Evening Star Newspaper, February 8, 1935, Page 4

A4 3% WITNESSES TELL OF LADDER MARKS) Defense Continues Fight of State’s Story of Attic Planks. By the Assoctated Press FLEMINGTON, N. J., February 8 — The possibility that Bruno Richard | Hauptmann's defense would rest its case immediately after court con- | vened today gave Hunterdon County courthouse an atmosphere of eager expectancy. | Chief Defense Counsel Edward J.| Reilly said there was a possibility of | such a move for he did not expect the | witnesses he had called for today to appear for testimony. Attorney General David T. Wilentz | for the prosecution cleared the way for a speedy termination of Hauptmann's | case when he abandoned plans to| continue _his cross-examination of | Charles De Bisschop, the homespun | defense lumber expert from Water- ! bury, Conn i The identity of most of the State’s rebuttal witnesses was kept secret, but | it was understood about 15 persons | would be called, including perhaps | Mrs, Dwight W. Morrow, mother of Mrs. Anne Lindbergh, and Col. Charles A. Lindbergh. | Wilentz announced he planned in | rebuttal to: | Establish the whereabouts of Violet | Sharpe, the Morrow maid who com- mitted suicide during the kidnap in- quiry, on the night of the crime: Establish the whereabouts of Isador Fisch, Hauptmann's deceased business partner, on the night of the ransom payment Prove there were four nail holes in the attic board upright of Kidnap ladder on March 1, 1932. Show that at 1 mann’s alibi w es was in error | ‘when he said ne s the defendant in the Bronx on the kidnap night. Relative of Fisch Due to Be Called. The attorney general said he would also go into other details of the de- fense case. Hauptmann_arrived in court with his guards. He and Reilly talked, Hauptmann resting his hand on the back of his counsel’s chair. Attorney General Wilentz, Robert Peacock, Joseph Lanigan, Anthony M. Hauck, jr.; George K. Large and Richard Stockton, members of the prosecution staff, milled about their table. Arthur J. Koehler, Federal wood ex- pert, who traced kidnap ladder wood to Hauptmann's attic, sat at the State table Court convened at 10:01 am. 8. T) | Robert Peacock, disclosing a change in State rebuttal plans, said 22 wit- nesses would be called, among them one of the relatives of Isador Fisch, the dead German furrier, from whom Hauptmann alleged he received the ransom cash. Supreme Court Justice Thomas W. Trenchard rapped for order and di- rected the jurors be polled. De Bisschop Recalled to Witness Stand. Wilentz, suddenly abandoning his announced intention not to cross- examine De Bisschop further, had the Connecticut man recalled to the wit- ness chair. There was a whispered conference and the defense decided to examine De Bisschop further. Associate De- fense Counsel Frederick A. Pope took the witness. The State, Peacock said, would call as its first rebuttal witness, J. J. Far- ber, New York insurance man, who told investigators that he and Ben- Jjamin Heier, a refense witness, were involved in an automobile accident at the time when Heier said he saw Fisch at St. Raymond’s Cemetery the night the ransom was paid. Peacock said the Hunterdon Coun- ty grand jury would be called to con- sider the accuracy of Heier's testi- mony immediately after the Haupt- mann trial ended De Bisschop was asked to illustrate his contention that there were more knots at the bottom of a pine tree that at the top. The contractor produced a pine sap- ling about 12 feet tall, sawed in two pieces. Holding the two pieces together, De Bisschop looked like a lancer with a wooden spear tipped with pine needles. ‘Wilentz objected against the demon- stration because, he said, it was “ob- viously” impossible to cut a board the size of the ladder uprights or of the Hauptmann attic flooring. Wood Demonstration Allowed by Court. Pope insisted the method of grow- ing was the same. He explained that he sought to show the ladder rail was a “butt” board, taken from near the base of a tree, where knots appear more frequently. The wood man was seeking to dem- onstrate that the Hauptmann attic| board had fewer knots and could not be of the same piece with the ladder rail. Justice Trenchard allowed the dem- onstration to proceed “briefly.” Pope then drew from the pudgy wit- ness the statement that the reputed attic floor board which the State has matched with the ladder upright showed no shadow of the joists to which it was nailed. The marks would show, he stated. He likewise said it bore no marks of having been taken up by chisel, hammer or other imple- ment. Gen. John F. O'Ryan, New York Police Commissioner when Haupt- mann was arrested in the Bronx, was seated at the prosecution table behind Large. Quizzed on Board’s Nail Marks. Q. How many years have you been ¢ engaged in removing flooring? A. Eight years. Pope turned the witness over to Wilentz. Q. Isn't it the inference you want to make that the board had never been nailed to joists? A. I said I saw no marks that it had been taken up. Pope objected to Wilentz's questions but Justice Trenchard allowed them to continue. Q. So far as you know, it had been nailed down to joists? A. It might have been. Wilentz asked the contractor to {dentify the size of two cut nails. “These are supposed to be 6 and 8 enny,” said De Bisschop. Wilentz's offer of the nails in evi- dence was opposed by Pope, who argued they had never been connected with the case. Justice Trenchard allowed Wilentz to proceed with an understanding that if they were not connected they would be_excluded. De Bisschop expressed the view that one of the nails had not been used and could not have been taken out of the attic board. “It could not have been taken out and still be as straight as that,” he explained. Then, as Wilentz was taking ’/ (E. | the | st one of Haupt-| ¢ THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTO. nail from him, he asked to see it again. Wilentz demanded if he desired to reconsider the answer he had just given. Pope objected the question was improper, but he was overruled. Q. Do you want it so that you can reconsider your answer? A. I may or may not. Says Nail Was Never Used Before. Q. Would you say now it was never used before? The contractor squinted thought- fully at the nail. A. No, it was never used. Q. Would you be surprised to learn it is one of the nails taken from the attic board? A. I'd be awfully surprised. Wilentz turned the questioning to pine knots. De Bisschop said the knots did not get “larger” as trees grew. Wilentz sought to introduce a pho- tograph of a piece of Southern pine with a large knot in it, but was op- posed successfully by Pope. De Bisschop testified that heat caused splits to appear in pine wood. “Heat will make pine split some- times in an hour,” he said. He indicated a split in one of the short pieces he brought to court, as- f;rtmg it had occurred since yester- ay. Wilentz, incredulous, showed the board to the jury for its determina- tion. Wilentz in an unexpected attack thrust the two pine boards in De Bisschop’s hands and asked him if the surface grain did not match. The contractor said they did not. Q. Don't they match because they were the same board which you cut in half and brought down here? A. No (shouted). Q. Wasn't there a piece cut out from between these two boards? A There was not. Q. Now, isn’'t that, as a matter of fact, just exactly what you did? A. It is-not. De Bisschop fairly bellowed his an- swer to the accusation. Carpenter on Jury Examines Boards. “Now, give the jury a look at this,” Wilentz went on. Q. One has been washed, hasn't it? A. The oldest one. Wilentz and Hauck moved the two pieces of board, held end-to-end, along the rail to show the jury the alleged similarity. Liscom C. Case, the elderly carpen- ter on the jury, examined the boards at length, twisting them and compar- ing the grain on the butt ends, De Bisschop testified that black marks appearing on both were from ordinary tar paper. The jury examination concluded, Wilentz released the witness. Pope went to the witness stand to | ask De Bisschop some more questions on redirect. Taking the two pieces of board Wilentz charged had been cut from the same piece, he had the witness inspect them. De Bisschop said one had been nailed to other wood on one side, while the other piece had been nailed with its op- posite face against the wood. Both exhibited saw cuts that were dis- similar. Pope gave the boards to the jury for examination. De Bisschop told Pope that the “curvature” of the saw marks was | also different. Pope ended his exami- nation and Wilentz took the witness | again. | Does Not Know About | Planer Marks. | Wilentz asked two questions before | excusing the irrepressible De Bisschop. Q. Any planer marks on those pieces? A. Idon’t know. They didn’t show. Q. You don’t know? A. They don’t show. It was by planer marks, studied under a microscope, that Koehler traced most of the ladder wood to the Bronx lumberyard where Haupt- mann once worked. De Bisschop then stepped down. The defense was allowed to intro- cuce tentatively the card on which the variation in plane nick marks was allegedly displayed. Wilentz asked | that it be retracted on paper. Brevoort Bolmer, gasoline station proprietor of Bolmers Corner, near Hopewell, was called next by Pope. His station, he said, was at the intersectjon of the Hopewell road with the Somerville-Princeton highway. A group of persons in a green car stopped at his station several times prior to March 1, 1932, he said. Saw Couple With Ladder on March 1. Q. How many times did this person come to your service station? A. Three or four times. Q. What was the last time you saw this car? A. March 1. 1932, at 1:15 am. Q. Now what was it that especially attracted your attention to the car? A. A very poor ladder was tied on the back. It took me some ime to figure out what it was. Q. Describe the ladder to the jury. A. Why describe it? I saw that ladder there. The witness gestured to the kidnap ladder. “The man said he was going to do a nursery job,” he added. Bolmer asserted he had an oppor- tunity to touch the ladder and ex- amine it. 5 A man and a woman were in the car, & model A Ford sedan, he said. A Bank for the IND The Morris Plan Bank offers the INDI VIDUAL the facilities of a SAVINGS BANK with the added feature of offering a plan to make loans on a practical basis, which enables the borrower to liquidate his obli- gation by means of weekly, sem; monthly or monthly deposits. L IVIDUAL It is wot meces- sary to have had an account at this Bank in order to borrow. Loans are passed within a day or two after filing application—with few exceptions. MORRIS PLAN notes are usually made for 1 year, though they may be given for amy period of from 3 to 12 monmths. Monthly MORRIS PN BANK Usder Supervision U. S. Treasury 1408 H Street N.W. .» Washington, D. C. “Character and Earsing Power Are the Basis of Credit” D. C, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1935 Hauptmann Witnesses and Disputed Nail Holes No. 1—Bruno Hauptmann returning from lunch with his guards. No. 2—Walter Manley, who left a sickbed to testify in Hauptmann’s defense. No. 3—A copy of the photo displayed by Dr. E. M. Hudson, fingerprint expert, showing rail 16 of the famous Lindbergh kidnaping one nail hole when abduction. The two can be seen beside Jadder. Hudson claimed he saw only he examined the ladder after the nail holes not used for the rungs the knot. The State maintains the nail holes were caused when the board was ripped out of the flooring of the attic in the Hauptmann home. No. 4—Hugh Orr of Brockton, Mass., defense wood expert. No. 5—Charles De Bisschop of Waterbury, Conn., an- other wood expert. The defense seeks to refute, through the testimony of Orr and Bisschop, the evidence given by Arthur Koehler, the uprights in the home. Federal expert, who declared one of ladder came from the Hauptmann —A. P. and Wide World Photos. Q. Would you recognize the man? ! A. Yes. “Stand up, Mr. Hauptmann,” Pope | asked. Hauptmann arose. Q. Is that the man? A. Absolutely not. Pope asked the witness to describe the man, and Wilentz objected. The attorney general said Bolmer had testified that the driver was not Hauptmann and, therefore, his evi- dence was irrelevant. Justice Trenchard allowed the de- | scription to continue. * scribe the man in the green coupe. “He was 5 feet 10 or 11, about my | height. I looked right into his eyes. | He was thin-faced and his face was | longer in proportion to his width than any face I ever saw. pounds. His hair was dark.” | Has Seen Pictures Of Man. | Q. Have you ever seen any pictures of the man you saw since that time? A. I think so. Pope sought to have the witness | identify a picture of Isadore Fisch. “That’s not the man,” Bolmer de- cided, after & short study of the photograph. Q. Would you be able to identify | the lady? | A. Not for certain—I only saw that | much of her face (indicating from chin up). She only looked out once. Pope stopped and Wilentz began cross-examination. Wilentz asked a single question on Cross. Q. Did you ever report the matter to the State police? A. I did not. The attorney general said “that’s all,” and Pope was on his feet inquir- ing “why?” the witness had not re- ported it. The gas station man said he did not recognize the pictures of the kidnap ladder as the same one he saw on the coupe. He explained that when he saw the ladder it was “nested” where pictures after the kidnaping showed it ex- tended. “I didn’t want to make a fool of myself reporting when I wasn't sure.” ‘Wilentz sought to show that Bolmer had had plenty of opportunity to $1-50 Wool of many colors. | Pope directed the witness to de- | “He weighed, I'd say, 130 to 140 | identify the ladder from newspaper | photographs and a broadcast descrip- | tion. Bolmer said he had never identified it because he had not been asked. Justice Trenchard admonished the witness not “to be so free with your talk and answer questions.” | Bolmer was excused. Ewald Mielke, employe of a planing mill at Lindenhurst, N. Y., was called | by Pope for testimony on planers and tools. Mielke, after saying he was a car- penter and millwright originally by trade, told Pope he was an expert at | matching the grain in wood and had | handled much North Carolina pine. Pope then asked him if he were fa- | miliar with tools. When the witness | nodded, the defense counsel asked him | about planes. Q. What usually causes a nick in the knife of a plane? A. Grit on the board, sometimes a nail. an attack on the testimony of Koeh- | ler that Hauptmann's plane left tell tale marks on the kidnap ladder. Pope produced the attic board. Q In your examination of this you able to say they were part and | parcel of the same board? | _ Wilentz objected that the witness had had no experience in the identi- fication of wood and should not be al- | lowed to answer. | “He's not called as a wood techni- | cian,” Pope explained, “but as a prac- | tical man in handling lumber.” Wilentz questioned him. Q. How long did you examine these | boards? A. About five minutes. | Could Not Tell It Board Was Cut. In his work of matching cabinet wood, the witness told Wilentz, he had never determined whether any two pieces had come from the same board. Q. You are not attempting to tell now that you can say if two pieces of wood came from the same board? A. I could if a piece han't been cut out. Q. If there was any separation you could not tell? A. Positively not. Q. If the boards had been cut and & piece taken out between them, you would not be able to tell if the two were once the same piece? FEBRUARY FINALS Hose, $] 19 Fine imported ribs, clocks and checks $1 Wool Hose . 79¢ There is plenty of cold weather ahead. This selection includes plain colors and clocked ribbed hose. $2:50 Pajamas . $2.19 The smart, new styles in this collection include dark all-over pattern, spaced figures and polka dots. $1 Neckwear . . §9¢ Flat silks, rabbit hair, and many other new effects in wide variety. Buy them for yourself and for Valentine Day gifts. MENS SHOP 1331 F STREET Charge Them! Pope was apparently leading up to | board and the rail in the ladder, were ; termine whether there was any dif- A. I could not, and no one else could, I don’t think. Pope resumed questioning. Q. If there was an inch and three- quarters missing, could you identify two pieces? A. If the grain was matching. Wilents insisted that the witness had disqualified himself to testify on iden- tification of the boards, and Justice Trenchard stopped the line of ques- tions. Mielke said he had a grove of Southern pine trees back of his mill and was familiar with their growth, Pope explained, when Wilentz ob- jected, that he sought to show the variation in the character of pine wood near the butt and higher in the trunks of the trees. Identifies Wood As Southern Pine. Pope, proceeding along & new line, had the witness tell the jury he had handled 10,000,00 feet of North Carolina pine and was familiar with the various grades. The millman said the attic board was “No. 2, common” North Carolina pine, used in sheathing and similar uses. Q What part of the tree did it come from? A. The upper part. Q. Why do you say that? A. Because of the spacing of the knots. They are wide apart. It's not butt pine. The answers were given over the attorney general’s objection. Q. I show you the ladder rail No. 16. What kind of wood is that? A. North Carolina pine. Q. How does it grade? A. No. 2 common, Same grade. Q. Is there any difference between this ladder rail 16 and the other board (the attic board)? The gray-haired witness tapped the attic board. “There is more life in this board,” he said. Wilentz and Pope debated at the jury box the demonstration of knots in the board and rail by Mielke. Mielke stood holding the board and the ladder. “I'll come down and see what's going on,” Justice Trenchard said, interrupting the colloquy. He stepped down from the bench and rested his elbow on the back of the witness chair. Pope went on, as Mielke was di- rected by the justice to go back to the stand. ‘The defense attorney propounded a long question, asking if Mielke could | tell whether this board and rail were | part of the same piece. Wilentz fought every question. Mielke said he believed they were not, and the attorney general asked ! that the jury be instructed to dis- regard the answer, Pope sought to pursue the line of questions, while Wilentz continued to object. Justice Trenchard sustained the ob- jection. “When I qualified this man as a witness it was as an expert in match- ing the grains of the wood. I am in- clined to think your examination of | him, Mr. Pope, has been irregular, in view of that limitation. I therefore | sustain the objection for that reason.” | From his “knowledge” of life in| wood. Mielke was next asked to de-| termine whether the two sticks were | of the same piece. Over Wilentz's objectioa, swered that they were not. Pope presented Hauptmann's plane to the witness and had him examine the bit. The nicks in the bit, he said, would leave “beads” on the surface planed. The angle of planing would affect the distance between the “beads” some- what, he said. Pope asked him if the number of times a plane was used would make any difference on the nicks. “It would work out about evenly,” the lumberman answered. Examines Bruno's “Average” Plane. Mielke said that the knife of a good plane would retain nicks for a long time. Q. A cheap plane knife wouldn't? 0. A. No. He showed the witness Hauptmann's plane. Q. That’s a cheap plane, isn’t it? The witness looked at the bit care- fully and pronounced Hauptmann's plane knife was “about average.” Pope produced the two short boards brought to court by De Bisschop. Mielke was asked to examine the saw marks on their surface and de- he an- ference. Wilentz objected and Justice Trenchard said he “failed to see the materiality.” Pope's examination that the defense sought to show the two were different, was objected to by Wilentz as “coun- sel’s testimony.” Mielke was allowed to answer that the boards were not of the same piece. The saw marks were different and “one board was thinner than the other,” he said. ‘Wilentz took the witness and drew the admission that he noted the dif- ference in the rail from .he attic board because of the color. (The discoloration was produced by the fingerprint solution.) Mielke was excused as a short re- cess was called at 11:59 am. Court reconvened c.t 12:09 p.m. As soon as the jury was polled Reilly announced “defense rests.” ' Hauptmann's eyes darted from one side to another as Reilly made his announcement in a loud voice. Tells of Collision With Heier. Joseph J. Farber, a New York in- surance man, was immediately called by the State in rebuttal. * He told of his automobile being in collision with that of Benjamin Heier, defense witness. Heler had testified that he saw Isa- dor Pisch leap from a wall of St. Raymond’s Cemetery the night of April 2, 1932, at the time the ransom payment was made by Dr. John F. Condon. Wilentz examined Farber. Q. Now on the night of April 2, 1932, where were you? A. I was on the premises at 1350 Sixth avenue, Manhattan. It is a delicatessen and luncn room. Q. Did you have your car with you? A. I did. Q. Did you have an automobile ac- cident that night? A. I did, sir. Q. With what? A. With a car driven by one Ben- jamin Heier. Farber said the collision occured on the easterly side of sixth avenue, be- tween Fifty-fourth and Fifty-sixth streets, Manhattan. The scene of the accident, he said was_eight and one half miles from St. Raymond’s Cemetery in the Bronx Wilentz released Farber to Reilly for cross-examination and the defense attorney adduced that the witness had not measured the distance to the cemetery “with a tape measure.” Wilentz asked one question. u ever been convicted Q. Have of a crime? . No. “Mr. Arthur Larson,” Wilentz called and a quiet little man stepped up to be sworn. Last week when Elvert Carlstrom, defense alibi witness, testified, Lars was identified as the mar who liv with Carlstrom in a new house at Dunellen at the time of the kidnaping. | Q. In 1932 what did you do? A. I was a painter. Swears Carlstrom Was at Home. Q. Did you work in Dunellen at some time in that year? A. Yes. Q. In February and March, 1932, did you work there? A. 1 did. Q. Now on the night of the kidnap- ing were you in Dunellen? A. Yes. Larson said he and Carlstrom occu- | | pied the new house while doing work there. Where was Carlstrom on the Q | night of March 1, 19322 A. In the house where I slept. Q. What was the last time you saw Carlstrom that night? A. Between 9:30 and 10 before I went to bed. This was about the time Carlstrom said he saw Hauptmann in a Bronx restaurant. Q. How many weeks did you work in Dunellen? A. About two weeks. Q. Did you or Carlstrom leave at any time during that period on a week day night? A. No. “I went home week ends,” Larson sald, and was turned over for cross- examination. Reilly led the witness through a recital of his maintenance by the State authorities while waiting to testify. Q. What date did you go to work at Dunellen? A. February, Q. What day? A. I don't know. Larson said he and Carlstrom slept on the same mattress. Q. Did you know March 1 was Carlstrom's birthday? A. I don't know. Q. Tell me what you were doing at 9 o'clock the night of February 29, 19322 A. I think I was working. He corrected his answer to say, “I think I was sitting around.” Wilentz asked Larson one question. Q. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? A. No He was excused. The owner of the Dunellen house, | Oscar Christenson, told of building the | house and keeping a record of the | building expenses. The record book | was offered in evidence, but Reilly ob- | jected, and decision was reserved. Dates of Employment Are Recalled. | Christenson recalled the dates of employment of Carlstrom and Larson | without his book. Q. Did you pay Carlstrom for March |1, 19322 | A 1did | Q. Do you know' whether Larson's | wife was , 19322 A. Yes, sir. | The witness said he paid Larson for | his work, including March 1, 1932 Reilly, cross-examining, showed that g:ghsrzuenscn saw neither men, March 1, He was excused, and the noon recess was called at 12:33 pm. DEFENSE AIDEHIT ASWOOD “EXPERT” Koehler, Called by State, Says De Bisschop Should Be Ruled Out. By the Associated Press. | FLEMINGTON, N. J.. February 8.— | To the scientifically d Arthur J. | Koehler, Charles J. De Bisschop is “not an e |, Koehler, wood expert tion witness in nd prosecu= p! 'should not be ractical ber- allowed to tes- De Bisschop. appearing for th e, demonstrated to t p-murder larity in grai different ages and ored to show that ntification of grain in two pieces of wood was no proof that they came from the same board. On such a hypothesis Koehler had traced a runner of the kidnap ladder to the attic flooring of Hauptmann's Bronx home. “The matching of wood such as was | done by Mr. De Bisschop,” said Koeh- | ler, “is satisfactory for the construc- tion of furniture, but it is not the | matching of grain. “His demonstration is comparable to matching coat and trousers of cloths of different manufacture.” of boards of He endeav- LAST 2 DAYS OF SALE Nunn-Bush Ankle-Fashioned Oxfords \ ALL STYLES REDUCED $5.95 1, $Q.45 EDGERTON OXFORDS, $+45 MEN 1331 F S. SHOP STREET FEBRUARY FINALS For Saturday only we place on sale 103 Men’s Suits and Overcoats at SIZES SHORT STOUT ~ OVERCOATS SHORTS Many of these are Schloss garments. All are highly desirable and are reduced in price because of limited selection. Because of the low price of these garments we will adjust length of trousers only. M 133 ENS SHOP I F STREET