Says, Smiling By the Associated Press. FLEMINGTON, N. J., January 8.— Bruno Richard Hauptmann turned back to court today in the most cheer- ful mood he has shown'since his trial began—ready to hear more about the ladder built by “a second-rate car- penter.” After listening to the first testi- mony on the ladder, allegedly used iter. During the description of the lad- der by Corpl. Frank A. Kelley of the New Jersey State police, who ex- it immediately after the listened intently. Occasionally he smj 3 The of the trial into the ore technical details of the imple- ts of the crime diverted Haupt- usually indifferent to such . details, Sorward, to-study 4 intentiy. view of the changes made in the exhibit the attorney general should defer his motion “until later, when there has been opportunity to inquire mare minutely” into these circum- stances. He then made that ruling. Corpl. Kelly was recalled for a single question on the ladder and then dismissed. Lieut. Sweeney was the next wit- ness. Wilentz began his examination on aspects of the finding of the ladder. Sweeney said that he had extended two of the three sections of the ladder against the Lindbergh home. “It reached 30 inches below the window,” he said. He indicated the nursery window through which the State alleges the baby was abducted. Sweeney said examination of the marks on the side of the hpuse by means of a magnifying glass showed particles of wood clinging to the gray stone. Police Observations. Sweeney explained he made the ob- servations from another ladder and later said he was able to step into the nursery from the rung of that ladder corresponding to the top of the kidnap ladder. ‘Wilentz's questioning was interrupt- ed when two attendants carried into court a huge ladder, the one used in making police observations of the “Lindbergh ladder.” Sweeney said that he went up the ladder, stepped through the nursery window. onto the suitcase, and en- tered the house. Sweeney said his weight was about 175 pounds at the time, which is ap- proximately what Hauptmann weighed. He said he had no difficulty in get- ting into the nursery, and added he did not disturb the suitcase under the windoy. Wilentz turned him over to the defense. Rellly asked Sweeney, as the first question: Q ‘;Vhat time did you get to the A. Just about dusk, the day fol- lowing. Q. What was the condition of the nursery window when you got there? A. The window was up and one or two shutters were there. Ladder to Be Measured. Reilly indicated that he wished Sweeney to measure the ladder, and over Wilentz's objection, the court in- dicated it would permit Sweeney to measure it this afternoon. Reilly made an off-record remark during the lull: “Between the Swee- neys and the Reillys there is never any difficulty.” Rellly asked Sweeney: “Ever been a fireman?” “Yes, sir,” Sweeney replied. ‘There followed then s discussion in light conversational tones on the art of scaling ladders. Q. You don't crouch as you run up » ladder? A.I don’t know. I don’t think so. I got to the top and swung myself in. Q. But you were able to do that because of your training as a fireman? A. Yes, I suppose 30. Court recessed for lunch at 12:02 p.m. Betly Gow Rests. Miss Betty Gow, slender Scotch PrFE R JANUARY 8, 1935 . . lent witness,” but Defense Counsel Reilly, who brought out on cross-ex- | amination that she probably had men- | tioned the presence of the Lindbergh | testimony: “Much of it will dovetail into that | which we are going to bring up.” | Reilly, reaffirming his intention to name the two men and two women he believes guilty of the crime, said he will attempt to trace the kidnaping to “some of those who have already testi- fied and some of those who will testify for the prosecution.” State Policeman Kelly turned the ladder over to Lamb in June, 1932, | after having custody of it in the months following the crime. Lamb | kept the ladder until he turned it over to Koehler, a wood expert of the United States Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis., who al- legedly traced the lumber in it to the Bronx carpenter. The long-debated question whether any fingerprints were left by the | kidnaper was settled once and for all by Kelly, who testified yesterday that | pno fingerprints were found on the | ladder, the first ransom note, furni- ture in the nursery or anywhere else at the scene of the crime. There were only & few unidentifiable | smudges. 2 “Unquestionably the kidnaper had some protection against fingerprints,” said Attorney General David T. Wilentz. Kelly acknowledged that no plaster cast or measurements were taken of the footprint found under the nursery window or of the ladder imprints. Police Methods Hit. Lamb also may come in for some of the defense attack on police meth- ods because of the important role he played in directing the search for the kidnapers. Koehler’s im- portance in tracing the wood to the Bronx lumber yard where Hauptmann was employed and also allegedly to the carpenter’s attic also promises cross-examination fireworks. The kidnap ladder caused a clash of opposing counsel when Wilentz offered it in evidence after State Before Selling igate the Prices We Pay FOR old Gold Jewelry of every description. bridgework, silver. No matter how old or dilapidated any of foregoing articles might be you will be greatly surprised at the cagh prices paid by us. (Licensed by U. S. Govt.) SHAH & SHAH 921 F St. N.V. Phone NA. 5543—We Will Call Inve KILL A COLD “DEAD""! ¥ cold promptly. Take Grove's | Second, It combats the infection a: system. Third. it relieves the and grippy feeling. Fourth, it tones the system and helps fortify agalnst further attack. At all drug stores. Grove’s LAXATIVE BROMO QUININE I Bromo Quinime. It does four | ff important things: First, it opens the bow- | Police Detective Lewis Bornmann identified it as the ladder found on | the estate after the crime. “There is no evidence that this that it objected. Justice Trenchard told the attorney | general “it would seem that you ought | to show that the ladder is now in sub- stantially the same condition.’ Bornmann, under questioning. said was at that time,” Reilly | with white paint. the ladder was in substantially the same condition as when he found it, noting differences in its appearance which resulted from technical tests, The treating of the ladder with & chemical solution to develop “any fingerprints -had given the wood a darker hue, and ¢ white board had been fixed to one'of the first-section uprights where the ladder buckled. Ladder Is Altered. Bornmann also said the nails had been removed for analysis and had been replaced with little metal tags attached to their heads. White num- bered thumbtacks were on each of the rungs, and a small slot had been cut in one rung for a test. Associate Defense Counsel Frederick A. Pope, who makes a hobby of ama- teur woodworking, cross-examined the witness and brought out that the la der had been taken apart and reas- sembled during the tests, and that it was not in Bornmann's custody con- tinuously. “We object to the introduction of the ladder at this time,” he said. Justice Trenchard ruled: “It may well be that it is desirable before this ladder is actually offered in evidence that it be made to ap- pear, so far as counsel are able to make it appear, in whose custody this ladder has been, and what has been done with it. “But in order that that may be done, I think the ladder should be marked for identification, so that it will be subject to the examination of such witnesses as counsel see fit to call and call it to their attention.” The 1adder was marked for identi- fication. Symbol of Attack Lines. The three-sectioned ladder became & symbol as the trial entered its second phase. The witnesses to date have established the fact of the kid- naping and the identity of its mu dered victim. Now both sides are slowly building up their cases. An “inside” or an “outside” job— it is on this question that the legal battle lines are sharply drawn. The State reiterates its contention that Hauptmann, playing a lone hand, kid- naped and killed the golden-haired youngster. The defense stamps the crime as the work of a gang and, by innuendo, seeks to cast suspicion on persons connected with the Lindbergh household. The State’s reconstruction of the crime through the testimony of the witnesses to date is that the kidnaper gained admission to the nursery by the ladder, stepped stealthily across the nursery leaving muddy clay prints on the floor, and took the baby down the ladder and into the night. To back this theory the State pro- duces the ladder, found about 70 feet away from the house, where the kid- naper abandoned it in his flight. It also points to the man’s footprint found under the nursery window and to the indentations found in the soft soil as the marks left by the ladder uprights. Flyer Heard Noise. Lindbergh’s story is also marshaled in support of the theory. He related how he and his wife were seated in the living room chatting that black, windy night when they heard a crash of “wood falling on wood.” Another point advanced by the State is that the ends of the second or mid- dle section of the ladder were tipped The white painted gray brick of the Lindbergh mansion | nad been scraped off at a point where | the uprights of the first two sections of the ladder would rest against the house wall. “Inside Confederate.” Beyond a tireless attack on the one- man theory of the State, the defense has not indicated whether it will | stake Hauptmann's life on the con- tention the ladder was a stage prop, never used by a band which spirited the child down the stairs, or that it was used by a kidnaper who was handed the child by a confederate within the house. Ollie Whately, the mild-mannered baby at Hopewell to her sailor friend, | ladder was used at that house, or | Lindbergh butler who died of peri- Henry (Red) Johnson, said of her | that it is in the same condition now | tonitis a year after the kidnaping, has figured more and more in Reilly's insinuating cross-examination. The defense chief laid stress on the fact the Lindbergh dog. of which Whately took care, did not bark that night, and that the butler's movements have not been entirely accounted for, .Because It’s Clearance You can take choice of any Richard Pririce Suit Overcoat Topcoat $977.75 Formerly $35 and $40 \ . Richard Prince Clothing has the distinction of being the counterpart of custom tailoring—in design and craftsmanship—and if it wasn't CLEARANCE TIME you'd never have such an opportunity at such a price. . Clearance gives Shirts and Neckwear an awful wallop MODE SHIRTS—Our famous Glenbrook broad- cloth and fancy madras, choicest imported weaves. They have separate c regular collars attached. $2, $2.50 and $3 grades....c.ccoeccee including some of the ollars to match; tab and $159 3 for $4.75 ALL CUT-SILK NECKWEAR—includes Welsh- Margetson 65c grade.........40¢ §1 grade..........70¢ S1.50 grade .....$1.15 of London saz0 | trades 5149 53*50 } grades $2.49 Ss: } grades $3.49 You can easily arrange a charge account, with monthly settlements; or on our 12-payment plan. The Mode—F at Eleventh ¢ A