OCR Text |
Show HflUPTMANFJTAKES STlfllipiSE Defendant Claims Alibi for Night Ransom Was Paid. By W. C. WEBBER FLEMINGTON, N. J "The state rests its case!" David T. Wilentz, attorney general of New Jersey, turns to his seat. The court recesses for lunch. When it reconvenes, defense attorneys indulge In the customary legal maneuvers. Then dapper, florid Edward J. Iteilly, chief defense de-fense counsel, turns and cries loudly : "Bruno Richard Hauptmann to the stand." Hauptmann appears nervous. Be has lost weight during his ordeal in court and his clothes hang from his big frame. He sits slightly hunched over In the witness chair,-his, chair,-his, hands clasped. He is wearing the same dark suit he has worn every day of the trial, a light faded blue shirt, and a polka-dotted tie. Less than twenty feet away sits Colonel Lindbergh, father of the child whom Hauptmann is accused of having killed to satisfy his desire for ease without working and to indulge in-dulge in stock market speculation. When the ex-carpenter takes the stand, It is the first time Lindbergh has looked at him for more than a few seconds. Once when he was on the stand he glanced at Hauptmann Haupt-mann as he identified him as the man whom he believed guilty of the crime, and again when Hauptmann cried out at testimony presented present-ed by the state, 'the colonel looked at him for a second or two. Now he stares at him as if fascinated, as Attorney Iteilly begins his examination. exam-ination. Carefully, step by step, the famous fa-mous New York criminal lawyer leads Hauptmann through a recital of his life up to the time the kidnaping kid-naping occurred. Hauptmann answers an-swers slowly in a thick, guttural voice, pausing before making replies as though he has difficulty in choosing choos-ing the right words. His English is none too fluent and his accent is very marked. Finally Iteilly asks Hauptmann If he left home on the night of April 2, 1032 (the night the S.10,000 ran som money was paid by Dr. J. V. Condon to a man in St. Raymond's cemetery). The crowd strains forward for-ward to catch Ilauptmann's negative nega-tive reply. The business of establishing estab-lishing an alibi has begun. What surprises the defense will spring can only be conjectured Keilly is noted for his ability to turn seemingly hopeless cases into victories for his clients. It i3 admitted ad-mitted that the state has built up a strong circumstantial case against Hauptmann. Almost every type of evidence with the exception of eye-i'i'nesses, eye-i'i'nesses, fingerprints and foot-f.rints foot-f.rints has been presented. Among t!:e most dramatic blows the state has struck were those presented by Arthur Koehler, federal wood expert, ex-pert, who testified that Hauptmann's tools were used to make the ladder left on the Lindbergh estate out of wood purchased at a lumber yard where Hauptmann often worked, and part of it with wood taken from the attic of Hauptmann's own home in the Bronx. Koehler told of an amazing piece of detective work the tracing of the lumber used in connection with construction of the .adder. His In-vestigation In-vestigation showed that one of the knives of the pinning machine used m finishing the wood had a nick In it Other calculations, he said indicated in-dicated that the machine had ei-ht blades trimming the top 0f the board i and six blades trimming the bottom when the board went through the machines, aud that one of the blades, was slightly out of line. This led to investigation of eastern east-ern planing mills using this type of machine. Samples were secured-from secured-from all of them by Koehler, and finally a mill was located whose lumber had marking similar to-those to-those on the pieces used in the ladder. lad-der. A. search of 25 lumber yards-to yards-to which lumber of this kind had been shipped eventually brought him to the Bronx yard, and It developed devel-oped that Hauptmann had worked at periods in the yard and In De- " cemher, 1031, two months before the-kidnaping, the-kidnaping, he purchased a quantity quan-tity of this lumber. The piece of wood which Koehler asserted had been taken from the-attic the-attic of the Hauptmann home was; originally one board, which waa sawed in half to make the uprights of the ladder. Nail holes in the ladder board correspond with the-nail the-nail holes in joists In the attic, he-said, he-said, and he added that it was inconceivable in-conceivable that this was a coincidence. coin-cidence. Other testimony presented by the-state the-state charges that Hauptmann was-author was-author of the series of. ransom let- , ters admitting possession of the 4 baby, that he left one of the letters in the nursery at the time the Lindbergh Lind-bergh baby disappeared, that he possessed the child's sleeping suit, and that he visited the Lindbergh's-estate. Lindbergh's-estate. The prosecution has also attempted attempt-ed to show that Hauptmann collected collect-ed the $50,000 ransom money and that his wealth increased approximately approx-imately by that amount, rersonat identifications have been made by Dr. John F. ("Jafsie") Condon, Col. . Charles A. Lindbergh and Cecile M. Ban- as accepting and passing the ransom money, and by Millard Whited, Charles Rossiter and Aman-dns Aman-dns Hochmuth putting him near the Lindbergh estate. The latter is not expected to have much weight because be-cause of the time intervening between be-tween when they are said to have-seen have-seen Hauptmann and the time of identification. The. physical evidence will undoubtedly un-doubtedly carry much weight. The testimony that Hauptmann penned the ransom notes and the address on the package containing the child's sleeping suit, as well as the note left in the nursery' must be refuted by the defense. Observers nt the trial seem to feel that only one practical defense exists for Hauptmann. That would be one offering proof that a "master mind" committed the crime and that nauptmann was only the unwitting un-witting tool. If such is the case the leader would be one without his-tcrical his-tcrical parallel, because of his success suc-cess in covering his own tracks and his ability to provide such infinite physical proof of Hauptmann's guilt. This would lead back in all probability prob-ability to contention by the defense that the mysterious Isitdor Fiscn, who died in Germany, was the man -who planned the kidnaping, and who used Hauptmann ns a "front" for his later financial dealings. Reilly has stated th-ut Fisch was the man who furnished the money for the stock market manipulations carried on in Hauptmann's name. witness has testified that Hauptmann Haupt-mann and Fisch were seen together in the broker's ofllce where the former for-mer had an account, although there was no way for the firm to know whether Fiwh really had control of the speculations. How far Iteilly can go in establishing estab-lishing this is not known. The fact that Fisch is (lead will make it difficult. dif-ficult. Thus far the relatives of Wi dead furrier have not been Introduced Intro-duced In court. A detective recently recent-ly returned from Germany with several sev-eral persons connected with the family, who. It Is said, are ready to testify that their brother had part In the crime, and that he Jictl practically penniless. VN' Scrvlc, |