Evening Star Newspaper, February 7, 1935, Page 4

A2 ssa THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1935. HUDSON SAW ONLY ONE NAIL HOLE Certain Other Holes Were Not There When He Ex- amined Ladder. By the Assoclated Press. FLEMINGTON, N. J., February 7.— Dr. Erastus M. Hudson, a New York physician, who has made 7 hobby of | fingerprints, was still a hope of the defense today as to the murder trial} of Bruno Hauptmann edged nearer to | a conclusion. ! Dr. Hudson yesterday told of finding 500 fingerprints, none of them Haupt- mann’s, when he processed the kidnap ladder with sllver nitrate two weeks after the kidnaping. Attorney Gen- eral David T. Wilentz planned to show the prints were for the most part worthless smudges, left by the numer- ous officials who handled the ladder after the kidnaping. The State also planned an attack on | the physician’s declaration he saw only one nail hole in the so-called “attic board” upright of the ladder. Prose- cution testimony has been that four nail holes were discovered and subse- quently matched with nail holes on attic beams, where it was alleged the upright originally had been nailed down in Hauptmann's home. Just Another Expert, Is State's Appraisal of Hudson. “Just another expert who offered his services during the kidnaping,” was the State’s appraisal of the phy- sician, whose testimony has caused elation on the defense side. Ready to testify after Dr. Hudson, Chief Defense Counsel Edward J. Reilly said he has eight witnesses— two alibi and two surprise witnesses, two wood technicians, a handwriting 2xpert, and Harry Uhlig, mutual friend of both Hauptmann and the late Isa- | dor Fisch, Hauptmann's business part- ner and his alibi for possession of $14,600 ransom money. Again before court opened the ru- mors flew that the defense would rest today, but there was no official con- firmation. As the end of his trial for murder approached, Hauptmann's inscrutable smile remained the same. He was brought by his guards to his accus- tomed seat behind the defense table. Detective Max Leet, of the New York City police arrived in court with five State rebuttal witnesses. Their identity was not disclosed, but Leet said they would seek to clear the name of Fisch. The defense has charged | that Fisch, not Hauptmann, received the $50,000 ransom. Relatives of Fisch, who came from Germanv in the prosecution’s behalf, were not in court. Court convened at 10:01 a.m. ‘Three Colonels Hold Whispered Conference. Chief Defense Counsel Reilly and Anthony M. Hauck, jr, Hunterdon County prosecutor, came in about the | same time. “The three colonels” marched in | in single file and took their seats. Col. Charles A. Lindbergh held a whispered talk with Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Col. Henry Breckin- ridge sat beside them. Justice Thomas W. Trenchard mounted to the bench, the jury was polled. and Dr. Hudson, a broad. tall man with glasses, went back to the stand Associate Defense Counsel Frederick A. Pope asked the doctor to identify some sketches and notes he made after examining the kidnap ladder. Pope offered the memorandums in| evidence, but the attorney general re- quested the offer be deferred until he | examined the witness. Pope ac- | quiesced. | Wilentz oegan cross-examination of | Dr. Hudson on his specimen charts | of fingerprints taken from the kidnap | era shy. terday. Hauptmann Aides at Kidnaping Trial P oo No. 5—E. M. Hudson, fingerprint expert for the defense: No. 6—Mrs. Greta Ilenkel, who gave important testimony for the defense. No. 1—Police were called to hold back the crowds of curious in Flemington yesterday when Mrs. Haupt- mann took her young son for an airing. Baby Mannfried laughed for the spectators, proving he is not cam- —A. P. Photo. No.2—John Bruchmann of New York, who worked for Isador Fisch and was paid with a $5 bill, which the defense hoped to prove was part of the ransom money. No. 3—Theron J. Main, former Warsaw, N. Y., truckman, one of the defense witnesses, who testified yes- —Wide World Photo. Copyright, A. P. Wirephoto. No. 4—Carl Henkel, hunting companion of Hauptmann, called by Reilly to aid Hauptmann. —Wide World Photo. —Wide World Photo. Copyright, A. P. Wirephoto. police use your fingerprint method? A. I have no idea. Jersey State Police Glad to Hear of Prosess. Q. On March 1, 1932, your process was not being used by the police de- partments? ladder. The witness said he made the charts during March, 1932, from | measurements made at the Lindbergh | estate from the prints on the ladder. | Q. You were mistaken yesterday in your testimony about the nail roles | and the knot in rail 16 (ladder up- right). | A. I told what I thought. I have! other notes, not here. i Q. Is there any reference to any | nail holes in those charts (indicating | those in the witness’ hand)? A. No, sir. Dr. Hudson Says 1 He Saw Only One Nail Hole. _Wilentz soon turned to the phy-| sician’s statement he saw only one| nail hole where the State contends | there were four. Q. You appreciate the importance of the nail holes in this case? A. No,! I can't say I do. Q. Very well, do you remember how | many nail holes did you observe in| the ladder rails? A. I saw only one| nail hole made by a square cut nail. Q. In all the aprights, how many ! nail holes did you see? A. Only one. Q. Do you remember any nail holes | elsewhere? A. There were nail holes where the rungs were put on the upright. Q. Exclusive of the rungs? A. Only the one nail hole. Q. Do you remember any other nail holes in the runners, exclusive of the rung nail holes? Please answer the | question “yes” or “no.” A. I saw only one square nail hole. Q. Please answer the question. | “Yes, doctor,” said Justice Trench- ard, “answer the question.” “Exclusive of the rung I will say I did not,” the witness answered. “To the best of my knowledge, there were | none other than that one square nail | hole.” Q. Did you make any notes respec- tive to nail holes? A. I haven't seen the notes in a long time. I don’t know. Pope Objects to Wilentz Scolding Witness. Pope objected to Wilentz's insistence on answers as “scolding the witness.” Justice Trenchard ruled the ques- tioning was proper. The nail hole Hudson saw was in the top or third section of the ladder. The attorney general showed him the middle section and pointed out two nail holes. Q. Did you see those nail holes? A. I don’t remember. Q. Will you say that those holes were not there when you examined the ladder? A. To my knowledge they were not there. Wilentz, showed him another nail hole. “To the best of my knowledge and belief that was not there.” “Then you remember only one nail hole?” Wilentz went on. “If you let me, I'll explain why,” the witness answered. “You'll have plenty of time for that,” the little interrogator observed. During Hudson’s examination, Arthur J. Koehler, the wood expert from the United States Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis., was asked how many nail holes he found in all six uprights when he first examined. g “I'd rather not say” he replied “because I have not yet testified on the subject.” He was expected to be called by the State in rebuttal. Q. By the way, dott.he New York A. As far as I know, they were not. Q. You knew the New Jersey State police did not know about your process? A. They were very glad to hear about it. Q. So far as you know no police department in the country used your method? A. Not as far as I know. The witness next was led through an explanation of the effect of his silver nitrate process on wood. Dis- coloration, he said, resulted. Q. How long would it last? A. That discoloration would con- tinue and the wood grow darker. Wilentz then showed him a large photograph and asked him if the piece of wood showed any signs of being treated with his silver nitrate method. The witness parried for ! several minutes before finally de- claring he could not say it had or had not been processed. The attorney general, pursuing his interrogation, showed the witness a picture of nail holes in the ladder. Q. Assuming that this picture were taken in March, 1932, would you agree that possibly you were mistaken ‘yesterday in your testimony? A. Well, under your premise I would say yes. Q. If this piece of wood were ex- amined in March, April, May, 1932, by persons other than the State police and they saw those four nail holes and filed reports on their finding, would that induce you to believe you had been mistaken? A. No, it would not. Q. If United States Government experts found those nail holes and so reported, would that induce you to change your opinion? A. No, sir, it would not. Pope popped up with an objection and Wilentz began to test the phy- sician’s knowledge on other features of the ladder. Saw What He Believed Were Saw Cuts. Q. You found saw cuts in addition to those necessary to build the ladder? ‘A. I saw what I thought were saw cuts. Q. And you made a notation of them? A. T don't recall. Wilentz took Dr. Hudson'’s charts, to look, apparently without success, for any designation of saw cuts. Wilentz, exhibiting another ladder picture, asked if Dr. Hudson could note any discoloration. The witness said he couldn’t tell from the photograph. The interrogator turned back to possible notations of saw cuts in Dr. Hudson’s data. He indicated the words “saw cut seven-eighths of an inch.” The witness, after urging by Jus- tice Trenchard, agreed that the note was his. Hostility was marked in the atti- tude of both the attorney general and the witness. Lindbergh and Col. Breckinridge followed the duel with much atten- tion. At one time Breckinridge leaned over and whispered a suggestion to an_attorney at the prosecution table. ‘The cross-examination went back again to discoloration of the ladder wood by the chemical. “Sllver nitrate,” sald Dr. Hudson, “does not phomfiih." v Wilentz changed his attack on the doctor’s testimony again. Q. So your process will produce prints for six months or a year? A. Yes. The doctor was led through an ex- planation of the effect of atmospheric conditions on the prints. Wilentz recited conditions existing at the Lindbergh estate on the Sour- land Mountain on the kidnap night, asking the witness what effect these would have on prints on the ladder. Dr. Hudson said the effect would be very slight. Q. So the part of the ladder laying on the ground would be affected? A. Yes. Q. And there would be no finger- prints? A. No fingerprints. Wilentz inquired if dampness on parts of the ladder would destroy more prints. The physician said “probably yes.” Q. If it did get wet, the fingerprints would be destroyed? A. From my own knowledge, yes. Wilentz sought to bring out that the atmospheric conditions on the kidnap night might have wet the ladder and destroyed the prints. Dr. Hudson said that would only make the ladder damp, and he meant “soak- ing” wet when he spoke of wet. Q. Assuming for a moment that there were prints on the ladder and others were superimposed by later handling, the originals would be obliterated? A. No. Some part of them would remain. Q. But if a hand was placed right over these prints they would obscured? A. Yes. Attacks Finding Of 500 Prints on Ladder. Dr. Hudson's estimate of ‘“more than 500 fingerprints” on the ladder ‘was attacked by Wilentz. Q. Did you count them? A. I said about 500. Q. Did you see them after the ladder was processed? A. Yes. Q. Did you see the photographs of . No. the prints? Q. You never testified in a trial before as a fingerprint expert? A. Yes, for the Department of Justice. Q. But as a chemical expert, not a fingerprint expert? A. I was classified as a fingerprint expert. Q. But for testimony on the chemistry? A. For classification. Q. But if there were 500 or 5,000 fingerprints on that ladder when you processed it, would you say any of them were there on March 1? A. I would say some were there. Hudson said he would get the prints of every one who handled the ladder and eliminate all of their prints. Q. Don’t you know Trooper Kelly handled that ladder and your process never brought out his fingerprints? A. No, I think he always wore gloves (another State police fingerprint of- ficer) handled that ladder, and your process never developed his prints? A. I think he wore gloves. Q. And don’t you know Col. Lind- bergh handled that ladder without gloves and your process never brought out his prints? A. I didn’t know that. Q. Don't you know that Kelly, Kubler and Col. Lindbergh handled that ladder without gloves? A. I only knew Kelly and Kubler handled it. Wilentz went back to the nail holes. Q. Pick out the nail hole you found in the ladder? A. I'm sure t’s it (the witness be square nail had been driven through made a mark by a nail hole on the ladder). Q. If that's the hole then that's the board? A. Yes. Q. And if that board matches the board in Hauptmann's attic, than you would say that it came from there? A. Yes. A. You're sure that board was there on that ladder, in March, 1932? A. Yes. A. And if Government men, from Washington and Wisconsin, police in New Jersey, and other officials, re- ported in March, 1932, there were four nail holes, then you say they are mistaken? The question was excluded on de- fense objection. Dr. Hudson testified that prints did not sink into painted surfaces and his process would be ineffective. Q. So that Hauptmann might have had his hands on the window ledge, , noon and night, and your process wouldn't show it? A. No. The silver-nitrate process would not work on the beer stein, either, the witness said. “On a non-absorbing surface,” he explained, “the process is not used.” Believed Wood In Ladder Came From Crate. Pope, on re-direct examination, asked why Dr. Hudson remembered only one nail hole. The doctor explained that his ex- amination led him to believe the the board into a cleat. He believed, he said, the wood came from a crate. Q If one fingerprint was super- imposed on another, could both be identified? A. If sufficient ridges of both ap- peared. Dr. Hudson explained he entered the case merely with “the hope” he could find fingerprints but not. to identify any. Q. You testified that this board (al- leged Hauptmann attic board) was there when you examined the ladder? A. Yes. . Q. If you saw one nail hole then and there are more now, would you still say so? Wilentz objected, asserting that Dr. Hudson had already testified that it was the board and had identified the square nail hole in it. Dr. Hudson was excused and court recessed for five minutes at 11:36 a.m Hauck, during the recess, said the photographs shown Dr. Hudson showed four square nail holes and were taken March 8, 1932. Dr. Hudson first saw the ladder March 18, 1932. When court resumed William White- head, a middle-aged man, was called by the defense. The defense planned to use the wit- ness to attack the credibility of Mil- lard Whited, the State witness who placed Hauptmann twice near the Lindbergh home prior to the crime. The roughly-dressed witness said he was 54 years old and had known Mil- lard Whited all his life. The questions were put by C. Lloyd Fisher, co-coun- sel for defense. Witness Admits Whited Never Was in Prison. Q. What's the reputation of Millard Whited for veracity? A. No good. Fisher released the witness ‘Wilents asked if Millard Whited ever been in jail. Whitehead sald no. “Have you ever been in jail?” ‘Wilents asked. “I were,” Whitehead replied. and had | “That's crowd laughed. Rellly objected the imprisonment might have been based on a faulty conviction, but the question and answer were allowed to stand. all,” E. Lenz, another witness on | Fisch George Whited's credibility, followed. He said he lived in Hopewell, at|change Featherbed Lane, and had known ‘Whited for 20 years. Q. What is the reputation of Millard Whited for telling the truth? A. Not Wilentz took the witness. Q. You and Mr. Whited had some difficulty between you? A. Yes sir, Lenz said the ‘“controversy”’ was over a purchase of lumber for which the logger allegedly had not paid. “So he doesn’t pay his bills, either,” interposed Fisher. Lenz was excused. Willlam Diehl, another Hopewell resident, was then sworn. He was & burly man with a weather-beaten red face. He told Pisher he knew Whited. Q. What is his reputation for truth- fulness? A. 'Taint any good. Signed Note Book, But Could Not Read It. Wilentz showed Diehl a small note book sheet. This allegedly was his signed statement that he had not discussed Whited's reputation. Diehl said he signed it, but could not read it. He understood, he said, it con- cerned Whited. Mrs. Augusta Hile, the mother-in- law of Gerta Henkel, was the next witness. She told Reilly she knew Isador Pisch ever since he came to this country. Q. Did he borrow some money from you? A. $4,350. Q. Did he pay you back before he sailed for Germany? A. Not a eent. “When did you Reilly asked. “Oh, I see him the second of De~ cember (1933).” Mrs. Hile said she loaned the money, “in three parts” to Fisch.| Part of it went.into a pie baking con- | cern and part in furs. i Karl Henkel, husband of Gerta, was | then sworn. i Q. How long did you know Isador | Fisch? A. Since 1926. ! Q How long have you known Hauptmann? | A. Since 1932. ! Reilly was conducting the exam- ination. Q. Where did you meet Fisch? A. We had an apartment together in 1928. (With Fisch and Henry Uhlig.) Q. You were married then and went to live with your wife? A. Yes. Pisch and Uhlig stayed to- gether. Became Very Friendly With Hauptmann. Henkel said his wife met Haupt- mann about eight days before he met him. Subsequently, he said, he and Hauptmann became very friendly. Q. Did you know Hauptmann used to drop in and have coffee at your house in the morning? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever had the slightest thought there was anything irregular or improper in their relations? An objection blocked the answer. Q. Did you ever see anything im- last see him?” proper. A. Never. Wilentz, in cross-examination, brought from Henkel that he had introduced Hauptmann to Fisch in his own home. Q. Did your wife bring Hauptmann to your home and introduce you? A. No. Reilly sought to show a pleasant friendship among the three people, | but Wilentz’s objection was sustained. | Uhlig Describes Relations With Fisch. Uhlig, the mutual friend of Haupt- | mann and deceased Fisch, was called. | He described himself as “Fisch's best | friend.” He related briefly how he, Fisch and Henkel lived together when they came to this country. Q. What business was he in? A. Fur cutter. Uhlig said Fisch also had been in| the pie-making business, and had| operated as a fur trader. Q. He lent you money when you didn't work? Reilly asked. A. He did not, that’s a lie. Q. He paid your fare to Germany? A. With money I lent him to invest in his phoney bakery. Wilentz asked to have the answer stricken from the record. Uhlig described Fisch’s physical con- dition during the trip to Europe as “weak.” _The German furrier coughed, he Outstanding values at $18. Pure all-wool fabrics excellently styled. Smart young men’s patterns in the best shades. CHARGE IT—pay $6 IN MARCH $6 IN APRIL $6 IN MAY B tion. The sandy haired witness recalled | tained. there was no limit on the amount of American money a traveler could bring into Germany when he and arrived there in December, 1933. He explained, however, that to ex- dollars for marks, a traveler would have to go to a government bureau. Uhlig described a traveling bag bought by Fisch. Q. What did he have in it? A. I don’t know. Rellly asked Uhlig to describe how Pisch acted when he was being examined by the immigration inspec- tors at Hamburg. Wilentz objected and was upheld. Justice Trenchard ordered the luncheon recess at 12:33 pm. The defense was near the end of its case, counsel indicated, with the tes- timony of wood experts expected to be presented during the afternoon ses- sion. Court convened at 1:45 p.m. Uhlig returned to the stand after the noon recess. Reilly resumed examination about the trip to Europe with Fisch. Uhlig said that on arrival they went to the home of Fisch’s parents. Q. Did you at any time see Fisch give his sister any papers? A. No, sir. Q. Sure about that? A. Yes. Saw Suit Cases In Hauptmann Garage. Wilentz objected to Reilly's query whether there were times when Fisch and his family were together and he was not present. Uhlig said he visited the family only twice a week. Q. Did you ever see any bundles in Fisch’s possession? A. Yes. Q. Did he have two suit cases. A. Yes. Q. He took them to Hauptmann. A. Yes; I went down in the garage and saw them. Q. You take them? A. I don't remember. Q. In particular you went for a little small package Fisch left with him? Reilly was striving to bring back into the picture the rcnsom money shoe | box, but the State objected to the question and was sustained. The defense chief then inquired whether Fisch spoke with a Saxon dialect. Uhlig said he did, explaining Fisch had been born in Saxony Q. And he wrote, did he not, with a Saxon script? A. Yes. sald Wilentz. The |said, and retired early because of his| As the answer was being made the prosecution objected and was sus- Reilly then began inquiries as to a fur cutter friend of Pisch named Kern. Reilly asked Uhlig to name the places where “Kern” lived in Brooklyn. Uhlig could not say where the man lived March 4, 1932. Reilly exhibited an envelope mailed March 4, 1932. Q. Does that resemble Fisch’s print- 2 ‘Wilentz objected but Justice Trench- ard allowed an answer. Uhlig*said he did not know. Reilly took a new slant. Q. Where did Hauptmann live in March, 1932? A. I don’t know. Q. Where did he live in the Fall of 19322 A. I don't know. Henkei’s house. Justice Trenchard interrupted to announce that a complaint of “condi- tions” in the balcony had been re- ceived from the press. He sald he could not determine what was wrong from the bench and advised that fu- ture complaints be addressed to the sheriff. The attorney general asked Uhlig one question in cross-examination. Q. Mr. Pisch was an American citi- zen, was he not? “A. Yes sir. Uhlig was excused. Painter Identifies Man in Bakery as Bruno. Walter Manley, a painter from the Bronx, was then called. Reilly asked him if he were familiar I met him at LIP away from work and winter for a four-day : week-end tonic at the Ritz. |l RITZ-CARLTON | BOARDWALK, with the Predericksen Bakery, where | Hauptmann said he had been on the kidnap night. Manley said he was. o — X" "LINCOLN'S : BIRTHDAY Q. On March 1, 1932, were you in that bakery? A. Yes, I was. Q. What time were you there? A. About quarter to 7. Q. Did you see Mrs. Hauptmann there? A. Yes, she waited on me. Q. See any one else there who is in the court room? A. Yes, Mr. Hauptmann. Q. Where was he? A. In the front of the bakery. Reilly brought out that Manley “arose from a sick bed” to come to court and released him for cross- examination. Wilentz asked if Manley knew the Hauptmanns. He said he did not, but had seen the defendant’s picture in the paper. Manley said Hauptmann was drink- ing a cup of coffee when he was in the bakery. Q. Was it 50 much coffee he would still be drinking it at 8:30? A. I don’t know. Q. Are you a very sick man? A. Iam, yes. “All right, Mr. Manley, that is all,* the attorney general said, and the wn.n;a.s stepped weakly down from the stand. e Sorority Sponsors Dance. Kappa Delta Phi Sorority will hold the first of a series of charity dances Saturday night at the Hamilton Hotel. Pupils of the Anna T. Mitchell Dance School will participate in a floor show. !'w. E. Mitchell will be master of cere- | monies. | RESORTS. AUGUSTA, GA. POREST HILLS HOTEL_ AUGUSTA. GA. The South's best golf at hotel door—grass ns_green fairways. ~All sports. includ- ng “Skeet.” 14%-hour train. AT‘LA_}'HC CITY, N. J. HOLIDAY SPECIAL! From dinner Sarurday Ungl ‘Tuesday aftes luach Per Person 518 TWO IN ROOM WITH BATH Per Pessor 321 SINGLE KOOM ‘WITH BATH AMERICAN PLAN Also attractive European ates * * 2.2.8 ¢ ATLANTIC CITY Wt & S oane—T11 Twelfth Street The values—even more than the savings merit your interest in this Spring Event. Four Dining Suites —representative of four popular periods and of the Sloane type of craftsmanship— featured at tempting low prices. The illustration is with Cuban veneers. tionally well proportion detail of delicate carvy Regular Price $300 mal’logany finished in adapted to any dining Regular Price $375 charm. Regular Price $450 Regular Price $595 711 Twelfth Street The House: table is of the pedestal type. of a ten-piece American Sheraton Suite constructed of Cuban mahogany The pieces are excep- ed and there is a pleasing ng. 5225 Ten-piece American Colonial Suite of solid '}le !Off recl tone. T})e A suite in size room. $275 Ten-piece English Sheraton Suite of genuine mahogany, with delicate carvings of distinctive 335 Ten-piece English Chippendale Suite. The sideboard is of the console type and the china cupboard of such size and proportions as can be used in the library as a bookcase. The chairs are covered in haircloth, %450 Free Parking Opposite the Store on 12th St. Weithe ‘The Green Among the Many Occasional Pieces American Chippendale Sofa. Exposed parts are Shd Sihpey dlaents carved: real down filled cushions: upholstered in red silk damask over mus- in. 5145 Regular Price $190, English type Sofa, a model T table, with down filled cushions. Upholstered in m aroon mohair-tap- estry. s‘ l 5 Regular Price $147.50 The Sloane Kenmore Sofa, e e Oty Anne period with grace- IS ol GErlo Tags and shaped back and arms. Upholstered in figured tapestry. $ Regular Price §165 l 25 The Sloane Wakefield Sofa. Adaptable to all in- teriors. Graceful lines and extreme comfort. Uphol- stered in gold broca- telle. sl 35 Regular Price $170 Wing Chair of the Chip- pendale period. Its ex- posed parts are solid ma- hogany effectively carved: covered in figured tapestry of excellent quality over muslin. 865 Regular Price §85.... A delightfully comfortable Easy Chair, the ideal model for reading and lounging. Sloane standard construc- tion, coverefi in blue fig- ured damask. $ Regular Price $59.... 47 Open Arm Chairs. Both the Queen Anne and the Early 19th Century mod- els. Solid mahogany with soft spring seats uphol- stered with horsehair and with very expensive cove ers. Practical chairs for the desk. -” Regular Price ‘25.;‘.17 Chippendale Wing Chair. Carved ball and claw feet: down filled cushions; handsomely figured linen cover. 34 5 Regular Price $58.. W &J SLOANE District 7262 Shutters .